Do the numbers add up for Tidal?

[realhifi]

Realistic article on Tidal and its place in today's marketplace. As much or more about staying relevant as it is about money.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/can-kanye-west-rihanna-taylor-swift-stick-with-tidal-175756470.html

[orgel]

Thanks for the link. Don't know that I see things the same way as the writer does, but an interesting article nonetheless.

 

--David

[TPiddy]

Interesting read - thanks for posting.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[new_media]

I emailed Tidal customer service on Tuesday and still haven't gotten a reply. Are they always this slow? Do they have a phone number?

[Melvin]

I emailed Tidal customer service on Tuesday and still haven't gotten a reply. Are they always this slow? Do they have a phone number?

 

Well, I recently cancelled my service and sent an email stating my reasons (Kanye West). Surprisingly, I got a response the same day.

 

Thanks for the link David.

[Musicophile]

Good article thanks for sharing.

 

What is scary, but probably realistic, is that the article only focuses on the exclusive artist relationship but doesn't even discuss at all whether the fact of having potentially superior sound quality could matter, which makes it very clear that the author thinks it doesn't.

[firedog]

Since we don't know the numbers, it's hard to come to any conclusion. If they really have jumped to 2 million or more subscribers, they are doing pretty well, since all are paying something.

 

I think it is partially a question of what the goal is: to stay in for the long haul and grow the business; or to make a big killing quick. Are they willing to break even or make a small profit in order to setup for bigger profits down the road?

 

There was another report this week that Samsung representatives sat down with Jay-Z to make an offer for Tidal. If he's in it for the quick buck, they can probably make him an offer he can't refuse.

[master]

Thanks for the link. Don't know that I see things the same way as the writer does, but an interesting article nonetheless.

 

--David

 

+1, the writer does seem biased.

 

But 2.5 million subs x $10 is a cool $25 million a month and unless 99% of that is going for royalties there is no way they should be making a loss.

 

Same goes for Spotify with more than 20 million paying subscribers, but all we hear is how they are bleeding each quarter.

 

Makes you wonder where all the money is going?

 

With online services the actual costs come down a lot. No more physical manufacture of media, no dealers and distributors, no sales networks, no physical stores, staff and salaries, etc.

 

All they should be paying for is the the hosting fees, online security, marketing, and of course staff and programmer salaries to keep the site, network stream, apps, etc. running.

 

Wonder why no profits still? In the case of Spotify its probably the studios taking most of the cut.

 

But coming from a marketing perspective, I still don't see how those numbers don't add up to a tidy profit.

[trappy]

I recently settled on Tidal after the demise of Rdio. The lossless streaming was too good to resist. But while I like the interface, and find goodies that I haven't found elsewhere, there are some peculiar gaps (only about 2/3 of Wire's albums for instance.) I also sorely miss the social media aspects that I very much enjoyed on Rdio and Spotify. I seriously hope they develop that side; I had a great ecosystem of people on Rdio, that was getting better the longer we were on it.

[krk4201]

+1, the writer does seem biased.

 

But 2.5 million subs x $10 is a cool $25 million a month and unless 99% of that is going for royalties there is no way they should be making a loss.

 

Same goes for Spotify with more than 20 million paying subscribers, but all we hear is how they are bleeding each quarter.

 

Makes you wonder where all the money is going?

 

With online services the actual costs come down a lot. No more physical manufacture of media, no dealers and distributors, no sales networks, no physical stores, staff and salaries, etc.

 

All they should be paying for is the the hosting fees, online security, marketing, and of course staff and programmer salaries to keep the site, network stream, apps, etc. running.

 

Wonder why no profits still? In the case of Spotify its probably the studios taking most of the cut.

 

But coming from a marketing perspective, I still don't see how those numbers don't add up to a tidy profit.

 

Here is where the money goes according to Spotify.

 

We pay out nearly 70% of our total revenue to rights holders. We retain approximately 30%:

 

Take 70% off the top and then pay for the stuff you mention above i can easily see how losses could be incurred.

[master]

Here is where the money goes according to Spotify.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24461[/ATTACH]

 

Take 70% off the top and then pay for the stuff you mention above i can easily see how losses could be incurred.

 

I read that about Spotify.

 

Seems for Tidal though the owners should be making some nice profits... especially Jay-Z, who is also a record producer, owner of the label/studio, etc.

 

And the studios too are making a pretty profit and without too much work. If they put it in some effort into marketing, improving the quality from MP3 and AAC, they'd stand to make a lot more profits without having to actually sell anything physical.

[lmitche]

Based on this report, Tidal was a good investment, has a healthy business and leading technology. The tech edge will be increased with MQA, assuming the deal can be closed. Combine that all, and they have a big edge on the competition, especially with leading artists endorsing the idea that SQ matters, not just distribution.

 

I wonder how much of the bad press originates from Apple, the company that has the most to lose if Tidal succeeds. Perhaps Apple is pursuing MQA as well?