I don't think Jay Z understands what people are talking about when they say their business is about the rich getting richer.
When you pretend to be a social movement/business that is sold and marketed as being about "helping" artists make money again, it's not about the size of the business. It's about where the money goes when the company potentially grows beyond the need to be marketed as a humanitarian project. How much of that money goes to popular musicians that did nothing other than lend their name to the project versus how much is distributed among aspiring musicians.
75% royalty rate sounds like a percentage that is distributed to rights holders before it is split between song writers, publishers, producers, and the mechanical royalties, most of which is swallowed up by the music publisher.
There isn't that big of a difference between Spotify and Tidal, except Spotify has more market share and charges less.
This business is dependent on people caring about artists being paid marginally better, while if this takes off, Jay-Z stands to benefit greatly.
Their extended marketing and value creation appears to come from blocking off access to videos and concerts from the general public. I don't understand how they believed this business would be successful.
I guess Jay-Z thought he could get some of his rich buddies together and their egos and reputation would just make people flock to a business built around patronage of disposable art that is becoming less and less important in the lives of young people.
Jay-Z's business model sounds like a total sell-job to old, withering artists that knew people who remembered the good old days when any kid with long hair and spandex could sell a half a million records. Remember the days when selling music and profiting off recorded music was that easy. I can imagine business people and artists being mesmerized by that ideal.
