Last February, DigitalMusicNews published an article outlining how Grooveshark.com, the on-demand music streaming service, is leagues ahead of Spotify, a similar service that recently launched in the US. Half a year later, is this still the case?
With users illegally downloading more than they’re buying (a recent statistic claims 95% of all music downloaded online is pirated) and profits dwindling across the board, the subscription-based model seems like a fantastic compromise (or, at the very least, the lesser of two evils.) Instead of stealing an album online, you can pay $5/month (for premium services) for access to millions of songs (or, at the very least, get limited access for free.)
So it makes sense that Grooveshark, with LESS intrusive advertisements and a BETTER selection, is actually better than Spotify. Is DigitalMusicNews right?
No. Here’s why Spotify is kickin’ Grooveshark’s butt:
1. Business model – Spotify has a better one. The free version relies heavily on ads, and, indeed, they are everywhere — graphic overlays, audio spots, etc. While DigitalMediaNews says that Grooveshark’s less intrusive style is a plus, I disagree. Sure, ads are annoying, but they help create revenue. They also give incentive for people to buy the premium version, which is where the real money is made. With premium, not only do I get to stream music through my phone, but I also get to get rid of those pesky ads. Spotify is, simply put, better at generating conversions, which equals more money. Indeed, Spotify has given out over $100 million to the industry.
2. Compliance – The amount of money behind Spotify give it immense power in the music industry. We will, almost certainly, see it become a key player in shaping things to come. Why? Because, for most of the industry, it’s better than the alternative: Pirating music. Spotify has encouraged this relationship, cultivating strong relationships with labels and bands, and branding itself as the new model for the recorded music business.
Grooveshark, on the other, has effectively thrown up a huge middle finger to the industry. Protected in the USA by the DMCA act, and flat out ignoring laws in other countries, Grooveshark prides itself on its defiance. Not a great long-term business plan.
3. Innovative marketing – Spotify’s compliance has allowed itself to gain legitimacy in the business world. This has paved the way for some impressive corporate tie-ins. While still trickling out invites the first weeks of its American release, Spotify was able to align itself with heavy-hitters such as Coca Cola and Scion. They also recently announced a partnership that has put it leagues ahead of ANY competition: Facebook. They have cleverly woven itself into the fabric of Facebook and, in doing so, secured itself as king for many years to come.
4. Better technology – I wouldn’t underestimate this one. Spotify represents what users need: A crisp, clean, and fast program. It’s purposeful imitation of iTunes simple design offers almost no learning curve. The stand-alone app keeps it punchy and lightweight, and its no buffering feature makes you forget its streaming at all!
Grooveshark, while relatively well designed, has some serious flaws it needs to work around before it can compete. First off, it’s bulky flash-based interface is prone to bugs and inconsistencies. It’s user-uploaded database of songs is often mislabeled and its poor cataloging returns multiple instances of the same song. Grooveshark’s web-based app leaves it more open to hacking, such as programs that allow you to download songs from their library.
Sure, Spotify has problems with it. With controversy surrounding how it pays out its artists and structures it deals with labels, and incomplete music library (particularly for classical music and recordings from the 60’s), we’re nowhere near the finish line. Still, to suggest that it’s closest competitor, Grooveshark, is ahead of Spotify in the race is a hard stance to defend.
MY MUSINGS 