There is a new post on the eMusic blog that provides a significant update about eMusic's current direction. It's longish, so it's worth reading there. eMusic describes the loss of labels as "temporary", and that they have plans for growth and new features that they will introduce in "a matter of weeks".
Despite our best efforts to keep
our catalog intact, we’ve suffered some temporary label losses. The
eMusic business model has not been immune to pressures from the
competitive world of free streaming and music videos. The recent label
losses are evidence of the difficulties we face in supporting preferred
Member pricing, growing membership in a competitive market, and
maintaining a robust music catalog.
Though these losses are painful to us
and our loyal members, we’re constantly exploring options to provide
added value, expand our catalog, restore desired labels and grow our
membership. These efforts have spanned technology improvements, new
plans and offers for new customers, and a steep reduction in
organizational costs. To name a few:
We’ve completely replaced a failing ecommerce platform.
We’ve greatly reduced overhead and operating expenses.
We’ve introduced free cloud services to help Members manage their collections and bring more value overall to the service.
We’ve
introduced a flexible Open Access plan that enables Members to buy as
much or as little music as they want from month to month.
We’ve also pursued new investment opportunities to help us grow in membership.
Despite our progress since relaunching
eMusic, we know there’s more that needs to be done. We believe that
what we and the industry needs right now is a much bigger innovation –
one that will allow us to carry through on our mission to deliver a
music service for collectors that value music ownership and supporting
their favorite artists.
We have a plan and a path forward (and
its not streaming). We have the backing for a new direction that will
enable us to add artists and restore labels to the store, and introduce
new music technologies that don’t exist anywhere today. In fact, in a
matter of weeks, we’ll be ready to share details about a new eMusic
marketplace we’re developing that will help us to bring back lost
content, expand our catalog, and enable our fans to interact with and
support their favorite artists in a whole new way. Plus, we will
continue to enhance eMusic’s core functionality, making it your go-to
player, collection manager, and retail store.
We look forward to sharing more information soon with our supportive and loyal customers.
My guess starts with the obvious, which is that they can't survive solely on grandfathered plans and booster sales, all of which lead to album prices in the $3-4 dollar range. At that price point, they either get crushed on margins, or the labels get paid 1/3 of what they get elsewhere. Neither is a winning proposition long term. The problem is that if they end the grandfathered plans, they probably experience a mass exodus. So my best guess of their "new marketplace" is that is incremental in one or more of the following ways:
1. Labels return, but at a higher price point and possibly not eligible for booster discount (this would imply some tiered credit system, which would be different than what they offer now, where "credit" is uniformly applied to all purchases).
2. New releases are priced differently than back catalogue, and gradually drop in price as time passes. If you want it on the release date, you pay more. If you are content waiting 3 months, you get it cheaper. Indie labels consistently find that sales drop off pretty sharply after a short period of time, so discounts aren't so bad if you are selling back catalogue.
3. They add some type of label or artists subscription option, similar to what is offered sometimes on Bandcamp. This could actually be win-win for a discounter like eMusic, because the consumer gets the new releases but commits to buy either back catalogue or all content on a label. This seems particular useful for "niche" genres that don't move huge volumes.
4. A tie-in with some other service or platform (could be a merger, or could just be a partnership). ArtistShare and the like come to mind, but could be others. They sort of hinted at some type of outside partnership (or may I just inferred too much from their statement). Heck, even Soundcloud has one foot in the grave financially, so who knows what kind of deals might be in discussion.
5. A more aggressive move towards paying a monthly fee for the right to buy music at a discount. This is a subtle shift away from the pre-purchased credit model, but could give them more flexibility in bringing in labels at differing price points and being able to pay more competitve rates to labels despite offering some degree of discount. I would not be surprised to see FLAC or other lossless format enter the picture, too.
6. Unbundling the storage/app fees to create some upsell opportunity for users wishing to use their cloud storage/backup features and their app. They seem to be investing a fair amount in both, so finding a way to monetize it - even if just a couple bucks per month - might help them close the gap in terms of offering discounted music and still paying enough to keep labels interested.
Number 5 on the list above is my suggestion. When I left eMusic, that was one of the main offers to me.. You pay £4.99 per month, or Dollars or Euros, and for that you get access to their reduced prices. The advantage for eMusic is that you have a guaranteed income each month not reliant on purchases. I don't think it is a model used elsewhere in the music industry, but happy to be corrected! I really cannot see the grandfathered plans continue - I was in effect paying 20p per track, but some boosters put that down to nearer 17p per track. That surely is not sustainable. I was paying exactly the same 10 plus years ago when I joined them. As soulcoal suggests there could be differential pricing, with variable discounts, perhaps over time. HMV, in the UK, will generally sell a CD at £9.99 for the first three months, but it will soon drop to £5.99.
