https://on.wsj.com/32jk1Iq

The people on Spotify are much more active listeners.

The debate has been about money when it should always be about reach, have enough reach and there’s plenty of money. In other words, the public has spoken, if you love music, if you just can’t get enough of it, you’re on Spotify. Never mind that Spotify is the company that continues to push the envelope, never mind this week’s car device, how about the extra playlists generated based on your listening history…far superior to Discover Weekly and Release Radar, and the other companies haven’t even touched those.

So, Apple pays a penny a stream!

But that’s just because there are fewer streams. Apple is for the casual listener, subscribing to the service because they trust Apple, and are scared of laying down their credit card for Spotify. Also, Apple has a great reputation that it just works, and that pays dividends, i.e. signups here.

But the stealth operator is Amazon, which released opaque numbers today. But bottom line, with Amazon it’s all about the bundle. Apple is trying this, but failing, it’s just not enough of a discount. It is with News, but the further bundles of all their services…they don’t incentivize anybody to upgrade, you’ve got to give me more off.

So Amazon sells you Amazon Prime, which every Amazon customer must have, for the two day delivery, its cost is a no-brainer, and it comes with all that video for free, and it comes with hobbled music for free. And, got to give Amazon credit for offering a higher res music option, which Spotify says it’s going to provide, but it hasn’t happened yet. In other words, you’d pay for Prime even if nothing else came attached, but you get so much more! Furthermore, Prime also sells so many other streaming platforms… Many people sign up for Disney+ and HBO Max and other channels via Amazon platforms, and therefore Amazon gets even more revenue, read this article: 

“How Amazon Strong-Arms Partners Using Its Power Across Multiple Businesses – A heavyweight in retail, cloud computing, digital advertising, streaming and smart speakers, the tech giant compels vendors in one market to engage with it in others”: https://on.wsj.com/3tlF9tv

Yes, this article is behind a paywall, but just like you’re paying for TV, you’ll find you’ll have to pay for news. Did you see Reuters just went behind a paywall? This is the evolution of the internet…everything for free? Fuggetaboutit!

Meanwhile, knowing margins are so low on music, and the business doesn’t scale, Spotify has diversified to stay alive, podcasts and more, and they’re winning here too!

“Spotify podcast listener numbers will surpass Apple’s this year”: https://bit.ly/3wXyBUh

Apple had a first mover advantage and squandered it. Apple didn’t need podcasts, Spotify does, amazing what hunger will have you do.

So, instead of bitching about Spotify, you should be embracing it. The war has been fought, Biden’s bringing home the soldiers from Afghanistan, can’t you understand that physical and files are dead? (Don’t e-mail me about the de minimis numbers of vinyl or the declining numbers at the iTunes Store, that’s the definition of an ostrich, someone whose head is so buried in the sand that they can’t see the overall picture.)

Spotify can’t increase payments, IT CAN’T! If it does, it will go out of business. But try explaining math to a musician, never mind the inane reporters in mainstream publications who eat up and spew out this crap. And in the Apple letter the company says:

“Like others, we have looked at alternative royalty models. Our analysis has shown that they would result in a limited redistribution of royalties with a varied impact to artists. Per play rates would cease to be the same for every play of a song. But more importantly, the changes would not increase what all creators earn from streaming. Instead, these changes would shift royalties towards a small number of labels while providing less transparency to creators everywhere.”

Every study says this. I’m not against trying it, and maybe Apple doesn’t want to pay for the infrastructure, but Deezer has…but the major labels won’t allow them to try it, because the greedy labels hate change when in this case their partner says payments to them will actually go up!

So if you tie up with Apple, get on their homepage, the results will be less, whoever embraces your music will embrace it less. (Of course there are active users on Apple Music, but I’m speaking generally, you get it…or maybe you don’t.)

