“Can Music Be Free?” week: Rebel Digital’s Robin Kent talks Spotify, Guvara and label attitudes
Tweet
Previously chairman and CEO of advertising giant Universal McCann, then CEO of Spiralfrog, now founder of Rebel Digital, Robin Kent understands the economics of ad-supported media from both sides of the desk. We talked to him for a feature in the latest Music Ally Report, which subscribers can read here – while non-subscribers can sign up for a free trial.
However, we’re going to be breaking out Q&As from the feature throughout this week, for our ‘Can Music Be Free?’ focus. Starting with Robin, who we asked about everything from Spotify to major labels. Find the Q&A after the jump.
Q: Is ad-supported music dead?
A: I think the overall picture is that it’s not really been tested yet. First. the internet advertising market has not gone in the direction that people have predicted. Digital might have overtaken TV ad spend in the UK but it’s a long way off from doing that in the US – perhaps a decade away. Everyone was predicting that by now the US would be getting to $40 billion, not $25 billion. So there has to be a paradigm shift in the type of advertising being used. Branded advertising has to make a major breakthrough. Until then it will be difficult for any site to attract big advertising at big prices.
Q: Why is there enough ad money to support some kinds of sites but not music services?
A: The problem with advertising is that the majority of the money goes to search – in the US 70% of ad dollars go to the top 10 sites - Google, MSN, AOL etc – and something like the top 89% of the ad dollar 25 billion goes to the top 50. So for a startup site to be able to deliver significant ad dollars is impossible regardless of what types of models.
Because advertising is done by computers these days, if you can’t sustain a site on network advertising things will be tricky. The networks are buying everything at the lowest possible rates. A good CPM (cost per thousand) would be 70 cents in the US. If you have a website with a lot of ad space you’re pretty much filling your site with network ads and you’re in the sub dollar range – if you’re a big site with a lot of impressions you’re using a lot of Google AdSense dollars coming in at 4 or 5 cents then your average CPM drops below 50 cents. Think about that on a 99 cent song and you see the problem. If you have a model that works in that environment you have an opportunity.
Q: If so few of these sites are making money, what is their business strategy?
A: Everybody who has entered this space so far today has seems to have an ambition to be bought by Google quite quickly. Maybe that’s not the approach because it leads to accepting unacceptable deals from labels and putting out a variation of a service that might not be ideal. Take as an example Last.fm being bought by CBS – Last.fm doesn’t get mentioned in the US any more. For these services it’s about how quickly can we build something and how quickly can we exit – it was the downfall of Ruckus, MySpace and Imeem. MySpace at least has the power of Murdoch behind it but it can’t compete against Facebook so it’s rebuilding itself as a music site.
Q: Does the music industry have a responsibility to help make free, legal music work?
A: The music industry demands a lot from these startups, but ultimately it’s their content and because no-one knows where these services are going to end up, of course they’re going to say ‘if I’m going to go along with this I’d like failsafes here, I want a big chunk of your advertising, money upfront and I’d like a penny a play.”
But that coupled with the ad environment means in my opinion a totally free model is unsustainable. Can it be sustainable in the future? If you look at the past what happened to Spiralfrog, it wasn’t prepared to pay a penny per play, it was only prepared to do the ad share. Universal and EMI were up for that but not Sony and Warner…and if there isn’t the catalogue and the audience you run out of your investors’ money.
Although there may be investments by labels in these companies – they did the same with MySpace Music and it doesn’t mean they’re going to help. The labels’ point is: you guys want our content, you need to give us as many assurances as possible, of course we’ll take equity, why wouldn’t they. But that doesn’t mean they’re loving partners – in theory if that were the case they’d rush to get Spotify launched in the US.
Q: What is your opinion on the new generation of free licensed music services?
A: Everybody has to be commended for trying.
I felt that was Imeem was a poor user experience, most users were in Asia and they weren’t monetising them in Asia. When they ran out of investor money it was over. iMeem has now given up and gone to MySpace.
The Spotify guys are really good, they have a vision, it’s just that they’re going to have trouble implementing it. Between the fickle consumer and the struggling labels there are a lot of moving parts. What I’m now hearing about Spotify is that users love it and there’s not much advertising, so why not have your music for free. But their biggest issue is that they’re not going to prove that they can deliver revenue.