I like many of those items on the @soulcoal list. One of them actually touches upon the very first thought that occurred to me when I read the eMusic announcement... an Amie Street sort of sliding progression of pricing. Except that I like Soulcoal's variation... where the price goes down over time as new becomes back catalog.
Another thought that came to me... adding a subscription model not unlike the old Drip service... where you pay a certain amount per month and get a certain amount per month. I would imagine that a plan like that wouldn't be a month-to-month thing, but lock a plan in for a year (or something like that). Basically, you'd pay an annual amount (broken out into monthly payments) that allowed you to do something like get a new release some number of times per year and a back catalog a number of times per year, and maybe also some sort of My Music streaming option for all back catalog (stream, not downloadable) for the year, and for maybe a certain number of listening hours.
The other thought that came to me was that it would try to merge in a wider platform of services... like incorporating a Reverbnation one-stop platform... where you can see tour schedules and videos and contact the band, etc.
The thing of it is, Amie St and Drip and Reverbnation all went out of business (or might as well do so), so adopting one of those models isn't an ideal direction to take.
Also, since they've been stripping themselves of personnel and overhead, then taking on a big project like that isn't something they'd be able to tackle, y'know? I mean, if they don't currently have the time or resources to get their existing catalog indexed so people can find and purchase it, there's no way they'll have the resources to do anything like that. In the absence of some huge inflow of investment that allows them to hire the people and resources needed to take some huge new step in some huge new direction, they're going to keep it simple. It's not gonna be something new... it's gonna be reshuffling the deck chairs to make it look like an entirely different boating experience.
My guess (and this definitely is not fully thought out) is they have new subscription models. You'll have different sub models and you can mix and match them as much as you want. There will be a label-based one like the Drip example I gave above. There's a genre-option (ie, the "I love Jazz" sub) that lets you purchase a certain amount of albums per month from that genre tag. And there's some sort of options that allow purchases across genres and labels, etc.
And I think it will be a per-album purchase measurement. It won't be based on a cash balance. It'll be more like having a certain number of downloads like back in the day, but it won't be track-download totals, but album download totals.
They'll justify doing that by way of those surveys they put out that had everyone saying they like to purchase albums, not tracks. And I think by framing this album-only/per-album download movement as some sort of sea change in how you buy music, that'll give them cover to do away with all existing accounts and basically say, hey, we're starting over from scratch... here's your new account options. Of greatest importance to eMusic, this is how they'll get rid of all the grandfathered accounts.
Because while I doubt they're done cutting costs, they're probably also looking for all kinds of ways to increase revenues, too. I imagine that every one of their weekly staff meetings, there's a moment where a silence settles in over the room, some dude at the head of the table clutches a revenue projection report with one hand while the other hand props up his head, and he gives out a deep sigh and says, "If only there was a way to get rid of these damn grandfathered plans."
Anyways, that's my guess. I completely understand if you now feel the compulsion to place bets with your local bookie that my prediction is going to be 100% accurate.
The word "marketplace" makes me wonder whether they have any aspirations in a bandcamp-like direction of letting labels have more individual control over how they sell their albums.
In addition to fixing their revenue model (whether by any number of means discussed herein or otherwise), I think there are two other big issues they have the opportunity to address, both of which could add new value for artists and labels:
1) There is a need to create reason to own music, particularly digital music. Vinyl, and even cassettes, have had somewhat of a resurgence because they offer something tangible that streaming cannot. But in the digital world, there is very little reason to own a CD anymore (which, aside from some small-sized packaging, contains no better bits than a digital FLAC or sometimes even high quality MP3 version). And the reason to "own" digital copies is arguably even less when unlimited streaming of unlimited catalogue and offline capabilities exist. So I would like to see someone - eMusic or otherwise - create new value here. I think @jonahpwll touches on this point with his reference to tour info, contacting artists, etc. ArtistShare has also done a good job of this on a small scale (scores, subscriber-only videos, etc.), but there is definitely room for innovation. It is worth noting that both Amazon and Apple have begun to DISCOURAGE digital music sales (mainly be raising prices) because they want to push everyone into their more lucrative (for them, not the labels!) streaming platforms.
2) There is a woeful lack of community building within genres, particularly smaller genres like jazz, blues, world, even classical or hip-hop (basically anything that isn't Top Forty or Pitchfork-mini-major indie territory. Blogs like Bird is the Worm, All About Jazz, etc. do more for less than any of the music platforms. Bandcamp is far and away the best of the platforms at building community, but even in their case there are huge opportunities to improve. Most (all?) of the existing music mine user data for various purposes, but few (any?) provide that info back to the labels or artists to help them build audience. This is another area where eMusic could innovate and provide significant value beyond just the dollars and cents of royalties.
