Dissertation FINAL

Crossing The Chasm:
Segmenting Demand, Optimising ‘Freemium’ and
Minimising the ‘Value Gap’
Robert Steven Hunt
BA (Hons) Music Business and Innovation
Academy of Contemporary Music, University of Middlesex
July 2015
Word Count: 6,236

ABSTRACT

This comprehensive mixed-method research study investigates the current music subscription
marketplace, utilising interviews, conference observations and consumer surveys (n = 1,590)
through a sequential triangulation research process. As the recorded music industry continues
to transition from ownership to access, a cannibalisation of physical sales and digital
downloads will continue to influence global recorded music industry revenues. However, in
order to ensure a robust recorded music ecosystem and ‘cross the chasm’ to mainstream
subscription adoption, results indicate that subscription services must minimise the ‘value’
gap between revenues generated by music subscribers and advertising-supported consumers.
Results clearly suggest that a large segment of even the most ‘casual’ music listeners are
willing to pay for music, demonstrating that the monetisation of the largest consumer demand
segment remains underdeveloped. Ultimately, research indicates that subscription services
should implement tiered price points differentiated by service features across all consumer
demand segments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
5

ABBREVIATIONS
6

INTRODUCTION
8

BACKGROUND
10

Literature Review
10

Underlying Perceptions of Value
10

The ‘Freemium Wars’
10

Willingness to Pay
11

Elasticity
11

Framework & Research Objectives
12

‘The Chasm’
12

The ‘Value Gap’
13

METHODOLOGY
14

Research Design Rationale
14

Sampling
14

Research Procedures
14

Qualitative Methods
14

Quantitative Methods
15

Data Analysis
15

RESULTS
16

Sample Overview
16

Initial Findings
17

Quantitative Results
17

Qualitative Results
19

DISCUSSION
22

22

Elasticity & Demand Segmentation
24

‘The Mainstream Market’ vs. ‘The Early Market’
24

Average Revenue Per Subscriber vs. Average Revenue Per User
25

Telecommunications Bundling, Student Discounts and Family Subscriptions
26

CONCLUSIONS
27

Limitations
28

Recommendation of Further Study
28

REFERENCES
29

APPENDICES
35

Appendix I: Streaming Pricing Strategy Is Out Of Step With Consumer Spending Patterns
35

Appendix II: Literature Review - Shifting Value Constructs
35

Appendix III: Literature Review – ‘The Freemium Wars’
36

Appendix IV: Literature Review - Willingness to Pay
36

Appendix V: Literature Review - British Music Rights, Monmouth University & WiMP Studies
36

Appendix VI: Elasticity and Music Subscription Services
37

Appendix VII: ‘The Chasm’ and Music Subscriptions
39

Appendix VIII: Semi-Structured Interview Questions & Transcripts
39

Appendix IX: MIDEM 2015 Observation Transcripts & Notes
43

Appendix X: Music Subscription Survey Questionnaire Design Issues
46

Appendix XI: Qualitative Survey Results Chart
47

Appendix XII: Quantitative Survey Results
47

Appendix XIII: Ad-Supported Limitations and Revenue Recovery (Spotify Revenues in Spain)
53

Appendix XIV: Sweden: The First Mature Streaming Market
54

Appendix XV: Digital Music Streaming and Downloading Revenue, year-on-year growth (%) 2014-2019
55

Appendix XVI: The Impact of ‘Telco’ Bundles and Family Subscriptions
55

Appendix XVII: Spotify Record December Growth Hints at Pricing Elasticity
56

Appendix XVIII: Spotify: Average Revenue Per Subscriber (ARPS)
56

BIBLIOGRAPHY
57

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Graphs, Charts & Illustrations: Page Number(s):
Figure I: ‘The Chasm’ 12
Figure II: Age Distribution 16
Figure III: Consumption Categories - Male vs. Female 17
Figure IV: Consumption Rate vs. Willingness to Pay 18
Figure V: Age vs. Willingness To Pay 19
Figure VI: Current Pricing Strategy & Consumer Spending Patterns 35
Figures VII - X: David Touve Analysis (I) – (IV) 37-38
Figure XI: Alvarez & Marshal Study 38
Figure VII: Questionnaire Design Issue 46
Figures VIII - XXVIII: Quantitative Results (I) – (XVI) 47-52
Figures XXIX - XXX: Spotify Revenues in Spain (I) – (II) 53
Figures XXXI - XXXII: The First Mature Streaming Market (I) – (II) 54
Figure XXXIII: Streaming & Downloading Revenue (2014-2019) 55
Figure XXXIV: Spotify December Growth & Elasticity 56
Figure XXXV: Spotify Average Revenue Per Subscriber 56

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my wife Rebekah and my parents for their
continued support. Thank you for always supporting me in the pursuit of my passions.
Without you, none of this would have been possible.
In addition, I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor Oliver Sussat and interviewees
Simon Wheeler and Dick Huey.

ABBREVIATIONS

Advertising-Supported Ad-Supported
Average Revenue Per Subscriber ARPS
Average Revenue Per User ARPU
Compact Disc CD
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry IFPI
Peer-to-Peer P2P
Price Waterhouse Cooper PWC
Telecommunications Company ‘Telco’
Willingness to Pay WTP

8

INTRODUCTION
Global recorded music revenues continue to fall year on year, from $26.6bn at the height of
the recorded music industry in 1999, to $14.97bn in 2014 (Ingham, 2015a). Driven largely by
underlying technologically and socially deterministic factors, the recorded music industry
continues to shift from high value, low volume purchasing, to low value high volume
accessing (Wheeler, 2015). Moreover, a number of advertising supported (ad-supported)
listening services continue to operate in the streaming marketplace, providing consumers with
free on-demand consumption alternatives, subsequently turning recorded music purchasing
into a lifestyle choice (Mulligan, 2015a). As such, recorded music has, for many artists,
become a loss leader for alternative and profitable revenue streams, leading to the constantly
and publically debated low royalty payments received by record labels and artists, most
notably, Taylor Swift (Resnikoff 2013; Ellis-Petersen 2014; McAlevey 2014; Mulligan
2015b). However, a significant moment for the recorded music industry may be on the
horizon, with shifting consumption patterns and the continued adoption of streaming services
leading to a potential ‘tipping point’ (Gladwell 2001; Morris 2015).
While streaming giants SoundCloud have recently announced tiered subscription plans,
existing standalone music subscription services such as Spotify, Deezer, Rdio and Tidal are
preparing themselves for two heavyweight entrants (Kaye, 2015). As Google betas the
unreleased YouTube Music Key subscription service, Apple has recently launched the
‘mainstream friendly’ Apple Music service (Regnier 2015; Schneider 2015). Although the
marketplace remains volatile, streaming clearly is the future of music consumption, as
consumer preference continues to shift from ownership to access (Moore 2015; as cited by
IFPI 2015a, p. 5).
Subscription services have continued to consciously prioritise user-base and market share
growth over profitability (McAlevey, 2014). However, scale necessitates heightened
revenues. As ‘music aficionado’ consumption methods shift from the purchasing of physical
formats and digital downloads to ad-supported and subscription streaming, a cannibalisation
of recorded music revenues will continue to occur on a global scale (Mulligan, 2015b). While
the impact of transitioning consumer preference has significantly altered the recorded music
industry landscape, a 2014 study conducted by Midia Research (2014a) indicates only 15% of

9

music streamers reported using a subscription service, illustrating that the majority of music
streaming consumption is happening on free ad-supported services such as YouTube (Kafka,
2014). More importantly, the study finds that 22% of music streamers reported a willingness
to pay (WTP) for a music subscription service at £9.99 a month, highlighting the two most
significant issues facing the recorded music industry of the future (Midia Research, 2014b).
First, the existence of free ad-supported services, most notably YouTube, continues to satisfy
the majority of mainstream music listeners, leading to a decreased WTP for premium music
subscriptions. Second, while the decline of digital download and physical sales should slow
following the initial migration of ‘music aficionados’ from ownership to access, the
underlying necessity for the ‘casual’ and ‘passive’ music consumer market to adopt premium
music subscriptions for £9.99 a month remains limited.
In 1999, the average global spend on recorded music was $64 annually, during the height of
the compact-disc (CD) era (Pakman, 2014). However, this figure drops substantially when
non-music consumers are taken into consideration, to an average spend of just $28 (Pakman,
2014). Fast forward to 2015, and music subscription services such as Spotify, Deezer, and the
recently launched Apple Music, are charging a staggering $120 for consumers to access
music annually, double the average spend of music consumers at the height of the recorded
music industry. According to former Spotify vice-president Faisal Galaria (2014, as cited by
Cookson, 2014), “people will pay for streaming music, but at the moment they’re being given
a choice between £120, or free, so most people are choosing free”. Whilst £9.99 may be
viewed as an unbeatable offering for ‘music aficionados’ and active music consumers, current
music subscription price points do not adequately incentivise lower segments of consumer
demand, subsequently encouraging the mainstream and ‘casual’ music listener to adopt free,
ad-supported consumption methods (Galaria 2014, as cited by Cookson 2014; Maples, 2015;
Mulligan, 2014) (See Appendix I).

10

BACKGROUND
Literature Review
Underlying Perceptions of Value

While piracy and peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing services will not be discussed in detail in this
study, it is important to highlight the significant impact of these services on underlying
consumer perceptions of value (See Appendix II). According to Styven (2010), value
attributed to digital music does not match the heightened value consumer’s place on physical
formats. Moreover, the proliferation of digital services has altered traditional exchange
values that underpinned the music industry in the CD era, whereby one value unit was
exchanged for another (Bagozzi 1975; as cited by Parry et al. 2012: p.2). For more
information on altered value constructs, see Appendix II.
In 2005, futurists and industry commentators Gerd Leonhard and David Kusek (pp.1-19)
famously coined the phrase ‘music like water’, relating ‘always on’ music and media and the
future of music consumption to common monthly utilities. However, in 2003, Zhu and
MacQuarrie (pp.264-269) preceded the ‘music like water’ theory, as the authors identified the
opportunities and potential of large bundling in relation to the ‘highly heterogeneous demand’
of recorded music. Whilst Zhu and MacQuarrie (2003; pp. 264-269) were clearly referencing
digital downloads, the ability to maximise revenues by targeting a large variety of consumer
demand levels applies directly to ‘freemium’ models today. For more information, see
Appendix III.
Unlimited ad-supported services such as Spotify continue to come under fire from rights
holders, however, as Waelbroeck (2013; pp.1-20) acknowledges, the most successful business
models address a wide spectrum of demand segments, including consumers with a
significantly low WTP for music. As the ‘freemium wars’ rage on, a Papies et al. (2011)
study highlighted a significant issue facing the recorded music industry. While ad-supported
services have the ability to monetise consumers that do not participate in commercial
downloading, the current market pricing of music subscription services remains unattractive
to the majority of consumers (Papies et al. 2011).