Also, Spotify has its free tier, which killed piracy overnight (10% of the people will never pay, but that same 10% never bought physical either…you know, these were the people who needed to borrow your records to tape.) Free dilutes overall payments, because the rate to rights holders is lower. As is the rate on Pandora and other streaming radio platforms, as opposed to on demand. But you can’t teach the truth to someone categorically against it. Hell, what are the odds people can understand how streaming works when they won’t even get a Covid-19 vaccine. Yes, I’m so right I’m going to DIE rather than accept the truth!

You’re better off getting a lower rate for more listens on Spotify. Because more listens means you have more dedicated fans, and they are what support your career, not those who come for the hit and then disappear. Active, not passive users, never forget it.

And if you’re bitching about the per stream rate…you’re probably not making that much to begin with, because if you’ve got hundreds of millions of streams, you’re making serious dough.

Also, Spotify has said that the rich are not getting richer on its platform. That the overall share of streams/revenue to top artists has been declining! But rather than acknowledge that and have a sliver of hope, people on the bottom can’t stop bitching that instead of their royalty payment being $10, it should be $12. Come on, it doesn’t make a difference, $2 won’t even buy you a cup of coffee!

As for all those articles saying so and so artist can’t survive in music… They wouldn’t have had a career at all in the old system, they wouldn’t have even been able to participate! But, this generation believes everybody should get a trophy, everybody should win. And the boomers hate change, they keep yearning for the past, many are now adopting streaming, but they’re the last on board. They’d prefer to play their favorite CDs, when the truth is both of my computers and my car stereo are CD player free.

So on paper it looks like the one cent per play at Apple Music is superior to the payment at Spotify, but it’s not.

Data and transparency are the ethos of the era. I applaud Apple for releasing this information. But please, you must read it all in context, as opposed to applying the Steve Jobs reality distortion field.

And, you must applaud the huge numbers of streaming subscribers, it’s good for music, it’s good for acts. You can reach people all over the world for almost nothing. If you start a fire, people can feel the heat and go to their platform of choice and immediately listen to your music. And never forget, the recording is just the beginning.

It’s hard, I know. But the smarter, the more educated you are, the better you play the game, only losers sit around bitching about streaming payments that they don’t fully understand anyway!

https://bit.ly/2RKRzNP

“Valley of Tears” was too violent for Felice. But I recommend it, it’s an Israeli series on HBO Max about the 1973 war, incredibly well done, not that I’ve finished it yet, I’m six episodes in, and when Felice dropped out I switched to my iPad and it just didn’t have the same effect, it needed the big screen, making me wonder how people’s perceptions of visual entertainment are affected by the screen they use. This is not about theatre versus home, that ship has sailed, it’s about getting a 65″ screen that is state of the art or…watching on an old TV. As for movies… If I see one more VOD movie reviewed in the New York or Los Angeles “Times” I’m gonna puke! Do you know how much I’m paying for cable/internet/streaming? Do you really think I want to pay another ten or twenty bucks to see some film? The truth is today I can live without ANYTHING! Other than food and water and shelter, I’ve got no necessary needs. I can miss anything. But purveyors don’t seem to realize this. Put up an extra payment, on your film, on your music, on your newsletter, and I’m out. Do you know how much I subscribe to that I rarely read/watch? I’m not lacking for input, I’m not bored, if anything I wish I had three lives, one to work, one to read and one to watch television, there’s just that much out there and I have just that much desire. The papers should be reviewing TV shows, not movies, but the news is always one step behind, even in its own business of journalism.

So checking my list for a new show, I came across “Undercover” on Netflix. It’s a Belgian/Dutch series. Yes, you can watch it dubbed, but please turn on the subtitles. It turns out that the flatlands of Belgium are a hotbed of ecstasy production, the world’s number one, who knew? And Ferry and his compatriots are ecstasy dealers and…

Now we are not familiar with the actors. But having said that, they perform so well that I believe that’s who they are. This is not the casting of America where first we consider your looks and your fame, the people look like those you encounter in real life. And Bob and Kim are cops who move into a trailer park to snare the bad guys and… They believe in their jobs. They’ll sacrifice anything for their jobs. And Kim refuses to take a back seat, she’s innovative, she tests the limits.