See also I guess Bandcamp’s regular “merch table” posts. Bandcamp seems to know how to deal with the streaming world; they allow streaming, carry a lot of stuff not on the big streaming markets, and have limitless possibilities for marketing any kind of physical merchandise the artist can imagine...
Just back from a holiday in Madeira, and we discovered who buys all those Restaurant Jazz albums available at eMusic! If there are any Restaurant Brazilian Jazz albums, that was the most common type (given the Portuguese heritage no surprise there)
Just a comment on the ongoing nonsense that passes for a website known as eMu - couple of days ago I purchased a Jim Campilongo album from last year I was surprised to find I hadn't purchased yet - according to the eMu page. Surprise, all right, I had purchased it. I will say they have issued me a credit after my complaint but just for everyone's knowledge I reproduce a pertinent and depressing sentence from their reply - "It appears that purchases from the previous version of the eMusic website has yet to reflect on our system." How long has it been now? Not to mention someone needs to work on their grammar. Onward and downwards. Oh, and I see Joe Bonamassa's label, J&R Adventures, is missing in action now - I just bought the new Beth Hart/Bonamassa album a week or two ago. And, this morning's going through my 3 page Wish List has shown that at least a quarter of them are not present, and this is a list that has only been started since the retool, so these have been added since then. It's a massacre.
Maybe regions take time into account too. Everything might be available at least somewhere at some point in time. I give them permission to advertise based on that. “Now selling all major labels (at some point in the past or future)”.
It's like a digital automat! Sometimes you just gotta wait for the apple, danish and candy bar pass by before you're able to buy that slice of chocolate cake.
Comments
Despite our best efforts to keep our catalog intact, we’ve suffered some temporary label losses. The eMusic business model has not been immune to pressures from the competitive world of free streaming and music videos. The recent label losses are evidence of the difficulties we face in supporting preferred Member pricing, growing membership in a competitive market, and maintaining a robust music catalog.
Though these losses are painful to us and our loyal members, we’re constantly exploring options to provide added value, expand our catalog, restore desired labels and grow our membership. These efforts have spanned technology improvements, new plans and offers for new customers, and a steep reduction in organizational costs. To name a few:
Despite our progress since relaunching eMusic, we know there’s more that needs to be done. We believe that what we and the industry needs right now is a much bigger innovation – one that will allow us to carry through on our mission to deliver a music service for collectors that value music ownership and supporting their favorite artists.
We have a plan and a path forward (and its not streaming). We have the backing for a new direction that will enable us to add artists and restore labels to the store, and introduce new music technologies that don’t exist anywhere today. In fact, in a matter of weeks, we’ll be ready to share details about a new eMusic marketplace we’re developing that will help us to bring back lost content, expand our catalog, and enable our fans to interact with and support their favorite artists in a whole new way. Plus, we will continue to enhance eMusic’s core functionality, making it your go-to player, collection manager, and retail store.
We look forward to sharing more information soon with our supportive and loyal customers.
1. Labels return, but at a higher price point and possibly not eligible for booster discount (this would imply some tiered credit system, which would be different than what they offer now, where "credit" is uniformly applied to all purchases).
2. New releases are priced differently than back catalogue, and gradually drop in price as time passes. If you want it on the release date, you pay more. If you are content waiting 3 months, you get it cheaper. Indie labels consistently find that sales drop off pretty sharply after a short period of time, so discounts aren't so bad if you are selling back catalogue.
3. They add some type of label or artists subscription option, similar to what is offered sometimes on Bandcamp. This could actually be win-win for a discounter like eMusic, because the consumer gets the new releases but commits to buy either back catalogue or all content on a label. This seems particular useful for "niche" genres that don't move huge volumes.
4. A tie-in with some other service or platform (could be a merger, or could just be a partnership). ArtistShare and the like come to mind, but could be others. They sort of hinted at some type of outside partnership (or may I just inferred too much from their statement). Heck, even Soundcloud has one foot in the grave financially, so who knows what kind of deals might be in discussion.
5. A more aggressive move towards paying a monthly fee for the right to buy music at a discount. This is a subtle shift away from the pre-purchased credit model, but could give them more flexibility in bringing in labels at differing price points and being able to pay more competitve rates to labels despite offering some degree of discount. I would not be surprised to see FLAC or other lossless format enter the picture, too.
6. Unbundling the storage/app fees to create some upsell opportunity for users wishing to use their cloud storage/backup features and their app. They seem to be investing a fair amount in both, so finding a way to monetize it - even if just a couple bucks per month - might help them close the gap in terms of offering discounted music and still paying enough to keep labels interested.