11

Willingness to Pay
According to a Lin et al. (2013) study, underlying ‘free mentality’ is projected onto online
services and results in a lowered WTP. In addition, Lin et al. (2013, p.329) urge online music
services to suppress the consumer’s ‘free mentality’ by ‘reducing direct costs’ and ‘cultivating
an online community’. Similarly, Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson (2013; pp.591-616)
identified a strong association between heightened community participation and the WTP for
a premium service. Ultimately, the authors claim that ‘freemium’ services must implement a
segmentation scheme maximising social functionality, heightening perceptions of value whilst
encouraging users to ‘climb the ladder of participation’ (Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson
2013; pp.591-616). For further information on WTP, see Appendix IV & the ‘discussion’
section of this paper. While existing literature highlights a wide range of variables influencing
consumer WTP for premium music services, studies relating to the consumer’s WTP for a
service that can be accessed for free remain limited (See Appendix V).
Elasticity

A significant number of studies indicate a substantial increase in quantity demanded at a
lowered price point, illustrating the elastic nature of subscription services (Touve 2011, 2015;
Alvarez & Marsal 2014 as cited by Pakinkis 2014; Bloom.fm 2013 as cited by Resnikoff
2014; Harris Interactive 2013 as cited by Resnikoff 2014) (See Appendix VI). However,
Economist David Touve’s (2011; 2015) analyses of a New Media Age study, provides the
most conclusive evidence of a heightened consumer demand at a lowered price point. For
more information, see Appendix VI and the ‘discussion’ section of this paper.
In summary, the proliferation of digital music has altered consumer value constructs,
underpinned by the shift from product to service and ownership to access, however, an
underlying WTP for digitalised music remains. As the emergence of free music consumption
methods continue to influence year-on-year recorded music revenue decline, music
subscription services provide consumers with two main offerings: listen to music for free on
ad-supported services, or adopt paid subscription for a substantial annual fee of £120. While
existing literature indicates that a decrease in price would lead to a significant increase in
revenues, it remains to be seen if a reduced monthly price point would outweigh the
attractiveness of free ad-supported consumption methods to ‘mainstream’ and ‘casual’ music
consumers.

12

Framework & Research Objectives
‘The Chasm’
In 1991, author Geoffrey Moore (xi) aptly named “the gulf between two distinct marketplaces
for technology products,” or the moment between early and mainstream adoption, as ‘the
chasm’. Figure I illustrates ‘the chasm’, heralded by Moore (1991) as the most significant
obstacle facing new businesses and new technologies. According to the author:
“The first, an early market dominated by early adopters and insiders who are quick
to appreciate the nature and benefits of new development, and the second a
mainstream market representing ‘the rest of us’, people who want the benefits of
new technology but who do not want to ‘experience’ it in all its gory details”
(Moore, 1991; xi).
These characteristics can be directly applied to the challenges facing the music industry,
notably, the emergence of music subscription services (See Appendix VII).
Figure I: ‘The Chasm’
Source: Moore, G. (2015) Crossing The Chasm: Marketing And Selling High-Tech Products To Mainstream
Customers. In: Huey, D (2015a) Building A Bigger Boat: Per-User Streaming And Selling To The Edges.
[Midem Conference 2015]. 7th
June 2015.
As Figure I clearly illustrates, if streaming and subscription services can successfully traverse
‘the chasm’ and reach the ‘mainstream market’, a significantly larger market awaits (Moore
1991, as cited by Huey, 2015a).

13

The ‘Value Gap’

According to IFPI (2015a; p.23) estimates, 41 million paying subscribers and over 100
million ad-supported ‘freemium’ users generated $1.6 billion in record label revenues in
2014. However, while adoption and consumption of streaming continues to grow year-on-
year, overall streaming revenues account for just 15% of global recorded music revenues
(IFPI 2015a: p.23; Ingham 2015a). As YouTube alone continues to claim over one billion
unique monthly users, and on-demand ad-supported listening services dominate music
consumption and discovery methods, a significant ‘value gap’ becomes apparent, with free
ad-supported listening generating less than half of their subscription counterparts in revenues
due to licensing imbalances (IFPI, 2015a: p.23).
While the licensing agreements surrounding YouTube and other ‘neutral hosting services’
will not be discussed in detail within this paper, the significant difference in average revenue
per user (ARPU) between ad-supported listeners and paying subscribers on ‘freemium’
services will be scrutinised in order to unequivocally address the internal ‘value gap’ existing
within subscription services (Ingham, 2015b; 2015c). As ‘music aficionados’ move to adopt
premium music subscriptions, physical sales and digital downloads will continue to decline
(Mulligan, 2015a). As such, it becomes increasingly important for the recorded music
industry to maximise the revenues from the growing streaming sector. ‘Freemium’ services
must ‘cross the chasm’ to the mainstream marketplace by incentivising ad-supported
consumers to adopt paid subscriptions.
The primary focus of this study investigates two central questions:
I. Are music subscription services adequately monetising the ‘casual’ music listener?
II. Are ‘casual’ ad-supported music consumers willing to pay for services that can be
accessed for free?

14

METHODOLOGY
Research Design Rationale

Initially, qualitative semi-structured interviews and observations from the 2015 Midem
conferences were considered. While the qualitative methods produced valuable results, the
research design was reconfigured, and a sequential data gathering method was implemented
in order to retrieve quantitative data further illustrating consumer preferences, perceptions of
value, and variables affecting WTP for subscription services (Creswell, 2009: p.110).
Moreover, a mixed method approach and the sequential triangulation of qualitative responses
and quantitative data provided a comprehensive analysis of the complex research question
(Creswell, 2009: p.115).
Online survey methods generate heightened response rates whilst providing a cost and time
effective solution to sampling issues (Rosenbaum and Lidz 2007). Furthermore, online
surveying tools have significant advantages ranging from automated data collection to ease of
participation. Moreover, decreasing social desirability bias by providing anonymity and
privacy were significant factors in the decision to utilise online surveying methods (Bryman,
2008).
Sampling

Preferable probability-sampling methods were unattainable due to lack of resources and time
limitations. Instead, convenience-sampling methods were utilised in both the qualitative
semi-structured interviews and conference observations and the quantitative survey research
methods in order to achieve a desirable sample size (Davies, 2007). While this non-
probability sampling method provided an entirely voluntary and larger sample size, it is
important to acknowledge the limitations of the study and report that the resulting data should
be applied to the wider population cautiously (Davies, 2007).
Research Procedures
Qualitative Methods
Initially, email and Twitter were used to target potential interview candidates. While a
significant candidate list was compiled, ultimately separate individual interviews with Simon
Wheeler, Director of Strategy at Beggars Group, and Dick Huey, Founder of Toolshed Inc.,

15

were conducted and recorded on June 7th
2015, during the Midem conferences (See Appendix
VIII). Six questions were prepared, however due to the semi-structured nature, deviations and
time restrictions altered the qualitative research design (See Appendix VIII). Coupled with
recorded Midem presentations from key industry commentators and leaders Alexander Ljung,
Mark Mulligan, Vania Schlogel, Doug Morris, Hans-Holger Albrecht and Ty Roberts, the
semi-structured interviews and observations provided a valuable industry-focused framework
from which to develop consumer-focused survey questionnaires (See Appendix IX).
Quantitative Methods

The initial ‘Music Subscription Services’ survey was administered on June 21st
2015, using
the popular online service SurveyMonkey. The survey invitation link was posted across
social networks Facebook and Twitter, and online community and ‘bulletin board system’
Reddit. Ultimately, this pilot survey was designed to gauge response methods and rates, and
trial the overall questionnaire design. As a result of the significant response rates recorded
with invitation links on Reddit subcategories r/samplesize, r/music and r/letstalkmusic,
Facebook and Twitter were disregarded as invitation platforms, and the subsequent survey
was conducted solely on the aforementioned Reddit subcategories. The initial pilot survey
produced significant response rates, reporting 999 unique participants, however, the survey
highlighted a significant questionnaire design issue (See Appendix X). The subsequent
‘Music Subscription Services: Why Don’t You Pay?’ survey was administered on Google
Forms on June 22nd
2015 as a result of SurveyMonkey participation limits, and closed on June
23rd
2015, when the target of 1,000 unique participants was reached. Ultimately, 409
participants from the initial survey identifying as music subscribers were excluded from the
final sample size of N=1,590 unique and anonymous ad-supported streaming users.
Data Analysis

As part of the subsequent triangulation and mixed method approach, qualitative research
results were utilised in an attempt to target and identify a valuable subset of industry issues
relating directly to the overarching research questions and objectives. In addition, the semi-
structured interviews and conference observation results were formulated into a chart in order
to analyse the data for key concepts and common trends (See Appendix XI). Moreover,
individual quantitative data sets were broken down and examined using filtering systems
within ‘Survey Monkey’ and ‘Google Sheets’ respectively, leading to the creation of a
number of charts and graphs (See Appendix XII).

