Music streaming service TIDAL launched March 30th Somewhere between Sunday night (March 29) and early Monday afternoon, thousands of social media users changed their profile pictures to splashes of turquoise blue and trending #TIDALforALL simply because their music faves (like Beyonce`, Nicki Minaj and Kanye West) did it and/or told them to. People were literally talking of revolutions, movements and change, knowing nothing more than Jay-Z purchased a music streaming service from a Swedish company called Aspiro (which technically was underway back in January). Some didn't even know that much. That was the first eye-roll I had for this news; people are so quick to bandwagon. They knew nothing, but were on board. Groupthink, blind allegiance and stupid human behavior aside, I looked forward to hearing more because given the acquisition and who was involved, I assumed TIDAL would be an awesome, artist-friendly answer to similar services like Spotify, that have been criticized for giving a severely small financial return to the artists they feature (I was partially right, but more on that in a moment). Heightening the hype was this dramatic, star-studded trailer (a freaking trailer; one that seemed ridiculous after the so-called roll-out), building up to the March 30th press conference where all would be revealed and all questions would be answered. We were on the cusp of "turning the tide and making music history;" it was "the beginning of the new world," as West touted on Twitter. We all know how Yeezy can exaggerate.
Then, a funny thing happened on the way to innovation. Funny as in weird, not funny haha. Jay-Z and his Justice League of recording artists (including Madonna and Rihanna) signed a declaration (that no one saw the text of), said little and then dipped. The conference was short and horribly bereft of information. The central additional thing we learned was that TIDAL is artist-owned (equity stake was offered) and "combines the best high fidelity sound quality, high definition music videos and expertly curated editorial" for $9.99 and $19.99 (for uncompressed CD quality sound) a month. So...does every subscription dime go to the artists? Is there a significant difference in audio between the subscription options? How large is TIDAL's catalog? Who shot J.R.? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a lollipop? Hardly anything was answered and based on what was told, TIDAL was a shockingly unremarkable, more expensive (a negative consumer buzz word) service. "The new world" was a duplicate of the old one, except artists (who so happened to be wealthy) benefitted more this time and consumers (who aren't wealthy) would have less money in their wallet should they break away from pirating and free streaming. Finance and technology blogs pointed out the unoriginal interface and what seemed to be a flawed business model (using the word 'seemed' because, again, few details) where audience gains would be few and the company's bottom line is just as weak as its competitor's (Jay-Z's response to this is interesting; I'll be getting to it). Just as critical, but far more cutting was the reaction from consumers. Due to the piss-poor presentation of the conference, Jay-Z and crew came off like a bunch of elitist, arrogant, greedy millionaires begging for more money at the expense of fans. #TidalForAll quickly became #TidalForNoOne on social media; people were throwing tomatoes and the well-intentioned "movement" where artists get the income they deserve from their own work in the streaming world versus industry executives and suits, was massively misperceived.
Then, a funny thing happened on the way to innovation. Funny as in weird, not funny haha. Jay-Z and his Justice League of recording artists (including Madonna and Rihanna) signed a declaration (that no one saw the text of), said little and then dipped. The conference was short and horribly bereft of information. The central additional thing we learned was that TIDAL is artist-owned (equity stake was offered) and "combines the best high fidelity sound quality, high definition music videos and expertly curated editorial" for $9.99 and $19.99 (for uncompressed CD quality sound) a month. So...does every subscription dime go to the artists? Is there a significant difference in audio between the subscription options? How large is TIDAL's catalog? Who shot J.R.? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a lollipop? Hardly anything was answered and based on what was told, TIDAL was a shockingly unremarkable, more expensive (a negative consumer buzz word) service. "The new world" was a duplicate of the old one, except artists (who so happened to be wealthy) benefitted more this time and consumers (who aren't wealthy) would have less money in their wallet should they break away from pirating and free streaming. Finance and technology blogs pointed out the unoriginal interface and what seemed to be a flawed business model (using the word 'seemed' because, again, few details) where audience gains would be few and the company's bottom line is just as weak as its competitor's (Jay-Z's response to this is interesting; I'll be getting to it). Just as critical, but far more cutting was the reaction from consumers. Due to the piss-poor presentation of the conference, Jay-Z and crew came off like a bunch of elitist, arrogant, greedy millionaires begging for more money at the expense of fans. #TidalForAll quickly became #TidalForNoOne on social media; people were throwing tomatoes and the well-intentioned "movement" where artists get the income they deserve from their own work in the streaming world versus industry executives and suits, was massively misperceived.