Another thought that came to me... adding a subscription model not unlike the old Drip service... where you pay a certain amount per month and get a certain amount per month. I would imagine that a plan like that wouldn't be a month-to-month thing, but lock a plan in for a year (or something like that). Basically, you'd pay an annual amount (broken out into monthly payments) that allowed you to do something like get a new release some number of times per year and a back catalog a number of times per year, and maybe also some sort of My Music streaming option for all back catalog (stream, not downloadable) for the year, and for maybe a certain number of listening hours.
The other thought that came to me was that it would try to merge in a wider platform of services... like incorporating a Reverbnation one-stop platform... where you can see tour schedules and videos and contact the band, etc.
The thing of it is, Amie St and Drip and Reverbnation all went out of business (or might as well do so), so adopting one of those models isn't an ideal direction to take.
Also, since they've been stripping themselves of personnel and overhead, then taking on a big project like that isn't something they'd be able to tackle, y'know? I mean, if they don't currently have the time or resources to get their existing catalog indexed so people can find and purchase it, there's no way they'll have the resources to do anything like that. In the absence of some huge inflow of investment that allows them to hire the people and resources needed to take some huge new step in some huge new direction, they're going to keep it simple. It's not gonna be something new... it's gonna be reshuffling the deck chairs to make it look like an entirely different boating experience.
My guess (and this definitely is not fully thought out) is they have new subscription models. You'll have different sub models and you can mix and match them as much as you want. There will be a label-based one like the Drip example I gave above. There's a genre-option (ie, the "I love Jazz" sub) that lets you purchase a certain amount of albums per month from that genre tag. And there's some sort of options that allow purchases across genres and labels, etc.
And I think it will be a per-album purchase measurement. It won't be based on a cash balance. It'll be more like having a certain number of downloads like back in the day, but it won't be track-download totals, but album download totals.
They'll justify doing that by way of those surveys they put out that had everyone saying they like to purchase albums, not tracks. And I think by framing this album-only/per-album download movement as some sort of sea change in how you buy music, that'll give them cover to do away with all existing accounts and basically say, hey, we're starting over from scratch... here's your new account options. Of greatest importance to eMusic, this is how they'll get rid of all the grandfathered accounts.
Because while I doubt they're done cutting costs, they're probably also looking for all kinds of ways to increase revenues, too. I imagine that every one of their weekly staff meetings, there's a moment where a silence settles in over the room, some dude at the head of the table clutches a revenue projection report with one hand while the other hand props up his head, and he gives out a deep sigh and says, "If only there was a way to get rid of these damn grandfathered plans."
Anyways, that's my guess. I completely understand if you now feel the compulsion to place bets with your local bookie that my prediction is going to be 100% accurate.
1) There is a need to create reason to own music, particularly digital music. Vinyl, and even cassettes, have had somewhat of a resurgence because they offer something tangible that streaming cannot. But in the digital world, there is very little reason to own a CD anymore (which, aside from some small-sized packaging, contains no better bits than a digital FLAC or sometimes even high quality MP3 version). And the reason to "own" digital copies is arguably even less when unlimited streaming of unlimited catalogue and offline capabilities exist. So I would like to see someone - eMusic or otherwise - create new value here. I think @jonahpwll touches on this point with his reference to tour info, contacting artists, etc. ArtistShare has also done a good job of this on a small scale (scores, subscriber-only videos, etc.), but there is definitely room for innovation. It is worth noting that both Amazon and Apple have begun to DISCOURAGE digital music sales (mainly be raising prices) because they want to push everyone into their more lucrative (for them, not the labels!) streaming platforms.
2) There is a woeful lack of community building within genres, particularly smaller genres like jazz, blues, world, even classical or hip-hop (basically anything that isn't Top Forty or Pitchfork-mini-major indie territory. Blogs like Bird is the Worm, All About Jazz, etc. do more for less than any of the music platforms. Bandcamp is far and away the best of the platforms at building community, but even in their case there are huge opportunities to improve. Most (all?) of the existing music mine user data for various purposes, but few (any?) provide that info back to the labels or artists to help them build audience. This is another area where eMusic could innovate and provide significant value beyond just the dollars and cents of royalties.
I have it. One word: Bitcoin
See also I guess Bandcamp’s regular “merch table” posts. Bandcamp seems to know how to deal with the streaming world; they allow streaming, carry a lot of stuff not on the big streaming markets, and have limitless possibilities for marketing any kind of physical merchandise the artist can imagine...
http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/emusic.com.html#
And, this morning's going through my 3 page Wish List has shown that at least a quarter of them are not present, and this is a list that has only been started since the retool, so these have been added since then. It's a massacre.
Sorry, That Album Does Not Exist