16

RESULTS

Initially, the sample overview section provides a general summary of the sample size
(N=1,590). Following this overview, data findings and results will be discussed and analysed,
providing a further comparison between resulting qualitative research, previously discussed
existing literature, and a wider range of current industry trends and topics.
Sample Overview
Overall, 2,030 individuals participated in the questionnaires. However, following the removal
of the 409 participants identifying as music subscribers and subsequent data cleansing, 31
additional incomplete responses were removed from the sample size, leaving a total sample
size of N=1,590 unique participants. While participant location remained anonymous, the
sample size consisted of 72.6% males and 27.4% females. Figure II illustrates the
distribution of age, ranging from under 17 to over 60. More importantly, nearly half of
respondents (48.7%) reported listening to 0-1 hours of music on a daily basis, indicating a
sample size consisting of a large number of ‘casual’ or ‘passive’ music consumers. Figure III
highlights heightened streaming service usage amongst males across all consumption
categories, with the exception of the 4 to 5 hour consumption tier.
Figure II: Age Distribution (N=1,590)

17

Figure III: Consumption Categories: Male vs. Female (N=1,590)
Importantly, Figure III demonstrates that nearly half of respondents, both male (48.8%) and
female (48.4%), reported listening to 0-1 hours of music on a daily basis, indicating a sample
size consisting of a large number of ‘casual’ music consumers.
Initial Findings
Quantitative Results
Ad-Supported vs. Pricing

Data analysis reveals that 51.8% of participants choose not to pay for a music subscription
service due to the presence of ‘free’ ad-supported models of consumption. However, the
remaining 48.2% of participants identified the high monthly price point (£9.99) as the
fundamental reason behind continued ad-supported consumption.
Additional Content vs. Pricing

Further analysis indicates 3.6% of participants would switch from ad-supported consumption
to paid subscription if subscription services improved their service offerings (video,
photography, live streaming, heightened artist to fan engagement, improved social and
shareable content). While 19.4% of the ad-supported users claimed that improved offerings
would potentially influence a decision to switch to paid subscription, an overwhelming 77%
of participants indicated that added content would have no impact on their willingness to
adopt paid subscription. Conversely, when referencing perceptions of value in terms of

18

pricing, 43.2% of the ad-supported users surveyed indicated pricing would have no affect on
their WTP. However, 56.8% of participants acknowledged that a decrease in monthly pricing
would directly influence their decision to switch from ad-supported users to paying
subscribers. Coupled with the previous and nearly proportional (48.2%) response rate
revealing pricing as the primary reason behind continued ad-supported consumption, the
result suggests a significant segment of ad-supported consumers would switch to paid tiers for
a reduced monthly price point. Moreover, as 77% of the ad-supported users definitively
disregarded additional features and content as a consumption-altering variable, the research
clearly identifies pricing as the leading influencer of increased WTP for music subscription
services amongst ‘casual’ ad-supported listeners.
Consumption Rate vs. Willingness to Pay
Quantitative data was utilised in order to determine the relationships between consumption
rates and WTP. While consumers reporting an average of two to three hours of music
listening per day ultimately demonstrated the highest WTP at 65.3%, Figure IV illustrates a
significant finding, as 49.5% of the most ‘casual’ music listeners indicated a WTP for music
subscription service at a lowered price point. While this subset of passive ad-supported users
demonstrated the highest levels of apathy towards the alteration of personal consumption
methods, the research pertinently identifies that a substantial percentage of the most passive
music consumers are willing to adopt paid subscription models.
Figure IV: Consumption Rate vs. Willingness to Pay (N=1,590)

19

Age vs. Willingness to Pay

Research indicates that 58.2% of 21-29 year olds would potentially adopt paid subscriptions
at a lower price point, followed closely by 30-39 year olds (57.1%) and participants 20 or
younger (56.8%). However, the research also identifies lowered levels of WTP for music
subscription services for participants over forty, with 49.3% of 40-49 year olds and 47.8% of
participants 50 or older reporting a WTP (see Figure V).
Figure V: Age vs. Willingness To Pay (N=1,590)

Qualitative Results
Educating the ‘Mainstream Market’

According to Wheeler,
“I think it’s just really hard for people to put their money down on the table for
anything, whether that is music or anything else… there is a real battle in terms of
marketing and educating the subscription model. Spotify has advertised their
product as part of ‘telco’ bundling, but I do not think they have really educated
the masses” (Wheeler, 2015).
In addition, the education process, largely driven by Apple’s entrance into the marketplace, is
“the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry” claims Sony Music Entertainment
CEO Doug Morris (2015). Moreover, as Albrecht (2015) noted, Apple’s entrance solidifies
streaming as the preferred consumption method of the future, Ljung (2015), Morris (2015)
and Wheeler (2015) highlighted Apple’s ability to advertise streaming to the mainstream
market. While Apple’s entrance may boost mainstream music streaming adoption, Wheeler

20

(2015) states, “the potential is now converting the real casual music users into paying
subscribers”, further demonstrating the importance and potential of minimising ‘the value
gap’.
Monetisation Issues

Wheeler (2015) specifically identified the growing impact of streaming to record label
revenues, however, each interview and observation process commonly highlighted streaming
as the most important revenue stream for the future of the recorded music industry globally
(See Appendix VIII, IX & XI). Although Wheeler (2015) remains optimistic about the future
of the ‘freemium’ model, the Beggars Group executive cited YouTube’s unlimited on-demand
servicing and lack of effort to convert free users to paying monthly subscribers as a
significant challenge for subscription services charging £9.99 a month. Throughout the
research observations, YouTube and alternative free ad-supported services were commonly
heralded as the significant obstacle to mainstream subscription adoption.

Huey (2015b) Mulligan (2015a), Albrecht (2015), Morris (2015) and Roberts (2015) all
directly identified the streaming giant as an obstacle to music subscription providers and
weighed in on the current ‘freemium wars’ debate by declaring their continued support for
free ad-supported tiers, provided they are utilised as a promotion tool instead of an on-
demand platform. While SoundCloud Founder Alexander Ljung (2015) claimed, “I am not
choosing ad-supported or subscription, I’m choosing both of them, because music is for
everyone”, specifically, Albrecht (2015) and Huey (2015b) warned of the damaging effect the
removal of ad-supported streaming tiers from ‘freemium’ services would have on the
recorded music industry. Shortly after confirming the recent deal with global music rights
agency Merlin, SoundCloud Founder Alexander Ljung (2015) further elaborated on the
platform’s move into the ‘freemium’ sector, and discussed in detail, the undeveloped
marketplace for ‘freemium’ services offering diverse and dynamic tiers driven by consumer
demand segments. According to Ljung:
“Instead of having a debate around advertising vs. subscription, the big question for
the music industry is: how do you segment the market into the right place?”
(Ljung, 2015).
Ljung highlights the importance of optimising ‘freemium’ models, across all segments of
demand, from ad-supported users to the most active music aficionados, a stance echoed by a

21

number of the industry leaders and commentators (Albrecht 2015; Huey 2015b; Mulligan
2015a; Roberts 2015; Schlogel 2015).
Demand Segmentation

Continually, industry leaders referenced student discounts, family subscriptions and
telecommunication (‘telco’) bundling as successful conversion tools (Albrecht 2015; Huey
2015b; Wheeler 2015). In reference to a lowered monthly price point, Wheeler (2015) stated,
“the offering of £9.99 for the world’s music cannot be improved”, however Albrecht (2015),
Huey (2015b), Ljung (2015) and Schlogel (2015) openly acknowledged the potential of
optimised pricing and demand segmentation, with Huey (2015b) specifically citing
subscription service Rdio’s introduction of an ‘intermediate’ tier (£3.99/month) as a step in
the right direction.
At the other end of the spectrum, Mulligan (2015a) continually heralded add-on ‘music
aficionado spending’ as a key aspect of revenue maximisation in ‘freemium’ services.
Similarly, Roberts (2015) identified the potential of an “enhanced set of offerings for the
super-fan”, highlighting photography, exclusive and live tracks, hi-fi audio, and ultimately the
artist-fan relationship as strategies encouraging heightened ‘super-fan’ spending on
‘freemium’ services. Whilst Mulligan (2015a) and Roberts (2015) acknowledged ‘freemium’
optimisation through add-on servicing, Huey (2015b) specifically identified the need for
services to incorporate interfaces with compelling social features, promoting the shareable
nature of music content.
Overall, industry-focused qualitative research exposed additional underlying topics
necessitating further investigation. As ad-supported streaming continues to come under fire
from rights holders, the qualitative processes commonly reported the continued importance of
ad-supported tiers, the potential of demand segmentation and optimised ‘freemium’ as key
factors in minimising the ‘value gap’ as the music industry continues to educate the
mainstream on the benefits of music streaming and subscription services (Albrecht 2015;
Huey 2015b; Ljung 2015; Morris 2015; Mulligan 2015a; Roberts 2015; Schlogel 2015;
Wheeler 2015).

22

DISCUSSION
The majority of the major music subscription services offer limited trial periods; however,
Spotify, Rdio and more recently, Google Play continue to provide unlimited ad-supported
tiers (Mitroff 2015; Houghton 2015). While the aforementioned Wagner et al. (2012; 2013)
studies conclude that services should implement a time-limited free option, Waelbroeck
(2013; pp.1-20) clearly argues that successful ‘freemium’ business models must find ways to
service a wide range of demand segments, even those with the lowest WTP, a stance echoed
by the qualitative results of this study (Albrecht 2015; Huey 2015b; Ljung 2015; Morris 2015;
Mulligan 2015a; Roberts 2015; Schlogel 2015; Wheeler 2015) (See Appendix VIII, IX & XI).
In April 2011, Spotify placed a number of limitations on free ad-supported listening in
Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain at the request of rights holders (Pope,
2015). Ultimately, it proved to be a disastrous move, resulting in a serious revenue drop,
particularly the Spanish territory, where consumers are not accustomed to subscription
payments, once again illustrating the importance of music subscription education (Pope 2015;
Morris 2015; Wheeler 2015) (See Appendix XIII). Revenues returned to growth following a
twelve-month recovery period, however this remains a valuable lesson for rights holders
currently fighting for limited free tiers (Dredge 2015a; Pope 2015).
No relationship can be identified between the quantitative research results and the Wagner et
al. (2012; pp.2928-2937) findings, whereby continued ad-supported consumption leads to
decreased WTP for premium services (Albrecht 2015; Morris 2015). While consumer
perceptions of value have been altered by the dematerialisation of music; instead of limiting
ad-supported consumption, research indicates that ‘freemium’ services must suppress ‘free
mentality’ by sufficiently differentiating ad-supported tiers and premium service features,
reducing ‘direct costs’ and incentivising the consumer to ‘climb the ladder of participation’
(Styven 2010; Lin et al. 2013; Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson 2013; Wagner et al. 2013;
Dredge 2015a; Pope, 2015).
Free consumption methods such as YouTube will continue to exist, and inevitably, consumers
will choose to utilise these services. However, according to Huey (2015b), the key to a
healthy and robust recorded music ecosystem is minimising the attractiveness of these