As a consumer I like Spotify – it has a great interface, it’s easy to find what you want, the music plays well. The problem I found is that when the radio ads appear they are incredibly annoying. They come between the songs but there’s not enough of them to pay what the record labels want. Once Spotify sell more radio ads it’s going to drive the consumer away. Maybe it drives them to a pay model but there’s no evidence from Rhapsody or Napster that there really is that much interest in the subscription model as it exists today.
I’m still involved in Qtrax and they’ve had a lot of trouble but they’re in Asia finalising funding and they have a deal with Baidu whose music traffic can get forwarded to Qtrax in China thereby legitimising them which is a good sign for Qtrax in Asia. Also the Qtrax model doesn’t rely on advertising in its entirety – it can generate advertising so it falls into the category of freemium.
Grooveshark is basically a bunch of young guys from Florida – they have a lot of very interesting ideas on how they’re going to move forward – we have to move from the completely free model to the freemium model. There have to be other ways to generate money aside from advertising. The ad dollars may be there in the future but the market hasn’t matured enough to know that. When the market knows you’re an ad-supported site they’re going to screw you.
Q: What about Guvera, the new free service whose deal with Universal announced last week?
A: The guy’s nuts if he thinks that ad model is going to succeed – MySpace must already be out selling that model but there’s no way you can survive on that. Not enough premium advertisers will jump out and build a channel. You can’t control the quantity that come and if you’re delivering a CPM at 70 cents but delivering customers a 99 cent MP3 you’re out of business. They’ve only raised eight or nine million dollars but when you deal with the labels, they’ll eat that up in a short period of time.
Q: How long will it be before one of these free services manages to make a success of the model?
A: If we fast forward five years when internet advertising is bigger, advertisers are being more creative, something could pop up and could surprise everyone. By then the music industry situation won’t have got any better: they can’t stop piracy, so they’ll be more open…Some of the services today have got to try and survive in the hope that they will prosper in the years to come. Labels have to be patient – if you they’re expecting a quick return it’s not going to happen because it isn’t there.
Tags: guvara, imeem, qtrax, rebel digital, robin kent, spotify
November 30th, 2009 at 7:58 am
[...] 1 votes vote “Can Music Be Free?” week: Rebel Digital’s Robin Kent talks Spotify, Guvara and la… Previously chairman and CEO of advertising giant Universal McCann, then CEO of Spiralfrog, now [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I completely agree that the advertising model still has to be tested a lot more, but it is the future of music online and probably the whole music industry as a whole.
In terms of Spotify I think they are setting the standard at the moment. I dont want to have to purchase music, its just available on all of my devices all the time. Thus, making Mp3 purchases pretty pointless.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
[...] il resto da Music Ally Categories: articoli e link, news Tag:musica gratis, can music be free?, robin kent, music ally [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
[...] Music Ally | Blog Archive » “Can Music Be Free?” week: Rebel … [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
[...] ni audiencia te quedas sin el dinero de los inversores”. Más acerca de la entrevista en este artículo en inglés en el blog de Music Ally. 30 / 11 / [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
[...] VIEW ARTICLE SOURCE [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Great feature. Very informative, there is a lot cash being burnt on streaming and its really a time value thing. Who has the most funding over the long stretch wins out. I think Spotify has the biggest chance as they went viral fast and are the current rockstars of tech.
But startup culture flips on a daily basis – lets see what next year brings.
D
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I do not get it! I rally do not! Can someone explain to me what the big labels rally want or expect from the start-ups, other than the large upfront sums that will eventually kill the start up? What kind of deal would work for them?
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 am
Mark, i think you answered your own question.
Other than that, im sure they wish CD sales will move back up in the other direction, radio to become important again, Steve Jobs and Itunes were not born and the internet was used only for school projects.
Seriously though, its a business and they look to recover costs on lost rev, if they gave every start up a leg up – they would not have any assests to flog around the free or near free stuff.
The late arrive to the digital game have cost them dearly and only now are they getting with the program. Remember, the business model is about 100 years old, we need a few more years until the new breed of people make it into the accounts dept / boardroom.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 am
Music probably can’t be free but it can eventually be $5 a month – all you can eat of everything – and that would solve a lot of problems.