Most people are not passionate about their jobs, no matter how much money they make. It’s about the money. Especially if you’re in banking…I mean who cares? But in order for life to be fulfilling, you need something to live for. In this case, catching the bad guys, which is very hard to do.

And the bad guys are not dumb. Trust is truly off the table. Ferry knows not to go too big, because then attention is drawn. And just like with the Mafia, once you’re in you can’t get out, cross Ferry and cronies at your peril. And even if you’re innocent, they might still believe you’re guilty.

But what makes the show so inviting is the mood. This is not the fast and flat cinematography of typical TV movies, never mind regular shows, the images are rich, they feel real, you’ve been there, to a camping site where it’s not always sunny, but you accept it. And where everybody is not always rich. And it all doesn’t look like “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,” because you don’t want to draw attention to yourself if you’re rich. Trump never got this memo, he was skating on his tax shenanigans, now he’s probably going up the river. The nouveau riche think it’s about totems, showing off, those with real money, who’ve been in the game for a while, are low key.

So, what does it take to make friends? Can you read a room? Know when to talk and when not to? Danielle can’t, and therefore she’s rejected and lonely, ready for Kim/Anouk’s entreaties. As for Bob/Peter…he’s actually not as skilled as Kim in infiltration, but he’s the one who has to snare Ferry. As for Ferry… He’s played by Frank Lammers, and he’s so good, if this was an American show he’d win an Emmy or a Golden Globe or whatever phony award they’re giving out this week. The truth is these criminals rarely look like an Adonis, like they’re out of a fashion spread. Ferry is far from classically beautiful, and he’s got a beer gut, but he can be intimate and off-putting, he shows the range of all emotions while calculating all the while and…

The hits just keep on coming. Some literal, some figurative, the plot keeps moving forward, and the cops don’t always win! In real life it doesn’t always go the cops’ way, and the truth is to be a really successful criminal you’ve got to be very savvy, not a hothead, you’ve got to learn from experience, and keep your eyes open at all times.

“Undercover” is akin to “The Sopranos,” but without all the family interactions that made that series the best of all time. But when it comes to the crime, the interaction, that’s similar. But Tony and his gang are part of a family, Ferry’s organization is independent, and much smaller. And the cops are savvy, but they’ve got to catch him in the act…you can know someone is guilty, but proving it can be very difficult.

So if you’ve watched the biggies…”Spiral,” “The Bureau,” “Borgen,” “Prisoners of War”…and you’re looking for another intense drama, I highly recommend “Undercover.” You’ll want to watch it. That’s the criterion, all day do you think about when you’ll be able to park your butt and watch, if not…it’s not a hit. And you feel like you truly know these characters, who are far from one-dimensional, they are not cardboard cutouts, they are patently three-dimensional and real.

As usual, I don’t want to tell you plot details, I don’t want to ruin it, I want you to be constantly surprised, thinking you’ve got it figured out, but you don’t.

I’d say they could remake “Undercover” as an American show, but there’s no need, the original is just a click away on Netflix. And if they did redo it, they’d get famous actors who would overshadow the roles, I’ve never seen a movie with Meryl Streep where I didn’t see Meryl Streep. A few U.S. actors can transcend their real life identity, but not many. Maybe because we make them into stars, when the truth is in other countries there’s less money to be made and acting is seen more as a profession.

As is viewing.

We live in an incomprehensible world. All day long we deal with incoming. Even worse, we never feel like we’re caught up. We end alienated, disconnected, wondering where we fit in. But when I watch “Undercover” I realize life is really just about your little world, and that most people, no matter how rich, are not instantly recognizable and don’t live a life of perks 24/7. We’re all the same under the skin. But what profession do we pursue? You don’t need an education to be a criminal, but to succeed you’ve got to be really damn smart. Ferry is sharp, but he’s not the Professor in “Money Heist,” he’s got a violent streak and he runs on feel, on instinct, which can be right, but can also be wrong. Ferry is taking it day by day, just like you and me. As for Bob and Kim? Their lives are their jobs, but they think their jobs have meaning. Do they? I’ll let you decide.