23

services by providing the “licensing ability and the framework so that services like Spotify
can go out and attract these consumers”. Rights holders cannot be short sighted, instead they
must recognise that ad-supported tiers provide revenue that simply did not exist before
(Albrecht 2015; Pope 2015). Currently, YouTube remains the largest and most used
streaming service, offering consumers unlimited, on-demand music for free (Mulligan 2015a;
Wheeler 2015). Until Apple proves otherwise, or licensing agreements level the playing field,
music subscription services must maintain on-demand and unlimited ad-supported tiers,
matching YouTube’s offering, encouraging ‘value through usage’ and a ‘mainstream market’
migration from the low royalty generating video-based streaming services to the heightened
royalty paying ‘freemium’ music services (Dredge, 2015c; Spotify 2013).
Importantly, Morris (2015) heralded Sweden’s market growth and the mainstream adoption of
‘freemium’ services as a benchmark for the future. Driven largely by ‘telco’ bundling and the
entrance of Swedish platform Spotify in 2008, recorded music revenue reached a significant
$194.2 million in 2013, higher revenues than the country had seen in over eight years (IFPI,
2015b; Ingham, 2015d) (See Appendix XIV). In 2014, streaming revenues accounted for 80%
of overall recorded music revenues in the worlds first ‘mature streaming market’, highlighting
two significant findings (Morris, 2015). First, universal streaming adoption can provide
sustainable revenues through download and physical cannibalisation. Second, ‘freemium’
models utilising unlimited ad-supported tiers have the ability to provide substantial revenue
growth if the service manages to ‘cross the chasm’ and achieve mainstream adoption.
Ultimately, through research it becomes clear that ad-supported tiers are an integral part of
consumer education and conversion to premium services. As rights holders continue to
question the on-demand nature of ad-supported listening, a number of industry leaders and
commentators have echoed a stance highlighted by the qualitative results of this study;
simply, free tiers must continue to exist in music subscription models, however services must
work harder to differentiate premium subscription offerings from ad-supported tiers (Albrecht
2015; Cooper 2015 as cited by Dredge 2015b; Cooper 2015 as cited by Ingham 2015f; Huey
2015b; Ljung 2015; Mills 2015 as cited by Ingham 2015f; Mulligan 2015a; Pope 2015;
Roberts 2015; Wells 2015 as cited by Ingham 2015g; Wheeler 2015).

24

Elasticity & Demand Segmentation
‘The Mainstream Market’ vs. ‘The Early Market’

According to Mulligan (2015c), a significant obstacle facing subscription services is the
impending ‘demand ceiling’ for their niche products aimed at music aficionados.
Furthermore, Mulligan (2015c) claims the issue lies not with the business model, but that
premium subscription value-propositions are not built for mass-market adoption. In order to
‘cross the chasm’ to mainstream adoption, subscription services must adjust their value
proposition by lowering their price points and adopt tiered price points based on demand
segments and pay as you go payment systems (Mulligan, 2014). Mulligan (2014; 2015a;
2015b; 2015c), a consistent advocate for the lowering of subscription price points and tiered
pricing, is not alone. In the aforementioned study conducted by Touve (2011; 2015), the
economist demonstrated that a 50% decrease in subscription pricing would result in a 400%
revenue increase, suggesting significant price elasticity, a topic that has been heavily
supported by entrepreneur and venture capitalist David Pakman (2010) (See Appendix V).
According to Touve (2011; 2015), a £3.99 price point would increase revenues nearly ten-
fold, while increasing quantity of demand by 300%, illustrating that “maximising the total
value of music could mean significantly lowering prices” (See Appendix V). Touve’s (2011,
2015) results correlate with a number of other studies, whereby a decrease in pricing leads to
substantial demand and revenue increases (Alvarez & Marsal 2014 as cited by Pakinkis 2014;
Bloom.fm 2013 as cited by Resnikoff 2014; Harris Interactive 2013 as cited by Resnikoff
2014) (See Appendix V). Although this study does not address specific pricing and quantity
demanded, 56.8% of participants indicated a WTP for a lowered price point, demonstrating a
correlation between existing findings and the quantitative research results (Touve 2011,
2015; Alvarez & Marsal 2014 as cited by Pakinkis 2014; Bloom.fm 2013 as cited by
Resnikoff 2014; Harris Interactive 2013 as cited by Resnikoff 2014). In addition, results
indicate that instead of continuing ad-supported consumption, a significant percentage of
‘casual’ consumers (48.2%) would prefer to adopt paid subscriptions, however high monthly
price points remain the key obstacle.
Quantitative data suggests that added service features are not of interest to a significant
portion of ‘passive’ listeners, with 77% of participants reporting no interest in these
‘enhanced offerings’. The results of this study correlate directly with existing literature,
indicating that mainstream music consumers’ initial perceptions of value are highly

25

influenced by price (Wagner et al. 2013; pp.1-8). In addition, whilst a relationship between
the quantitative results of this study and existing literature cannot be seen, qualitative results
clearly correlate with existing literature, illustrating enhanced social and community
participation as a key value proposition for music consumers (Moore 1991; Lee et al. 2013;
Lin et al. 2013; Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson 2013; Huey 2015b; Mulligan 2015a).
Moreover, until the recent introduction of Apple Music’s social ‘Connect’ feature, consumers
have been unable to attribute value to increased social participation within ‘freemium’ music
services (Parry et al. 2012; Rogers, 2015) (See Appendix II).
It is important to note however, that these perceptions of value may not apply to ‘early
adopters’ and ‘music aficionados’, as the opportunity for ‘freemium’ services to target ‘music
aficionados’ and ‘super fans’ through the incorporation of additional recorded-music-related
offerings has been widely identified as a potential revenue stream for music subscription
platforms (Mulligan 2015a; Roberts 2015). While Zhu and MacQuarrie (2003; pp.264-269)
identified the difficulty to justify add-on purchasing, qualitative results indicate that
subscription services should seek to remove the current ‘cap’ placed on ‘music aficionado
spending’ by implementing ‘auxiliary’ add-ons differentiating ‘commoditised’ music product
from ‘luxury’ product (Yaffe 2013; Mulligan 2015a; Roberts 2015).
Average Revenue Per Subscriber vs. Average Revenue Per User

Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) (2015) clearly states, “access services need to introduce
more paid-for tiers to drive consumer spending on subscription,” further propagating the
importance of demand segmentation. In addition, PWC (2015) claims, “the introduction of a
range of access tiers is essential in order to boost ARPU and consumer spending”. As early
adopter subscriber growth inevitably slows, it is imperative that ‘freemium’ services minimise
the ‘value gap’ by increasing conversion rates and ARPU (See Appendix XV).
According to Ingham (2015b), ARPU remains the key to future profitability. As subscription
service costs continue to outweigh revenue growth, closing the ‘value gap’ between ARPS
and ad-supported ARPU is essential to future recorded music industry revenues (Ingham,
2015b). Furthermore, recently released Spotify figures indicated ARPS in 2014 equated to
$73 per annum, while the annual ad-supported ARPU equalled $2.44, sufficiently illustrating
the disproportionate nature of the ‘value gap’ existing between paying subscribers and free
ad-supported listeners (Ingham, 2015b).

26

Telecommunications Bundling, Student Discounts and Family
Subscriptions

In an attempt to increase conversion rates and ARPU, subscription services have implemented
half-price student discounts, providing cost-effective options for the most active streaming
demographic (Ingham, 2015c). Coupled with a significant number of promotional campaigns,
such as Spotify and Deezer’s ‘three months premium for £0.99’ offering, subscription
services have clearly identified the need for dynamic access models incentivising adoption of
paid subscription across even the lowest demand segments, an insight backed by the
qualitative and quantitative research results of this study (Ingham, 2015e). For more
information on the impact of ‘telco’ and family subscriptions, see Appendix XVI.
Between November 2014 and January 2015, Spotify acquired 2.5 million paying subscribers
(Mulligan, 2015d) (See Appendix XVII). This unprecedented growth highlights a valuable
insight into subscription pricing, driven largely by discounted student plans and family
bundling priced at £4.99/month, and £0.99 holiday promotions (Mulligan, 2015d). This not
only illustrates an underlying WTP for a lowered price point, supporting the quantitative
results of this study, but it highlights a paradigm underpinning the continued success of the
CD, the gifting market (Midia Research, 2014b).
‘Telco’ packages, student discounts, family bundling and holiday promotions have increased
subscriber growth and conversion rates significantly; however, these deals have directly
influenced declining ARPS figures (Ingham, 2015c) (See Appendix XVIII). Although
Spotify’s ARPS decreased overall, subscription income increased dramatically, from €678.7m
in 2013, to €982.9m in 2014, illustrating not only the positive impact of cost-effective
promotions and elasticity, but also an underlying consumer WTP at a lowered price point
(Ingham, 2015c). Moreover, according to Spotify figures (2015, as cited by Ingham, 2015c),
ARPS in 2014 equalled $73, an average monthly spend of $6.80, aligning directly with the
$64 average monthly spend of consumers during the height of the CD era in 1999, once again
fuelling the argument for a pricing re-evaluation.

27

CONCLUSIONS
Results indicate a significant drop in WTP in consumers over forty; however, no relationship
can be seen between increased consumption rates and WTP for premium subscriptions.
While a relationship can be seen between qualitative findings and a number of studies
highlighting increased social participation and ‘co-production’ as the key influence on
consumer perceptions of value and WTP, quantitative data indicates that pricing is the most
influential value proposition for ‘the mainstream market’. ‘Telco’ bundling, student discounts,
family subscriptions and holiday promotions have successfully driven contninued
subscription growth and conversion rates, illustrating the elastic nature of music subscription
offerings. Current music subscription pricing continues to encourage ‘casual’ consumers to
adopt ad-supported consumption methods; nonetheless, existing research suggests that a
decrease in price (<£5) would lead to a substantial increase in quantity demanded and overall
service revenues, a significant finding that correlates directly with the quantitative results of
this study. As such, it becomes unequivocally clear that the monetisation of the ‘mainstream
market’ remains underdeveloped.
The ‘value gap’ existing between ARPS and ARPU generated by ad-supported consumers
remains a significant issue for the future success of the recorded music industry globally.
However, Sweden’s market growth and continued success illustrates the potential of
mainstream adoption, regardless of large ad-supported market share. As YouTube, the largest
music streaming platform, continues to provide consumers with unlimited and on-demand
music for free, qualitative research suggests that music subscription services must continue to
utilise ad-supported tiers as conversion and subscription education tools. Moreover,
quantitative data suggests that while free on-demand services continue to exist, a large
segment of even the most ‘passive’ ad-supported music listeners are willing to pay for
premium subscriptions at a lower monthly price point. In order to minimise the ‘value gap’
between ARPS and ARPU, it is imperative that subscription services achieve mainstream
subscription adoption; ‘crossing the chasm’ through the implementation of pay-as-you go
tiers and lowered monthly price points. Furthermore, in order to maximise future recorded
music revenues, ensuring a healthy and robust ecosystem for artists and rights holders,
services must develop tiered price points differentiated by service features, targeting all
segments of consumer demand from ad-supported ‘passive’ listeners to ‘super-fans’.