The reaction to TIDAL from the public was blistering (Twitter) This is how they screwed up: if you're going to do flashy promotion and a scheduled conference with big names as if you're about to announce a cure for cancer, you better be about to say something. Don't come out and say "buy our ish," drop the mic and leave. It was very, to quote Mr. West, "my presence is a present, kiss my a**" and over-confident to assume that you didn't need to address-and with elaboration-the very people you seek investment from, while you give the skinny to Billboard magazine and Alicia Keys leads the conference. I know your (i.e. Jay-Z) presence and name alone is what turned social media timelines turquoise blue, but that costs nothing. When you're asking people to spend money, you have to do a lot more, bruh. I also know it's sad you have to convince people to actually buy music, but you do, especially if your fee well exceeds the standard. The reality of Danity Kane (shout-out to Making the Band fans who know the meaning of that phrase) is that there are multiple, overwhelmingly easy ways to obtain music for free and consumers are always going to do what's most advantageous for them. That said, it would've behooved Hov to pull out a PowerPoint of charts, graphs and statistics, gotten his orator on and give an impassioned speech explaining and supporting the who, what, when, where and why of his cause. Treat and speak to the audience like the essential part of your success that they are; this is a board meeting and your investors are hearing your proposal. Explain how other services rip off the performers they love and that they can have a role in defeating "the man" and the craft-killing establishment. Very 1960's. People love a good "getting at the man in the name of art" revolt. Show them what they'll be gaining with their subscription and prove that it's worth it. Had he emphasized that for around the price of a Netflix movie subscription or just 2 $9.99 CDs at Target, you can have thousands upon thousands of albums, it would've made what's a startling amount on paper (i.e. a maximum of $240 yearly) show for the major deal that it is. Most of all, give the research-backed evidence that if we don't start paying for music again, we could break the industry. Budgets being cut because of decreased revenue will affect the amount of products and events given and the quality of music and talent. If acts can't reach proper compensation for their work, majority will eventually go independent. That might seem cool off top, but without a mainstream label to monetarily supplement projects, tours, etc., again, offerings can be limited and it will be a lot harder to have wide-range access to your favorite artist. Taylor Swift barely scratched the surface of the topic of streaming in an opinion-editorial and didn't take the broad, proactive step Jay-Z did to try to combat these issues, but she received a warmer response to her piece and resounding applause for yanking her discography from Spotify because she wrote with heart and informing intent. Jay-Z could've used this-and the fact she subsequently put all her music on TIDAL-as a selling point, but sigh. Had he bothered to plead his case, the groupthink that had everyone tweeting and watching the conference could've worked in his favor and actually "turned the tide." As the saying goes, presentation is everything.
Now onto you cocky consumers that I mentioned in my headline. It appalled me how many people tweeted things like "$20 for MUSIC?!," as if music was the equivalent value of tissue paper or paper period (or like TIDAL didn't have a $9.99 option). It trips me out; we wake up, got to sleep, jog, party, cry, clean, have sex, get married and graduate to music, but we don't want to pay for it. We fumble over ourselves to hear it live, but we don't want to pay for it. We claim to love it and need it, have it on every device and bully people online over it (hey, BeyHive!) but we don't want to pay for it. $9.99 or $19.99 a month is too much for thousands of albums when 1 CD used to be around $15 a pop?! Exactly how much do you think music should cost? It should be free?! Exactly what is the value of someone writing a 15-track album about their childhood trauma, writing out 15 musical arrangements for a multi-piece symphony or band (or reproducing that sound with a keyboard), singing it with a 5 octave voice, recording, mixing, mastering and pressing it to CD and putting it on a shelf for you and the masses to relate to and absorb? What is the value of someone performing like Michael Jackson, singing like Whitney Houston and giving you lyrics like the Beatles for 2 hours every other night for a year and a half on tour? That has no worth? None at all? If music is utterly worthless, why do we listen to so much of it? Does it really seem fair that we can take someone's creation or hard work, enjoy it how we like and not give them anything for it? When we love earnestly and get heartbroken, work hard and get paid little, we're disgruntled because what we put forth from our gut was treated like it was meaningless. It's a spit in the face.
Remember when I said Jay-Z had an interesting reply to the observation that TIDAL's bottom line may not be that great? He told Billboard: "Will artists make more money? Even if it means less profit for our bottom line? Absolutely...Less profit for our bottom line, more money for the artist; fantastic." Jay-Z and his misguided millionaires may have given the worst, most gaudy and misleading symposium of their careers, but the keyword here is misleading. If it does what it claims to do, TIDAL is a great idea and if performers are smart, they'll follow Ms. Swift's action. If you give a darn about music or the industry not snapping in half, you'll go ahead at start your TIDAL account today. You can test it out with a trial. Fin.
Now onto you cocky consumers that I mentioned in my headline. It appalled me how many people tweeted things like "$20 for MUSIC?!," as if music was the equivalent value of tissue paper or paper period (or like TIDAL didn't have a $9.99 option). It trips me out; we wake up, got to sleep, jog, party, cry, clean, have sex, get married and graduate to music, but we don't want to pay for it. We fumble over ourselves to hear it live, but we don't want to pay for it. We claim to love it and need it, have it on every device and bully people online over it (hey, BeyHive!) but we don't want to pay for it. $9.99 or $19.99 a month is too much for thousands of albums when 1 CD used to be around $15 a pop?! Exactly how much do you think music should cost? It should be free?! Exactly what is the value of someone writing a 15-track album about their childhood trauma, writing out 15 musical arrangements for a multi-piece symphony or band (or reproducing that sound with a keyboard), singing it with a 5 octave voice, recording, mixing, mastering and pressing it to CD and putting it on a shelf for you and the masses to relate to and absorb? What is the value of someone performing like Michael Jackson, singing like Whitney Houston and giving you lyrics like the Beatles for 2 hours every other night for a year and a half on tour? That has no worth? None at all? If music is utterly worthless, why do we listen to so much of it? Does it really seem fair that we can take someone's creation or hard work, enjoy it how we like and not give them anything for it? When we love earnestly and get heartbroken, work hard and get paid little, we're disgruntled because what we put forth from our gut was treated like it was meaningless. It's a spit in the face.
Remember when I said Jay-Z had an interesting reply to the observation that TIDAL's bottom line may not be that great? He told Billboard: "Will artists make more money? Even if it means less profit for our bottom line? Absolutely...Less profit for our bottom line, more money for the artist; fantastic." Jay-Z and his misguided millionaires may have given the worst, most gaudy and misleading symposium of their careers, but the keyword here is misleading. If it does what it claims to do, TIDAL is a great idea and if performers are smart, they'll follow Ms. Swift's action. If you give a darn about music or the industry not snapping in half, you'll go ahead at start your TIDAL account today. You can test it out with a trial. Fin.
RSS Feed