What Spotify did right
Music subscription services are nothing new, but Spotify’s at least gained mindshare where others have failed, even if it’s yet to turn a profit.
As a service, Spotify is still evolving: over the past few weeks we’ve seen the launch of the Android and iPhone versions of the application, support for PayPal as a payment method, and the ability to have “offline” playlists—where the songs are downloaded to your computer and can be played without requiring an Internet connection.
But, and this is where Spotify sets itself apart from other services, it neither requires you to pay to try out the service, nor does it attempt to be the sole source of your music catalogue.
Spotify’s barriers-to-entry are deliberately low. You download the PC or Mac version of the application and you’re set. If you don’t mind having adverts mixed in with your listening, you don’t have to pay a penny. In this respect, Spotify is acting far more as a competitor to the radio, and to illegal downloads, than it is to buy-to-own download services like Amazon MP3 and the iTunes Store.
Once the adverts have irritated you sufficiently, or you want to use the mobile versions of the app, get higher quality versions of the songs, access to some exclusive “premium-only” content, or use offline playlists, then you can put down £10 a month for a subscription. The addition of PayPal means the millions of people who don’t have MasterCard– or Visa-issued credit/debit cards aren’t left in the cold—you can pay straight from your bank account.
Crucially, though, you can cancel your subscription at any time, and the music’s still there. In effect, you’re paying for the service rather than the music itself: and it’s a model we’re all used to and decidedly low-risk for the consumer. Quite the reverse from supplanting music purchases, it actively encourages it: right-click on any track and there’s a “Buy from” menu option offering (in many cases) a choice of places to purchase the track to add to your permanent collection.
Low risk, easily accessible, straightforward, low cost, and no pretence. The only really infuriating aspect of it all is that it could—in technological terms—have been created years ago, but the music industry would never have permitted it. Charles Arthur, editor of the Technology section of the Guardian newspaper, has long maintained that instead of suing Napster in the 1990s, the record companies should have just bought it instead. I’ve probably said as much before, but can’t escape the feeling that he’s right.