28

Limitations
Due to non-probability convenience sampling, the quantitative results of this study should be
applied to the general population with caution. The study was administered across the music-
related r/letstalkmusic and r/music pages of Reddit; forums used by potentially more ‘active’
music consumers. While it is impossible to estimate the percentage of responses from these
music-specific forums, it is important to note that the responses from this group of ‘active’
music consumers may have influenced the quantitative results.
Recommendation of Further Study
Based on existing research and the results found within this study, further research must be
conducted on the WTP for a specified range of price points. In addition, further research
should be conducted in order to gauge subscriber and ‘music aficionados’ WTP for add-on
bundling on top of the monthly premium price and identify underlying consumer demand for
add-on ‘luxury’ and ‘auxiliary’ recorded-music-related goods.
Final Word Count: 6,236

29

REFERENCES
Albrecht, H.H. (2015). Keynote Speaker. Observations from the 2015 Midem Conferences on 8th
June
2015. See Appendix IX for transcript.
Anderson, N. (2008). Survey: Young People Happy To Pay For Music? On Their Own Terms.
(Online). Available: http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/06/survey-young-adults-willing-to-
pay-for-musicon-their-terms/. Last accessed 18th July 2015.
Bahanovich, D and Collopy, D, 2012. Music Experience and Behaviour in Young People. [Online].
[Accessed 5th
July 2015]. Available from:
https://musicbusinessresearch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/uk-music-survey-2013-research-report-
final.pdf.
Bryman, A (2008). Social Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Online).
[Accessed 25th
June 2015]. Retrieved from:
http://www.appstate.edu/~jacksonay/rcoe/brymanquant.pdf.
Cookson, R. (2014). Music chiefs put faith in digital streaming power. (Online). Available:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/490e0242-7dd9-11e3-95dd-00144feabdc0.html#slide0. Last accessed 23rd
July 2015.
Couts, A. (2011). Spotify Linked To Major Decline In Music Piracy. (Online). Available:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/spotify-linked-to-major-decline-in-music-piracy/. Last accessed
21st July 2015.
Creswell, J (2009). Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage. pp.110-
116. (Online). [Accessed 25th
June 2015]. Retrieved from: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-
data/10983_Chapter_6.pdf.
Crupnick, R. (2015). College Students Are Willing To Pay For Streaming Music. (Online). Available:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/07/college-students-are-willing-to-pay-for-streaming-music-
survey-
results.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=395530&utm_camp
aign=0. Last accessed 12th July 2015.
Curtis, S. (2013). Spotify and Netflix curb music and film piracy. (Online). Available:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10187400/Spotify-and-Netflix-curb-music-and-film-
piracy.html. Last accessed 21st July 2015.
Davies, M.B. (2014). Quantitative Research. In: Davies, M.B and Hughes, N Doing A Successful
Research Project. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.55-69. (Online) [Accessed 27th
June
2015] Retrieved from: http://www.palgrave.com/resources/Product-Page-Downloads/D/Davies-
Hughes-Doing-a-Successful-Research-Project/davies-and-hughes-cha04.pdf.
Döerr et al. (2010). Pricing of Content Services - An Empirical Investigation of Music as a Service.
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. 1.(1).pp.1-9. [Online].
Available at: http://www.citi.columbia.edu/B8210/read10/pricing%20of%20content%20services.pdf.
[Accessed 3rd
July 2015].
Dredge, S. (2015a). What happened when Ministry of Sound CEO shared a stage with Deezer and
Rdio. (Online). Available: http://musically.com/2015/03/11/ministry-of-sound-deezer-rdio/. Last
accessed 10th July 2015.
Dredge, S. (2015b). Warner Music Reveals Streaming Income Has Overtaken Downloads. (Online).

30

Available: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/12/warner-music-spotify-streaming-
income-downloads?CMP=share_btn_tw. Last accessed 14th July 2014.
Dredge, S. (2015c). How much do musicians really make from Spotify,iTunes and YouTube?. (Online).
Available: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-
itunes-youtube. Last accessed 19th July 2015.
Ek, D. (2014). $2 Billion and Counting. (Online). Available:
https://news.spotify.com/uk/2014/11/11/2-billion-and-counting/. Last accessed 17th July 2015.
Ellis-Petersen, H. (2014). Taylor Swift takes a stand over Spotify music royalties. (Online). Available:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/04/taylor-swift-spotify-streaming-album-sales-snub.
Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Geiger, M. (2014). Keynote: WME - Midem 2014. (Online). Available:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNsAR_FM5M. Last accessed 8th July 2015.
Gladwell, M. (2001). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference. London:
Abacus.
Graham, J. (2015). Streaming music: To make money, you better be a superstar. (Online). Available:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/23/streaming-music-paid-subscribers-apple-music-
spotify/29144267/. Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Hillhouse, A. (2013). MTV’s ‘Music to the M Power’. (Online). Available:
http://blog.viacom.com/2013/06/study-mtvs-music-to-the-m-power/. Last accessed 5th July 2015.
Houghton, B. (2015). Google Play Music Adds Free Streaming Tier. (Online). Available:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/06/google-play-music-adds-free-streaming-tier.html. Last
Huey, D (2015a). Building A Bigger Boat: Per-User Streaming & Selling To The Edges. Observations
from the 2015 Midem Conferences on 7th
June 2015. See Appendix IX for transcript.
Huey, D. (2015b). Dissertation Interview. Conducted at 2015 Midem Conferences on June 7th
2015.
See Appendix XIII for Transcript.
IFPI, 2015a. Digital Music Report 2014: Charting The Path To Sustainable Growth. [Online].
[Accessed 29th
May 2015]. Available from: http://www.ifpi.org/downloads/Digital-Music-Report-
2015.pdf.
IFPI. (2015b). Sweden: A Market Transformed. (Online). Available: http://ifpi.org/sweden.php Last
Ingham, T. (2015a). Global Record Industry Income Drops Below $15bn for First Time in Decades.
(Online). Available: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/global-record-industry-income-drops-
below-15bn-for-first-time-in-history/. Last accessed 1st July 2015.
Ingham, T. (2015b). How Spotify Can Become Profitable. (Online). Available:
http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/how-can-spotify-become-profitable/. Last accessed 5th July
2015.
Ingham, T. (2015c). How Much Is A Spotify Subscriber Really Worth?. (Online). Available:
http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/much-spotify-subscriber-really-worth/. Last accessed 5th
July 2015.

31

Ingham, T. (2015d). Is Sweden Still The Future of The Music Industry?. (Online). Available:
http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/is-sweden-still-the-future-of-the-music-industry/. Last
Ingham, T. (2015e). Deezer Battles Apple By Offering 3 Months Premium for 99p. (Online).
Available: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/deezer-battles-apple-music-offering-3-months-
premium-99p/. Last accessed 10th July 2015.
Ingham, T. (2015f). The Music Industry Would Be Insane To Dump 'Freemium'. (Online). Available:
http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/the-music-industry-would-be-insane-to-dump-freemium/.
Ingham, T. (2015g). Rob Wells On Freemium, Apple Music and Life After Universal. (Online).
Available: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/rob-wells-on-freemium-apple-music-and-life-
after-15-years-at-universal/. Last accessed 10th July 2015.
Kafka, P. (2014). Music Streaming Is Booming, and That’s a Problem for Music Sales. (Online).
Available: http://recode.net/2014/08/29/music-streaming-is-booming-and-thats-a-problem-for-music-
sales/. Last accessed 19th July 2015.
Kaye, B. (2015). SoundCloud may soon introduce paid subscription plans for listeners. (Online).
Available: http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/06/soundcloud-may-soon-introduce-paid-subscription-
plans-for-listeners/. Last accessed 5th July 2015.
Knapp, A. (2013). Study Finds That Streaming And Spyware Are Killing Music Piracy. (Online).
Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/02/26/study-finds-that-streaming-and-
spyware-are-killing-music-piracy/. Last accessed 21st July 2015.
Kusek, D & Leonhard, G (2005). The Future of Music - Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution.
Boston: Berklee Press. pp.1-19.
Lee et al. (2013). Designing Freemium: a Model of Consumer Usage, Upgrade, and Referral
Dynamics. 1.(1). p.2. (Preparing for submission). [Online]. Available at:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/vkumar/research/DesigningFreemium.pdf. [Accessed 4th July 2015].
Lin et al. (2013). Customer Willingness To Pay For Online Music: The Role of Free Mentality.
Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 14 (4), pp.315-330. [Online]. Available at:
www.jecr.org/sites/default/files/14_4_p03.pdf. [Last Accessed 13th
July 2015].
Ljung, A (2015). Keynote Speaker. Observations from the 2015 Midem Conferences on 8th
June 2015.
Maples, J. (2015). The Price Is Wrong. (Online). Available: http://jonmaples.com/2015/01/15/the-
price-is-wrong/. Last accessed 9th July 2015.
McAlevey, T. (2014). An Industry Insider Explains Why Streaming Music's Already Profitable.
(Online). Available: http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2014/08/an-industry-insider-explains-why-
streaming-musics-already-profitable.html. Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Midia Research. (2014a). How Streaming Is Changing The Music Industry. (Online). Available:
http://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/view/how-streaming-is-changing-the-music-industry-.html. Last
Midia Research. (2014b). Holiday Gifting: Music's Gifting Digital Double Whammy. (Online).
Available: http://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/view/holiday-gifting-musics-gifting-digital-double-
whammy.html. Last accessed 12th July 2015.