Slava Rubin was a cofounder and CEO of crowdfunding platform Indiegogo and in addition to being a founder and managing partner of investment firm humbition, he is now executive chairman of Vincent Alternative Investments, check it out: www.withvincent.com We discuss Slava’s history, but we also go deep into alternative investments, i.e. NFTs and other assets you can purchase all or just a slice of. If you want to know all about cutting edge investments, this is the place!

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast/id1316200737

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/The-Bob-Lefsetz-Podcast

How small do you want to be?

No one, and I mean NO ONE, has ever grown a larger audience as a result of a crowdfunding campaign or presence on Patreon, it’s just a way to milk your already existing fans for more money. And it’s fine if you like the cash, but don’t delude yourself into thinking your impact is growing, in fact it’s declining.

Same deal with Substack, all the hoopla about charging for newsletters. There are fewer than one hand’s worth that reach as many…as even I do. Yet, they get all this press. They have an inherently limited audience, and if it’s about the message, which it should be, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. As with the freemium model.

Come on, Jay Z did an album with Samsung, he got paid, but the exclusive meant most of the public never heard it and it went straight into the dumper. In a world where your goal is to have impact and power, why would you put up a wall? And if you’re focusing on business model first, you’ve forgotten the law of all the startups of the past twenty years… They focused on excellence, building an audience, and then they figured out how to monetize. If it’s just about money, why don’t you open a hardware store… Oops, scratch that, you can’t compete with the big boxes, but there are a hell of a lot easier ways to make bank than as an artist. And no matter what Gene Simmons says, there’s not an artist alive whose deepest desire is not to reach more people, it always supersedes money, ALWAYS!

Everything’s upside down, and most people have no perspective. The arts are about POWER! Sure, there are a handful of performers making good money, but nowhere near as much as the techies or the bankers, and most artists’ commercial peaks are short, their revenue goes down, then again there’s no barrier to entry, anybody can do it, but that brings out the worst, try listening to the millions of Spotify tracks with fewer than ten plays, you’ll shoot yourself!

Meanwhile, Patreon is run by Jack Conte, who used to be half of Pomplamoose. He’s now telling creators to do what he couldn’t, i.e. make money from his art, even though Pomplamoose was actually pretty good, and very innovative with its marketing. If you want to make money, follow Jack’s lead, get out of the creative sphere completely, sell tools! Kinda like those people selling shovels and tents during the gold rushes, they’re the ones who made all the money.

And why even put forth the illusion there’s any value to what you’re doing. OnlyFans is much better than Patreon, just put up nude pictures. And you’d be stunned how many women are doing this, they’re all over Reddit and other social media platforms trolling for bucks. And the truth is almost none of them are making money, it’s a buyers market. So, Patreon really only works if you’ve already got an audience, and now your plan is to limit it, because Patreon’s model is you provide exclusive content, and once it’s no longer freely available…

As for all the writers leaving publications for Substack… Did you notice that Ezra Klein left Vox for the “New York Times”? Ezra started Vox, but it just didn’t work, he was at a major paper previously, the “Washington Post,” and now he’s gone back. Same deal with Kara Swisher, she started her own company Recode with old “Wall Street Journal” friends and then jumped to the “Times,” where she has much more impact.

In a Tower of Babel world, you want to be on the platform with the most impact. Which is why all the holdouts eventually went on the iTunes Store and then Spotify. Why limit your audience?

Sure, there are a few stars. But they’re very few. Andrew Sullivan was going it alone and had a limited audience, then he went to “New York” and had a guaranteed income and reached many more. Sure, he was fired from “New York” for his views, but now he’s got an independent newsletter and I ask you…other than reading how much money he is making doing it, has anybody talked about his content recently? No!

Do you know how hard it is to reach people these days, to build an audience, NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE! Conte left Pomplamoose to build Patreon, and his other half in life and music, Nataly Dawn, continued making music under her own name…to crickets! People knew Pomplamoose, not Nataly Dawn, she was almost starting all over!

