I am sure you've considered this, but rather than take an approach like metered which puts the limitation in the face of the user from the start, what about taking inspiration from the DLC model employed by video games? Your streaming sub gets you access to a vast library of music, but for something you like, extended experiences (bonus tracks, remixes, collabs, bts videos and so on) are available as DLC?
I feel like this is the path Bandcamp is starting to explore with their new feature where a user can only add songs they've already purchased into their own playlists.
I think a DLC-like structure is probably the most straightforward path as can be seen with things like Patreon, I just wonder what appetite users would have to paying more for additional content. Like Bas mentions, it's difficult to compete with the "all-you-can-eat" model that currently dominates the music streaming space. But surely there has to be something for those that are passionate enough about music & the culture of it, right?
Bandcamp was already going down that route with their user libraries. For example, if a release is pay-what-you-want, you could grab it for free, but if you pay at least $0.50 it would show up on your profile.
I’m a bit disappointed it took them years to iterate on this, so I don’t have high hopes. I also don’t think it competes well with something like Buy Music Club which also lets you make Bandcamp playlists and is already more embedded in various scenes. Regardless, a good step forward for Bandcamp, but they’ve got to pick up the pace and make paying to collect more attractive for people who don’t download music. (Or make downloading music more attractive)
This is all stuff that was possible 10-15 years ago. I suspect the real pioneering in digital payment models will come from more novel user experiences that have only become viable quite recently.
Curious to see you reference your time at IDAGIO here. Apple didn't kill it. IDAGIO singularly failed to make a case that they were just another streaming service cozying up to the majors. They 100% set themselves up to be shot down by Apple.
Even today, their proposed use case is "better search", "curation" and "sound quality". Consider me underwhelmed.
But I hope you got your hands on some of the VC money they were burning.
Hey Jonathan - I agree. Apple didn't kill it. My point in that paragraph is that there was an opportunity to monetise user behaviour at an additional price point (i.e. on top of the $10 / month). "Care about a properly structured classical music experience? For $2 / month, unlock Apple Classical". It's a missed opportunity.
I left IDAGIO 3-4 years before Apple Classical launched, though, so I didn't really have a dog in the fight at that point, other than the fact that one of my drivers throughout my career has been to expand the one-size-fits-all streaming model beyond the single all-you-can-eat subscription price point.
And I still think there is so much space in the market for interesting products that care about what the listener could be interested in. But I'm not optimistic that anyone is going to shake up the streaming model any day soon.
I am sure you've considered this, but rather than take an approach like metered which puts the limitation in the face of the user from the start, what about taking inspiration from the DLC model employed by video games? Your streaming sub gets you access to a vast library of music, but for something you like, extended experiences (bonus tracks, remixes, collabs, bts videos and so on) are available as DLC?
I feel like this is the path Bandcamp is starting to explore with their new feature where a user can only add songs they've already purchased into their own playlists.
I think a DLC-like structure is probably the most straightforward path as can be seen with things like Patreon, I just wonder what appetite users would have to paying more for additional content. Like Bas mentions, it's difficult to compete with the "all-you-can-eat" model that currently dominates the music streaming space. But surely there has to be something for those that are passionate enough about music & the culture of it, right?
Bandcamp was already going down that route with their user libraries. For example, if a release is pay-what-you-want, you could grab it for free, but if you pay at least $0.50 it would show up on your profile.
I’m a bit disappointed it took them years to iterate on this, so I don’t have high hopes. I also don’t think it competes well with something like Buy Music Club which also lets you make Bandcamp playlists and is already more embedded in various scenes. Regardless, a good step forward for Bandcamp, but they’ve got to pick up the pace and make paying to collect more attractive for people who don’t download music. (Or make downloading music more attractive)
This is all stuff that was possible 10-15 years ago. I suspect the real pioneering in digital payment models will come from more novel user experiences that have only become viable quite recently.
Splice uses the credits model too and there is not a producer that doesn’t use it… and there is a LOT to of producers these days
Yes! Great shout!
Curious to see you reference your time at IDAGIO here. Apple didn't kill it. IDAGIO singularly failed to make a case that they were just another streaming service cozying up to the majors. They 100% set themselves up to be shot down by Apple.
Even today, their proposed use case is "better search", "curation" and "sound quality". Consider me underwhelmed.
But I hope you got your hands on some of the VC money they were burning.
Hey Jonathan - I agree. Apple didn't kill it. My point in that paragraph is that there was an opportunity to monetise user behaviour at an additional price point (i.e. on top of the $10 / month). "Care about a properly structured classical music experience? For $2 / month, unlock Apple Classical". It's a missed opportunity.
I left IDAGIO 3-4 years before Apple Classical launched, though, so I didn't really have a dog in the fight at that point, other than the fact that one of my drivers throughout my career has been to expand the one-size-fits-all streaming model beyond the single all-you-can-eat subscription price point.
Cheers Bas. I agree with your point.
And I still think there is so much space in the market for interesting products that care about what the listener could be interested in. But I'm not optimistic that anyone is going to shake up the streaming model any day soon.