32

Mitroff, S. (2015). 6 things to consider when choosing a streaming-music subscription. (Online).
Available: http://www.cnet.com/uk/how-to/spotify-rdio-and-more-how-to-get-started-with-
subscription-music-services/. Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Moore, G (1991). Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream
Consumers. 2nd
Edition. London: Harper Collins. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.rotoplast.com.br/upfile_admin/arquivos/arquivos/file/Crossing%20the%20Chasm.pdf.
[Last Accessed 3rd
July 2015].
Morris, D (2015). Keynote Speaker. Observations from the 2015 Midem Conferences on 7th
June
2015.
Mulligan, M. (2014). Why It’s Time For A Streaming Pricing Reset. (Online). Available:
https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/why-its-time-for-a-streaming-pricing-reset/.
Mulligan, M (2015a). On Demand In Demand: Meeting The Needs Of The Always On Fan.
Observations from the 2015 Midem Conferences on 4th
Mulligan, M (2015b). Awakening: The Music Industry In The Digital Age. [iBooks]. London.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Mulligan, M. (2015c). The Streaming Maturation Effect. (Online). Available:
https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/the-streaming-maturation-effect/. Last accessed
9th July 2015.
Mulligan, M. (2015d). What Spotify's December Growth Tells Us About Pricing. (Online). Available:
https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/what-spotifys-december-growth-tells-us-about-
pricing/. Last accessed 10th July 2015.
Mulligan, M. and Simpson, A., 2014. The Streaming Effect: Assessing The Impact of Streaming on
Music Behavior. [Online]. Midia Research. Available at:
http://blog.deezer.com/assets/sites/18/MIDiA-Research-The-Streaming-Effect-Executive-
Summary.pdf. [Last Accessed: July 12th 2015].
Oestreicher-Singer, G and Zalmanson, L. (2013). Content or Community? A Digital Business Strategy
for Content Providers in a Social Age. MIS Quarterly. 37 (2), pp. 591-616. [Online]. Available at:
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~goestrei/MISQ_LastFM_2013.pdf. [Accessed 2nd
July 2015].
Pakinkis, T. (2014). 'UK music streaming services must halve subscription price' - study. (Online).
Available: http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/uk-music-streaming-services-must-halve-
subscription-price-study/057340. Last accessed 23rd July 2015.
Pakman, D. (2010). The Music Industry Admits Music Is An Elastic Good. (Online). Available:
http://www.pakman.com/2010/03/19/the-music-industry-admits-music-is-an-elastic-good/. Last
Pakman, D. (2014). The Price of Music. (Online). Available: http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-
of-music/. Last accessed 8th July 2015.
Papies et al.. (2011). Music for free? How Free Ad-Funded Downloads Affect Consumer Choice.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 39 (5), 1-2. [Online]. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-010-0230-5. [Accessed 6th
July 2015].

33

Parry et al. (2012) Servitisation and Value Co-Production in the UK Music Industry. International
Journal of Production Economics. 135 (1). pp. 320-332. [Online]. Available at:
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/14393/2/IJPE%2520full%2520Manuscript.pdf. [Accessed 1st
July 2015].
Peoples, G. (2013). Business Matters: Study Says Consumers More Willing To Pay For Music
Streaming - Except In Sweden. (Online). Available:
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/1565553/business-matters-study-says-
consumers-more-willing-to. Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Pope, A. (2015). Clamp Down On Free Spotify? Now Is Not The Time For Knee-Jerk Decisions.
(Online). Available: http://www.pias.com/blog/clamp-down-on-free-spotify-now-is-not-the-time-for-
knee-jerk-decisions/. Last accessed 10th July 2015.
Popper, B. (2015). Spotify plans to match Apple Music’s very cheap family plan. (Online). Available:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/8/8748155/spotify-compete-match-apple-pricing-family-plan. Last
Price Waterhouse Cooper. (2015). Music: Key Insights At A Glance. (Online). Available:
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/global-entertainment-media-outlook/segment-insights/music.jhtml. Last
Regnier, P. (2015). Is the New Apple Music Worth the Money?. (Online). Available:
http://time.com/money/3957507/apple-music-spotify-worth-the-money/. Last accessed 21st July 2015.
Resnikoff, P. (2013). 16 Artists That Are Now Speaking Out Against Streaming. (Online). Available:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/12/02/artistspiracy. Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Resnikoff, P. (2014). Want More Paying Subscribers? Then Lower the Damn Price!. (Online).
Available: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/01/22/lowerdamnrprice. Last accessed
23rd July 2015.
Roberts, T (2015). The Streaming Revolution In The Entertainment Industry. Observations from the
2015 Midem Conferences on 5th
Rogers, B. (2015). Apple Connect: Direct-to-Fan Finally Gets the Stage it Deserves. (Online).
Available: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/apple-connect-direct-to-fan-gets-the-stage-it-
deserves/. Last accessed 18th July 2015.
Rosenbaum, B.A. & Lidz, C. (2007). Maximizing the Results of Internet Surveys. Center for Mental
Health Services Research University of Massachusetts Medical School. 4 (2), pp.1-2. [Online].
Available at: https://www.umassmed.edu/uploadedFiles/Brief28Surveys.pdf. [Accessed 25th
June
2015].
Schlogel, V (2015). Keynote Speaker. Observations the 2015 Midem Conferences on 6th
June 2015.
See Appendix IX for transcript.
Schneider, M. (2015). YouTube CEO Gives Update on Music Key, Talks How It Will Differ From
Spotify, Apple. (Online). Available: http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6633466/youtube-ceo-
music-key-susan-wojcicki. Last accessed 21st July 2015.
Spotify. (2013). Spotify Explained. (Online). Available: http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-
explained/#royalties-in-detail. Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Styven, M. (2010). The Need to Touch: Exploring the Link Between Music Involvement and
Tangibility Preference. Journal of Business Research. [Online]. 63 (9), pp.1088-1094. [Online].

34

Available at: http://www.econbiz.de/Record/the-need-to-touch-exploring-the-link-between-music-
involvement-and-tangibility-preference-styvén-maria/10008652773. [Accessed 4th July 2015].
Sweney, M. (2009). A third of young people would not pay for music online, says EC report. (Online).
Available: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/aug/04/third-young-people-pay-music-online.
Last Accessed 5th July 2015.
Touve, D. (2011). Carrots, Sticks and Buggy Whips. (Online). Available:
https://vimeo.com/25154049. Last Accessed 15th July 2015.
Touve, D. (2015). Why Music Service Prices Are Falling And Can't Get Back Up. (Online). Available:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/02/why-music-service-prices-are-falling-and-cant-get-back-
up.html. Last Accessed 9th July 2015.
Waelbroeck, P. (2013). Digital Music: Economic Perspectives. Handbook of the Digital Creative
Economy, Forthcoming. 1.(1). pp.1-20. [Online]. Available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2249690. [Accessed 2nd
July 2015].
Wagner et al.. (2012). The Advertising Effect of Free – Do Free Basic Versions Promote Premium
Versions within the Freemium Business Model of Music Services?. 46th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. 1 (1), pp. 2928-2937. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2013/4892/00/4892c928.pdf. [Accessed 3rd July
2014].
Wagner et al. (2013). What Drives Users to Pay for Freemium Services? Examining People’s
Willingness to Pay for Music Services. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on
Information Systems. 1.(1).1-8. [Online]. Available at:
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=amcis2013. [Accessed 3rd
July
2015].
Welch, C. (2015). Tidal now has a family plan, but it's more expensive than Apple Music. (Online).
Available: http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8911359/tidal-music-family-plan-announced. Last
Wheeler, S (2015). Dissertation Interview. Conducted at 2015 Midem Conferences on June 7th
2015.
See Appendix VIII for Transcript.
Williams-Grut, O. (2014). Spotify subscriptions soar thanks to students and Vodafone deal. (Online).
Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/spotify-subscriptions-soar-thanks-to-
students-and-vodafone-deal-9779759.html. Last accessed 13th July 2015.
Yaffe, A. (2013). How To Make The Freemium World Pay. (Online). Available:
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2013/03/how-to-make-the-freemium-world-pay.html. Last accessed
13th July 2015.
Zhu, K and MacQuarrie, B. (2003). The Economics of Digital Bundling: The Impact of Digitization
and Bundling on the Music Industry. Communications of The ACM. 46 (9), 264-269. [Online].
Available at:
http://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/zhu/pub/docs/papers/paper13_cacm_digitalbundling_p264-
zhu_published.pdf. [Last Accessed: 13th July 2015].

35

APPENDICES
Appendix I: Streaming Pricing Strategy Is Out Of Step With
Consumer Spending Patterns

Figure VI: Current Pricing Strategy & Consumer Spending Patterns
Source: (Mulligan, 2014)
Appendix II: Literature Review - Shifting Value Constructs

Piracy rates have clearly slowed due to the emergence of alternative legal streaming
platforms, however, altered perceptions of value have underpinned the shift from physical to
digital and continue to affect the global recorded music industry today (Couts 2011; Curtis
2013; Knapp 2013).

The shift from product to service and the dematerialisation of music has
altered fundamental notions of value. The presence of intangible and ubiquitous digital music
has created an entirely new construct, value in usage, with value attributed during the process
of participation, co-production and consumption (Parry et al., 2012). Furthermore, a
significant number of consumers possess a strong belief that online music should be free and
report no intention of paying for these services (Vlachos et al. 2003 as cited by Lin et al.
2013; Chyi 2005 as cited by Lin et al. 2013).

36

Appendix III: Literature Review – ‘The Freemium Wars’
Although the ‘freemium’ model has been successfully implemented across the creative
industries and beyond, the business model often relies on the revenue contributions of a small
group of premium subscribers to maintain a substantial free user base and continued scaling
(Lee et al. 2013). However, according to Lee et al. (2013; p.39), free users still offer value to
‘freemium’ services, by eventually converting to paid premium users. Furthermore, the Lee
et al. (2013; p.39) study clearly states, “consumers convert to premium product because of
increasing usage of social features”, illustrating the importance of social service features in
relation to paid adoption. While Wagner et al. (2012; pp.2928-2937) identifies the
importance of ad-supported tiers for conversion, the study ultimately finds that continued ad-
supported listening elicits a negative attitude toward premium tiers and increases user
satisfaction with ad-supported listening.
Appendix IV: Literature Review - Willingness to Pay
While Oestreicher-Singer and Zalmanson (2013; pp.591-616) highlighted community
participation as the key value proposition, a Dörr et al. (2010; pp.1-9) study found contract
length and sound quality as the most significant factors influencing a consumer’s readiness to
pay for premium services. Wagner et al. (2013; pp.1-8) identified a heightened willingness to
utilise a free ad-supported tier leads to a reluctance to pay for premium services. More
importantly, the study identified that a high value to price ratio had a significant impact on
initial inclination to pay for premium services, which led in turn to the most influential
intention, a positive consumer attitude toward a service (Wagner et al. 2013; pp. 1-8).
Appendix V: Literature Review - British Music Rights,
Monmouth University & WiMP Studies
In a study conducted by British Music Rights (2008, as cited by Anderson 2008) of
consumers aged fourteen to twenty-four, researchers found that 80% of the P2P users would
pay for a legalised music service. Similarly, a recent Monmouth University study (2015, as
cited by Crupnick 2015) indicates that 77% of university students surveyed acknowledged a
WTP for a music subscription service, while only 46% of the general population indicated a
WTP. Although the studies debunk the myths surrounding young people’s inclination to pay
for music, the studies do not indicate the influence of pricing on underlying WTP. Moreover,