If you’re not paying attention, right now there’s a fight over the future and soul of newspapers. Does “Tribune” sell to Alden, which maintains its margins until extinction, i.e. cuts costs, i.e. reporters and more, until there’s nothing left and then they throw it away, or do you sell to someone who wants to maintain the newsroom, hopefully invest money in head count. The “Washington Post” was in a slide to irrelevance and then Jeff Bezos came along and bought it and invested money in it and it is now solidly in the big three, i.e. the “Times,” the “Wall Street Journal” and itself. Meanwhile, have you been reading about the “Journal”? Behind a paywall with aged readers it is sliding into irrelevance, so they commissioned a study talking about changes necessary to interest the younger generation and women and what did the publisher do…IGNORE IT! https://nyti.ms/3uO4ahi  God, we saw this in the music business, if you think the ball doesn’t move, hopefully you’ve got enough money to retire, because you’re gonna be gone soon.

You want to be on the platform with the most eyeballs. The “Times” heavily promotes its podcasts. What do you know, listenership is high, the “Daily” is almost always in the top five. That’s the power of the platform. And speaking of the platform, Nate Silver decamped from the “Times” to his own site, which ESPN/ABC/Disney is trying to sell, but no one will pony up the bucks, and now he’s barely relevant, never mind miscalling election after election.

There was a time when you went independent and built… BUT THAT WAS ALMOST TWENTY YEARS AGO! Now you want to be with the platform, to give you a leg up, to give you visibility.

As for charging, limiting your audience… I make much more money than I did when I charged. Because of forwardability! There’s no friction online, if you like something, you send it on, and that leads to more subscribers and further opportunities for me! And I make more money than just about all the people selling their newsletters, as their revenue goes down, because old customers fall off and new customer acquisition is so damn expensive. But since the people writing about Substack, etc., are in the news business, writing for these publications, they can’t see the forest for the trees, they’re just wondering whether there’s money for them. 

Come on, Jim Fusilli was the music critic for the “Wall Street Journal” forever, I haven’t seen his name in years since he left the paper. The platform has the power, not him! Same deal with radio and streaming platforms, radio can survive quite well without Morgan Wallen, these platforms don’t need any act, they survive and thrive anyway.

Never forget, it’s not about the crumbs. If you’re going for the crumbs, you’re thinking too small, and to make it as an artist you’ve got to think big, VERY BIG! You’ve got to go for the whole enchilada, not just a bite. And you have to maximize your options. Come on, rappers put out free mixtapes, gave it away for free on Soundcloud, and now hip-hop dominates streaming platforms. Rock is a joke, rockers are still demonizing streaming. If someone moves your cheese you go where it went, otherwise you STARVE!

Turns out most people chronicling the game have not idea what it is, never mind how it’s played. At best they’ve been trained in their vertical. But if you hang with the truly powerful, who are oftentimes rich, it’s a better lesson than any college class ever, because they can see the entire landscape, they’re two steps ahead of the other insiders, and so far ahead of the hoi polloi that they’re ultimately unreachable. If I write about anybody in the world, ANYBODY, they read it. They might not like it, they might not ever read anything I write ever again, but they know who I am and they’re aware of my message, never mind those who like my message and spread it further. Could any of this happen if I went behind a paywall…OF COURSE NOT!

Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. If you’re not willing to starve in pursuit of all the marbles, stop right now, you’re doing it wrong. Sure, you can survive on the crumbs of gigs at local performance spaces and in hospitals, if you like it, more power to you, but never ever confuse yourself with the people dominating the conversation. Dream of being big enough to become a platform yourself, while you’re tying in with other platforms, making your wares easily accessible to all.

Kinda like Spotify. Turns out the old people making it before the internet… Most people don’t want to listen to their music, they want to hear that of the stars, not those propped up by the labels who never hit. But the oldsters can’t accept their fate, refuse to reinvent themselves, meanwhile the young wankers glom on to their legion of complaints, and the powerful become more powerful.

Distribution is king, NEVER EVER FORGET IT! You never want to limit your distribution, NEVER EVER! So go behind a paywall at your peril.