December 5th, 2009 at 1:00 am
This is an excellent article. I am one of those ‘recording artists’ that is in the middle of all this. I keep hearing ‘music should be free’ and ‘you are using an old idea’ when I explain that we *need* to bring in revenues from our products (music). Not want, need.
Our last album cost us personally, tens of thousands each. How can we ever think about making another album unless we can recoup that expense?. How can I give it away for free?. If you are a carpenter and build a house, can you give it away for free?. Neither can I.
Ad space and advertising sponsored free downloads DO NOT WORK. Trust me, we have tried. IF you do ‘pay what you want’ everyone chooses *nothing*. We put out half of our album for free, hoping we could attract attention and win some sales. We did attract lots of attention, but pretty much nobody buys downloads anymore. People think downloads should be free, even though it cost us a fortune to make the downloads in the first place. (I don’t get this attitude at all, but that’s the way people think now unfortunately) We only record and don’t gig, so we can’t make money doing live events.
I hope Robin Kent or someone out there figures how to monetize music recordings again. Because until that time, all of us who are called ‘recording artists’ are totally and completely screwed.
And yes – if anyone suggests ‘you are thinking the old way’ then please, pray tell, what would you suggest? I’m out of ideas.
Anyway , great article!!!
December 5th, 2009 at 11:34 am
A well informed article which raises one huge question for all us musicians out there – just how do we earn money for our music in this day and age?!
As much as it pains me to say it, I truly believe the days of having a decent career as a recording artist are over as the entire industry is sliding irrevocably into an unprofitable position.
One of 3 things need to happen to make music a realistic career choice again:
1) The governments and ISPs need to enforce copyright law heavily, destroy music piracy and force consumers to purchase music again via legitimate channels.
2) Record labels need to lower their costs for ad supported free music businesses to operate profitably.
3) The government impose a broadband media tax of which a percentage is paid to performing rights and collection societies which is then divided equally amongst all their active members.
IMHO unless any or all of these changes arise then there simply will be no way of earning a living in
music industry as an artist.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I must chime in on this. I am also a music-maker, an artist, producer, singer, writer, etc….I am an independent artist, bearing all the cost and risk of said profession. I must say that I am just plain SICK and TIRED of hearing the parade of numbnuts say how music isn’t worth anything.
If we, as music-makers, do not start sending the message RIGHT AWAY, that if you want it, you must PAY for it, just as we must pay for the speakers, software, mics, etc, required to create the music that consumers feel that they are entitled to steal. Not to mention the years of learning, practiciing, and training, and 10’s of 1000’s of hours of dedicated work to produce it! We need to make it clear that when a consumer enters our sites they are entering a place of business. Music is not a hobby. It is our BUSINESS. And music-makers must make a profit, as everyone else does.
Perceptions need to be adjusted – being a musician is a legitimate PROFESSION.
I have participated in countless discussions on this topic, and as I see it, the only solution will be for music-makers to take control – start sending the message every day in every communication with fans, etc….
I’d like to use the analogy of other industries – like the Milk campaign for example. Milk producers were hurting badly. They decided to launch a campaign to change the perceptions of the consumer – to create sales again. The music-makers and content-owners need to do the very same thing.
I liken the current situation of the market to a hostage situation with the consumer holding the gun.
I have begun to be much more vocal to my fans. When someone writes to me saying that they loved my work, I write back saying thankyou, and have you purchased any yet. If we continue to fall back, the consumer will continue to take more and more liberties. It has now reached ludicrous proportions, and only we, the owners of content, can change that.
As the musicians and actors unions were necessary, (a) new organization(s) is/are necessary to unify those of us sacrificing and creating day after day.
Shabby is not chic!!!! And I’m not interested in some idiotic idea of the “noble starving artist” To hell with that.
December 12th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
As a successful independent artist, I believe the future of music money making belongs to the great creative forces of our time.
Not the major labels and the MACHINE. It may take some time, but we must look at where GREATNESS is being~ and elevate that!
It does cost money to create great music, it has value and is worth a 99 cent download or percent stream. I think radio and companies should get behind the new music and artists that have proven artist development as well. Something has got to give and time will tell!