37

it is impossible to determine whether heightened willingness reported by students in the
Monmouth University study were due to discounted student price points.
A study conducted by Tidal predecessor WiMP (2013, as cited by Peoples 2013), reported
75% of survey participants expressed a WTP for streaming services. The study, conducted
across a number of European markets, find that on average, 25% of consumers expressed no
interest in paying for these services (WiMP 2013, as cited by Peoples 2013). Although a
significant number of participants indicated an underlying WTP, the study fails to address the
price for which participants were willing to subscribe (Peoples, 2013).
Appendix VI: Elasticity and Music Subscription Services

New Media Age Survey (2011) - David Touve Analysis:
According to Touve (2011; 2015), only 5% of respondents reported a WTP for a premium
service at current market price between £8 and £10.99, compared to 28% of respondents, the
largest demand segment, indicating a WTP for a premium subscription for a monthly price
between £1 and £3.99.
Figure VII: David Touve Analysis (I) – (IV)
Source: (Touve, 2011; 2015)

38

Alvarez & Marsal (2014) Study – Cited by Resnikoff (2014)
Figure XI: Alvarez & Marshal Study
Source: (Alvarez & Marsal 2014, as cited by Resnikoff 2014)

39

Appendix VII: ‘The Chasm’ and Music Subscriptions
Streaming has been widely adopted by the mainstream consumer as a method of consumption,
however, industry leaders and commentators are sceptical about the position of music
subscriptions on ‘the technology adoption life cycle’, claiming that ‘freemium’ services are
facing another looming chasm, between the ‘early’ and ‘mainstream market’ (Moore 1991;
Geiger 2014; Albrecht 2015; Huey 2015a).
Appendix VIII: Semi-Structured Interview Questions &
Transcripts
Midem 2015: Interviewees and Questions –

Sunday 7th
June: Dick Huey 3:30 PM (Music Business Stage: Riviera 7)
Sunday 7th
June: Simon Wheeler 11:00 AM (UK Music Stand)
• Do you think music subscription models are the future of music consumption? Why?
• A number of the subscription platforms acknowledge the importance of the ‘free’ tier as a
‘conversion’ tool. Do you think ad-supported ‘free’ tiers are necessary?
• Streaming has been widely adopted by consumers (this is undeniable), however
subscription model acceptance is growing slowly. Is battling with ‘free’ (i.e. YouTube)
still the main obstacle? What other obstacles are there?
• A number of industry commentators advocate ‘tiered’ price points targeting more
mainstream and casual music listeners. Do you think £9.99 is the correct price point?
Should ‘tiered’ subscriptions be introduced?
• With their latest announcement, it seems Spotify have chosen to add additional 3rd
party
content to their service, do you think this is what consumers want? Will this make free
listeners jump to a £9.99 price point?
• From a record label perspective, are the current subscription models working for you and
your artists?

40

Dick Huey – Midem Interview Transcript – Interview Conducted June 7th
2015.
Do you think music subscription models are the future of music consumption and why?
I think that music subscription models will be a part of the future of music consumption, and probably
a big part. I think the music business needs to refine their offerings. I’m pretty convinced were not
anywhere near the mass market at this point. To begin with, Spotify has 20m subscribers. That’s a
drop in the bucket for the potential subscribers in the US. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to
something like Netflix, which has arguably achieved real penetration.
Similarly to Netflix, Pandora has a price point of $4.99/month; do you think the adoption of
Pandora is down to that lower price point?
I have to admit to being slightly puzzled by Pandora’s monetisation efforts. I haven’t heard any ads
for hours on their service.
Going back to your original point...
The power users and early adopters will all buy full price subscriptions. People like you and I are in
from the get go. Other people that are interested in background music, that don’t actively listen to
what just came on the radio, are looking for a different experience. Those of us on the label side of the
business and the sound recording side of the business, have to provide the licensing ability and the
framework so that services like Spotify can go out and attract those consumers. I’m concerned that we
believe we are further along than we actually are (in terms of mainstream adoption) and that we may
cut too deeply into freemium.
A lot of labels are discussing the removal of free ad-supported tiers from subscription services;
do you think that would be a mistake?
Yes I do think it would be a massive mistake for them to get rid of it. However, there should be a
reason to go beyond the free tier, something YouTube need to work on. Spotify in particular has
played around with giving users a reason, but I am worried that they haven’t tried hard enough. The
more free users they have, the more CPM’s (Cost per thousand impressions), so it’s a bit of a catch 22
for them.
Other services use a limited trial period, is that better?
Not necessarily, I like the idea of an ad-funded layer, but the upgrade needs to be more compelling.
Not only that, who is on that free tier? Is it a power user or early adopter?
Rdio introduced an intermediate step. I applaud them for coming out with an intermediate level. Its
similar to a student plan, some people just don’t have the £9.99 a month to spend.
Do you think £9.99 is the correct price point, if not do you think tiers should be introduced?
I think £9.99 is the correct price point, for some people. The students are an interesting example.
That is an example of giving the exact same functionality to someone in a different financial situation,
but that feels ok. On the other hand, it wouldn’t feel right to say “you didn’t feel like paying 10
dollars so pay 5”. It works with students and may work with other sub sectors, but it wont work with
all of them. What will work, is that they get something a little less, maybe it’s a limited amount of
music…
The other thing that’s important with existing services is specialty presentation of music. All of the
services are focused on all of the music they can possibly fit into one system. I do think there are
opportunities around not giving everybody the entire universe of music, and helping them cut that

41

down. I’m a fan of the 8track service; I’m also consulting them just to be upfront about it. There you
have user playlists driving engagement, even more so than Spotify.
I saw Spotify just added a lot of third party content, whom personally I did not care about as a
consumer, do you think that is the right direction for them?
I subscribe to Tidal and I was in their high-def. audio subscription. I got a lot of emails from them
saying, “there’s an exclusive Jack White event” and I went and looked at it. I think the addition of
video is fantastic for these services, and wasn’t as negative about Tidal as everyone else was.
Do you think exclusives will cause problems?
I’m not a fan of services offering exclusives. However, I do think there is something there in terms of
segmented services that only have reggae music, or classical music or Christian music, whatever it is.
I think there will be more of that; there should be more of that. Spotify has worked hard on this.
I think every service really needs to enhance their social features…
I do too. It has gotten kind of stale. I don’t think it is compelling as it could be. I don’t share music
much anymore. I don’t feel like the Spotify interface promotes me to share music with friends.
Simon
Wheeler
–
Midem
Interview
Transcript
–
Interview
Conducted

7th
June
2015.

Do you think music subscription models are the future of music consumption? Why?
It seems that premium music subscriptions will be a very important part, if not the major part of music
consumption going forward. I think the idea that you get a huge mass of people putting money in
every month is something that can drive a lot of revenues. It is not so much that it will be the future;
already streaming income is already our (Beggars Group) major strand of recorded music income,
bigger than downloads, bigger than physical products, bigger than synchronisation by quite a long
way. Streaming is already here, in terms of its importance, but the potential is now converting the real
casual music users into paying subscribers.
Music streaming has been widely adopted, but paying £9.99 a month has not been adopted
widely yet by the mainstream, is YouTube the real obstacle here? Is ‘free’ the real obstacle?
I think it’s just really hard for people to put their money down on the table for anything, whether that
is music or anything else. It is not trivial to get people to commit to paying for something every
month that they want to use. Also, there is a real battle in terms of marketing and educating the
subscription model. Spotify has advertised their product in the States and as part of telecom bundling,
but I do not think they have really educated the masses.
Do you think that bundling into telco packages continues to devalue music as an individual
product?
I think the main reason those packages exist is to get people in the door, get them using the service,
and then to roll them onto paying for a premium subscription. These bundles have been very
successful in getting people to move to premium subscriptions; somewhere around 60-70% of people
that sign up to these bundles become premium subscribers. So while ad-supported seems to be a good
way of consumer acquisition, you really have more money coming in from the telco bundles. The
value proposition for people that consume music regularly, or for people that buy music regularly is
very obvious.
Separate discussion:

42

It is very interesting, within music connoisseurs, this consumption pattern of paying for a subscription
service but then purchasing albums on vinyl that they’re really into. We never saw that consumption
pattern coming.
Do you advocate for free tiers of music? Is the freemium model working for you as a group of
labels?
Personally we don’t think you can get rid of freemium, in terms of a tier that is there to drive
subscribers. I think the free ad-supported models like YouTube are the problem. At the moment there
is no real upsell from them. It’s free on every platform at an unlimited rate. YouTube as a music
product isn’t the greatest experience, it does deliver all of the music you want, but it is not the most
sophisticated experience.
I imagine for the casual music listener, YouTube is sufficient…
Yes I think it is.
Do you think that £9.99 is the correct price point? A number of industry commentators advocate
a tiered system with lower price points in an attempt to target that casual listener.
I don’t think a lower priced tier will be the end product. In our (Beggars Group) mind at the moment,
the price point needs to be driving towards that £9.99 price point for premium subscriptions. Now is
that £9.99 price point the right price point? Well, I think that’s really difficult to answer but I don’t
think were looking at the market right now and saying “lets drop the price”, because actually I don’t
think that’s the best business strategy anyway. I do not think the offering of £9.99 for the world’s
music can really be improved. It is fine for people that are not in the business, that don’t have skin in
the game, to say, “drop the price and you’ll get more subscribers”. Well, put your money on the table.
If they dropped the price point any further, I don’t think there is a business model there.
Do you think it is just a matter of time then?
Now is a very good time to be discussing this. Apple will be releasing their product on Monday, and
that could have significant impact. Equally, Spotify are adding over a million new paying subscribers
every month at the moment. That kind of number is extraordinary. Once upon a time we were asking,
“can we get over 1m subscribers?” Now were asking, “can we get over 1m new subscribers a month?”
Those numbers are staggering. So I’m pretty positive about how things are running at the moment.
The market is very exciting. If YouTube get things together that could be very exciting, and
Soundcloud has announced they will be introducing a subscription model as well.
Is that the general feeling you get when you talk with other labels? Is everyone optimistic about
the direction subscription services are heading?
It really depends on whom you talk to. If you talk to people on the digital side of the business, most
people are feeling pretty good. If you’re looking at the top level, at board level, you may see a
different perspective. Universal’s digital revenues went down last year, so it really depends. The
market is in transition from high value low volume purchasing to low value high volume transactions.
From our perspective, it’s very hard to sell music now. The market is constantly changing; we’re
seeing a massive difference in the market from how it was even a few years ago. There is a lot of
caution around the optimism.

