在线音乐行业为什么混战不休

    如果创新就意味着大笔赔钱，那在线音乐服务业显然明白怎么像个摇滚明星似的大把烧钱。

    对这个圈子里的少数几家顶级企业如流媒体音乐服务提供商Spotify和Pandora来说，用户使用率和收入增长率是实实在在的，比如日前Pandora的财报就声称已经实现了收支平衡。但运营的成本到底如何呢？很多情况下，尚不清楚用户增加之后利润是否也会同步增长。每过几年就会兴起一种新服务，吸引用户，但随后就会碰到和以前的服务一样的成本问题：和版权所有人的合作条件。唱片公司、音乐出版商、以及一些崭露头角的音乐人往往会绕开传统音乐版权的行规选择单飞，比如现在自己做老板的泰勒•史薇芙特（Taylor Swift，美国乡村音乐女歌手——译注），他们都希望、并且需要从流媒体或音乐下载中分一杯羹，而这种做法既能促成交易，也能毁了交易。

    谈到这个行业性问题，音乐网站MP3tunes.com的首席执行官兼创始人迈克•罗宾逊写道：“在大多数行业里，如果供应商提出了无理要求，零售商就可以去找其他供应商。但因为版权法赋予了唱片公司和音乐出版商政府许可的垄断权，并不存在这种选择。因此数字音乐零售商只有两条路可走：要么接受合作条件，要么在货品清单里清除这些歌曲。”

    盈利能力问题

    据《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal ）报道，从2010年到2011年，Spotify的营收增长了140%，达到2.36亿美元，付费订阅用户达到400万人，注册用户为3,300万（其中多数人使用的是Facebook上的免费含广告版）。2010年，Spotify的营收还只有9,900万美元。不过，一些分析师和行业观察家关注的是亏损率这一数字。2010年，Spotify亏损5,700美元，比2009年的亏损额4,200万美元高出不少。与之相似，今年第二财季Pandora为了购买内容支付了6,050万美元，也就是付给音乐行业的版税，而去年同期该费用仅为3,370万美元。

    行业咨询公司Digital Cowboys的分析师大卫•库萨克称：“目前（线上音乐业）仍处于相对早期的发展阶段，线上音乐只占市场整体的一小部分（人们仍然在购买CD）。目前还没有真正成熟可行的商业模式……别忘了，发现并分享新音乐最大的线上来源仍然是YouTube。”

    眼下，在线听音乐、分享音乐已经方便到了极点，或者说已经到了各家快打破头的局面。只要用手指一划，或是点点鼠标，就能轻松享受各式各样的服务：依托于于算法、电台风格的（Pandora）；社交分享流媒体式的（Spotify）；下载到苹果独家设备的（iTunes），以及几乎其他所有设备都会采用的、由亚马逊（Amazon）和谷歌（Google）提供的下载保存在云端的服务。还有那些规模较小、提供流媒体和订阅服务的企业：Rhapsody（它没能搭上社交媒体这艘大船），Slacker, Rdio, MOG及其他不计其数的公司。此外，还得算上赤裸裸的盗版行为。

    实际上，在线音乐产业现在共有两种商业模式：广告模式——库萨克认为这种模式会随着规模扩大而导致亏损加剧；还有就是订阅模式，这是他认为长期来看更可行的模式。

    而使问题进一步复杂化的症结是音乐产业所特有的特点：太多彼此独立又相互竞争的利益方都在争夺这块大蛋糕上属于自己的那一份。唱片公司、音乐出版商以及音乐人自己（这个群体争夺的劲头要小得多）都有一套对他们自己有利的条件，其中包括最惠国待遇，最低付款额，单曲价格，公司总收入所占百分比，还有就是最让人抓狂的、详尽阐述竞争格局的报告。

    库萨克称：“要就全球性合作来谈条件真是困难异常。这个行业的人习惯的情况是，存储格式变了，营收就随之而来，从唱片到8轨软片，从盒式磁带到CD，营收总是水到渠成地跟着而来。但自从MP3出现以后，他们习惯的这一幕就消失了……”

    If disruption means losing money, then online music services know how to spend like rock stars.

    Adoption and revenue growth rates at a few top players like Spotify and Pandora are real -- Pandora (P) reported earnings yesterday, breaking even -- but what are the costs to play? It's still unclear in many cases if audience growth will translate to profit.

    Every few years a new service rises up, captures audiences but then has the same cost-centric problems as every one that has come before: negotiating terms with rights holders. Music labels, music publishers, and in some cases, emerging artists who circumvent traditional music property conventions by going it alone -- think self-managed Taylor Swift -- all want or need a stake in streams or downloads, and that can make or break a deal.

    "With most other businesses, if a supplier makes unreasonable demands, a retailer can turn to other providers," wrote Michael Robertson, CEO and founder of MP3tunes.com, about the problems with the industry. "Since copyright law gives record labels and publishers a government-granted monopoly, no such option is possible with music. Digital vendors have only two options: Accept the terms or not include those songs in their offering."

    The profitability problem

    From 2010 to 2011, Spotify grew revenues 140 percent to $236 million with a paid-subscription base of 4 million users and a total of 33 million registered users (most of whom use the free ad-supported version via Facebook), the Wall Street Journal reported. Spotify revenue grew from $99 million in 2010. However, the number some analysts and industry watchers are looking at is the rate of loss. In 2010, Spotify lost $57 million, which was an increase from 2009's $42 million in losses. Similarly, Pandora, paid $60.5 million in the second quarter this year for content acquisition --royalties to the music industry -- a number up from $33.7 million in the same period last year.

    "It's still relatively early days," said David Kusek of industry consultancy Digital Cowboys. "Online music is a still a small percentage of the overall market (CDs still being consumed). There really is no perfected business model yet. .. Remember, the largest online source for discovery of new music and sharing is still YouTube."

    Listening and sharing music online couldn't be more convenient or crowded. Options are easily found at the swipe of a finger or click of a mouse: the algorithm, radio-style option (Pandora); a social-sharing streaming strategy (Spotify); the download model to Apple-only devices (iTunes) and the download, keep in-the-cloud options from Amazon and Google on almost every other device. Then there are the smaller streaming and subscription players: Rhapsody (who has missed the social boat so far), Slacker, Rdio, MOG and more. Or, there is straight-up piracy.

    There are essentially two business models for online music right now: advertising--a losing model with scale, says Kusek, or subscription, which he thinks has more viability long term.

    What complicates the issue further is unique to the music industry: Too many separate, competing interests fighting for a piece of the pie. Music labels, music publishers, and artists themselves (to a much lesser extent) all have certain terms in their favor including most favored nation, minimum payments, per-play costs, percent of total company revenue, and one of the most head-scratching, detailed reporting of the competition.

    "Negotiating deals on a global scale is extremely hard," said Kusek. " What you used to have was revenue following format changes: From vinyl to 8 track to cassette to CD, the revenue always followed. That didn't happen with MP3s exactly… "