43

Spotify recently announced a partnership with a number of third party content providers, do
you think that is what the consumer wants, extra 3rd
party content?
I was very confused by that to tell the truth. I think they are working on the basis that people are
consuming lots of video, generally, but I think it dilutes what they’re offering and confuses the
message a bit.
Are current subscription models working for you (Beggars Group) and your artists?
I think if you asked anyone, they would like more money. What were seeing now though, is 30%-
40% of our artist’s total royalties are coming from streaming, including synchronisation, sales etc. Up
to the very biggest artists on the roster. There is a transparency issue, of people understanding what
they’re getting. There’s an issue with the pipes; of money flowing through from the service. You
can’t do it on a spreadsheet, so you need pretty sophisticated tools. We are investing significant sums
of money in systems, not for the data we’re seeing now, but for the future.
Appendix IX: MIDEM 2015 Observation Transcripts & Notes
Mark Mulligan (Founder - Midia Research)
Streaming is a way of getting music onto people’s devices. It is not a business model, its not a
product, its simply the technology that enables modern music behaviour. It has taken us fifteen years
to license the business model. It does mean that music buying has become a lifestyle choice; nobody
needs to pay for music anymore. CEO of Pledge Music: “People have been given lots of ways to pay
for music, but not a lot of reasons to pay for music.” We need to give people more reasons to pay.
The one thing that is becoming a major issue is the role of YouTube. YouTube is, without doubt, the
worlds biggest, most successful, most sophisticated, most engaging digital music service that there is.
It is also the one that is priced at 0 cents to the user. That is the major challenge for anybody trying to
sell a £9.99 service. YouTube is probably the best digital music discovery channel.
The world is changing, 4-5 years ago music fans went out and bought music after they discovered it.
Now, people are discovering music and that’s it. Instead of streaming music and then buying the
download, consumers will continue to stream. The music discovery journey has also become the
destination. We are the only industry capping our most active consumer’s spending at £9.99.
Additional Notes:
How artists and fans interact and how money is made.
1. The Impact of Streaming
2. The Music Aficionado
3. Finding the Gold Dust
Nobody needs to pay for music anymore.
The major challenge for anyone trying to sell 9.99 music services, YouTube is the best discovery
platform. The discovery journey has also become the destination. P2P was dying anyway; this was
successful when people wanted to put music on their devices (ownership). The availability of 30m+
on demand tracks changes the way people consume music. No other industry caps their best
customers (i.e. 9.99 a month subscribers). Scale has to compete with the main issue of more people
listening to music less frequently. Lots of people are listening to a lot more music, but developing
shallower relationships with albums and artists. Operating margins of about 3%. It is a business
model that only works if you’re selling other stuff. In 3-5 years Apple will be the biggest music

44

subscription service. As long as these free mobile services exist, it will be very hard to engage with
music fans and convince them to pay.
The music aficionado: Buying fewer albums and downloads due to streaming. The world isn’t
changing; the music aficionado’s consumptions patterns are changing. Massive amounts of
mainstream people are interested in artists and engagement, but very few want to pay.
Gold Dust: Connections, Curation and Engagement
The next generation of music product:
Dynamic, Interactive, Social, Curated
Alexander Ljung (Founder - SoundCloud)
If we’re framing the discussion as ad-supported vs. subscription, for me it is very clear that it’s a
combination of both. And there are a few simple reasons for it. One is that, music has an incredible
power to connect every person on the planet. Music is something that is emotionally relevant and
really powerful for every single person on the planet, and part of it is about how you share that
experience around music. There must be openness about it and share ability around it, and advertising
supports that.
There are 3 billion people online; you’re never going to get 3 billion people into subscriptions, its not
going to happen. That means, if you’re only doing subscription, I think you’re missing out on a lot of
people. If you’re only doing ad-supported, its pretty clear that there are a lot of people willing to pay
for a subscription, and they are worth more on the average revenue per user basis than an ad-supported
user. So if you’re only doing ad-supported, you’re leaving a lot of money on the table. Instead of
having a debate around advertising vs. subscription, the big question for the music industry is: how do
you segment the market into the right place? It is really about how you draw a line between the two.
For us, were interested in having all 3billion people online, on SoundCloud. I am not choosing Ad-
Supported or Subscription; I’m choosing both of them, because music is for everyone.
Doug Morris (CEO - Sony Music Entertainment)
Pay is good. Unless there’s a conversion factor into a paid service, ad-supported is not so good. I do
think this change to streaming signifies a tipping point for the music industry. Over the last ten years,
the industry has halved. It was a $30bn dollar business, now it is a $15bn business. Now what caused
this? It was the disruption of a lot of other business, probably Internet, Piracy, and I do think ad-
supported will continue to hurt the industry. But I think this tipping point will bring it back to where it
was before. The first really mature streaming country was Sweden, and Sweden is back to where it
was ten years ago. My guess is that slowly, Europe and the United States will go the same way, and
we will have an industry that is healthy, robust and powerful. You can’t have a streaming service
without music. We are in a really good position.
What does Apple have in their advantage? Well, they have about $178bn dollars in the bank, they
have 800m credit cards, and Spotify has never really advertised because they’re still not profitable.
My guess is that Apple will advertise and make a big splash. Apple will advertise and make a big
splash. I think it will have a halo-effect on the entire streaming business, all of the companies will
benefit; a rising tide lifts all shifts. I think it is the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry.
In the future, most of the consumption will be done through streaming. In my opinion, it’s coming
and it’s coming fast.

45

Hans-Holger Albrecht (CEO - Deezer)
Streaming is a winning formula going forward. The fundamental lesson we learned in the TV and film
industry is that free model is completely different than paid subscription model. Trying to convince
the consumer to pay for something they can get for free is very difficult. The music consumer is still
learning about the subscription model pricing. We have a free service everywhere, other than the US.
The free ‘price point’ is a way of converting and attracting customers. The backbone of our business
has been our telecom bundling and vertical partnerships with companies like Sonos. There is not just
one market; there are many different markets. Streaming services in Tanzania for example are very
different than France or Germany. You have to be flexible and need to adapt the model to different
markets. Price is always relative, and this is something we must learn from other industries. It is not
about the price point itself; it is about the value for money consumer proposition. We need to be
better at offering a value proposition to the consumer and we have to be better at communicating.
Maybe we have to optimise ‘freemium’, but before we stop something that is working, we need
something that can replace it. Lets be cautious and not kill something too early. If you want to talk
about free, let’s talk about all the other free music. You have YouTube and radio, you cannot look at
streaming and subscription services as the only free services. The ambition has to be putting everyone
on a level playing field (YouTube). It sets a condition in the consumer’s head that on demand music
is free. That is the key point. There always will be a portion of free. I do not think people should get
rid of free completely. We shouldn’t make free so attractive that no one wants to pay for
subscriptions.
If Apple is moving into a subscription and streaming model, it is proven that this is the model of the
future. The biggest problem for us is the learning curve of the consumer. Apple will help us educate
the market.
If you penetrate the market and the market grows, there is a huge opportunity. We are just at the
beginning of finding ways for artists to promote themselves on our service. In a subscription model,
you are in a constant dialogue with the consumer. Once you establish a trust with the consumer, you
can start to upsell things.
Vania Schlogel (Chief Investment Officer - Tidal)
93% of people consume music weekly. There are very few industries where you see demand and
consumption skyrocket while the value of the underlying industry decreases. The only time you see
this, is when the underlying product is commoditised. Our job as a music industry, is to inspire fans
and connect fans to the artists they love.
Within the industry, we have to have a baseline belief that music is valuable. Artists need to be
encouraged to participate directly, and suddenly fans feel closer. Why aren’t we as an industry talking
about optimal pricing?
Fans get more + artists are empowered
Revenues down – Demand of music is UP!
Music is the number 1 entertainment medium we engage in
Ty Roberts – (CO-Founder – GraceNote)

There
has
been
a
paradigm
shift
from
ownership
to
access.

YouTube
remains
the
problem.

New
Growth:

Artist-‐Fan
Premium
Offerings
and
experiences,
Live
Music
Video,
Tiered
Services,
Collectables

and
Merch

46

How
to
raise
recorded
music
revenues:

Enhanced
set
of
offerings
for
the
super
fan

Premium
offerings
and
experiences
(BandPage
and
Rhapsody)

Photography

Exclusive
tracks/live
music
tracks

High
Fidelity
Audio

Created
a
tiered
offering
that
gives
all
this
a
higher
price
point
or
your
own
app
until
the

services
have
features

Wean
the
public
off
free
music

Nurture
the
artist
fan
relationship

Appendix X: Music Subscription Survey Questionnaire
Design Issues

Question four of the initial survey asked participants to identify as either a paying music
subscriber or an ad-supported listener. Participants identifying as music subscribers were
unable to continue the following questions of the survey specifically relating to reasons for
not subscribing. As the survey was limited to 1,000 participants, the questionnaire design
limited the participation and responses of ad-supported listeners to 590, as 409 respondents
identified as music subscribers. This question was removed from the following survey in
order to maximise the responses of ad-supported music consumers. Following the mixed
method approach, question five of the pilot survey provided a text-box enabling participants
to elaborate on their response. This qualitative process was removed from the subsequent
survey design, as the six responses ultimately fit into the multiple-choice categories provided.
Figure VII: Questionnaire Design Issue

47

Appendix XI: Qualitative Survey Results Chart

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED
Appendix XII: Quantitative Survey Results
Figures VIII – XXVIII: Quantitative Results (I) – (XVI)
(N=1,590)
(N=1,590)

48

(N=1,590)
(N=1,590)
(N=1,590)

49

(N=1,590)
(n=774)
(n=573)

51

(n=584)
(n=677)
(n=233)

53

Appendix XIII: Ad-Supported Limitations and Revenue
Recovery (Spotify Revenues in Spain)

Ad-supported users were limited to five plays of an individual track, and ten hours of ad-
funded streaming per month (Pope, 2015).

Figures XXIX – XXX: Spotify Revenues in Spain (I) – (II)

Source: (Pope, 2015)
Source: (Pope, 2015)

54

Appendix XIV: Sweden: The First Mature Streaming Market
Figures XXXI – XXXII: The First Mature Streaming Market (I) – (II)
Source: (IFPI 2015b; as cited by Ingham, 2015d)
Source: (IFPI 2015b; as cited by Ingham, 2015d)

Dissertation FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Dissertation FINAL

Similar to Dissertation FINAL (20)

Dissertation FINAL