Jay-Z launched his music-streaming service, Tidal, less than a month ago. The launch was epic in its craziness and obliviousness of how pretentious everyone looked. Like, Jay-Z, Madonna, Kanye West, Jack White and many more signed some kind of Tidal Manifesto and stood proud of their accomplishment of charging more money for basically the same (if not a substandard) music-streaming product. Well, in the past few weeks, everything has gone to hell. No one likes Tidal, the app isn’t popular at all, Jay-Z is getting terrible press and even Jay’s BFF Kanye has distanced himself from Tidal (Kanye deleted his pro-Tidal tweets).
So what did Jay-Z do? Something he rarely does: he tried to explain himself. He went on a “stream of consciousness” Twitter rant. I’m not going to embed all of the tweets (there are so many), so if you want to see them all, go here. He kept using the hashtag #TidalFacts throughout, but here’s the bulk of Jay-Z’s defense, compiled into two paragraphs:
“Tidal is doing just fine. We have over 770,000 subs. We have been in business less than one month. The iTunes Store wasn’t built in a day. It took Spotify 9 years to be successful… We are here for the long haul. Please give us a chance to grow & get better. There are many big companies that are spending millions on a smear campaign. We are not anti-anyone, we are pro-artist & fan. We made Tidal for fans. We have more than just music. We have video, exclusive concerts, tickets for events early, live sports!…
“Tidal is where artists can give their fans more without the middlemen. Indie artists who want to work directly w/ us keep 100% of their music. “If you don’t want the CEOs all in the videos” haa. Tidal pays 75% royalty rate to ALL artists, writers and producers – not just the founding members on stage. Rich getting richer? Equity values… YouTube $390 billion. Apple $760 billion. Spotify $8 billion. Tidal $60 million. My cousin just moved to Nigeria to discover new talent. Tidal is a global company. We have Tidal X – it supports artists by giving them a platform to connect with their most loyal fans. Tidal is for all. Our actions will speak louder than words. We made Tidal to bring people the best experiences… and to help artists give that to their fans over and over again… We are human (even Daft Punk ha). We aren’t perfect – but we are determined.
Two things. One, it sounds like Jay is genuinely worried that he made a terrible investment and that the whole thing is blowing up in his face and he won’t be able to sell Tidal for a tidy profit. Two, I like the idea of Tidal more now that he’s explained his mission statement this way, rather than with the awkward, bonkers, celebrity-filled stage in which they all had to sign the Tidal Manifesto or whatever.
Oh, and is there a “smear campaign” against Tidal? I don’t really think there is. I think people were genuinely put off by the launch, but a lot of people still gave Tidal a chance and the sad fact is that people just dislike the app/service.
Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.
Even the Titanic was thought to be unsinkable.
The problem for Jay Z is that many of the “subscribers” have signed out for the free trial – noone knows if they will actually pay money.
Also there has been a lot of negtive publicity around the fact that in Britain Tidal is charging £20 – which is $30 per month rather than $20 in USA so people are feeling gouged
Well, we just see the front end (what it costs to us). But, as he explains it, he was trying to do something on the back end, so the artists — especially the independent ones – get more exposure and more money in their pockets. It sounds like a novel idea. The problem is – as many people downthread have said – the artists’ profits is not of concern to the buying public. We want new music for cheap. Why pay tidal $20 when you can get other services for half that amount? So he needs to go back to the drawing board on that one, as the one thing that really matters to the buying public is price.
Get some good new music nobody else has. Demonstrate empowerment of niche artists. Get good feedback from users. Get good feedback from new and niche artists from different countries.
Then, Jay-Z, we can talk.
And in the meantime music fans will use soundcloud and band camp for niche and new artists.
Sound cloud? Because thats exactly what indie artists need, to have to pay subscriptions so that I can listen to their music for free. Peoples entitlement to free/cheap commodity is off the scale. I’m sure he’ll work out the bugs, refine the marketting strategy with time. The idea as far as I am concerned is perfect. I WANT to put as much of the money I pay in the pockets of the people who actually entertained me, not greedy and now unnecessary distributors. And that applies to both wealthy and struggling acts. I pay for what they brought.into my life, I couldnt care less if the act is already a billionaire.
I love Soundcloud!
@chichi: unless something has changed, soundcloud is free for artists to upload anything. There is a paid tier but I don’t think many people use it. I don’t, so I can’t say what it’s like. SC isn’t perfect, but it is a good tool for artists and fans. While there are a few freebies on SC, it’s best for discovering artists (at least the way I use it). If I like something, I buy it outright from Amazon. Spotify and Amazon prime both offer free music listening services too.
And speaking of entitlement; no way JZ and company are all that interested in helping the little guy. Sorry don’t buy that and never will. But there’s a good question: what does it cost an artist to get on sou dcloud AND have the service give their music a fair chance? That’d be interesting to know.
Exactly. My current faves (Sleaford Mods) have been busily ragging on Tidal in their usual expletive-ridden but hilarious way.
Agreed. Especially if you are going to charge more than the current competition without giving the consumer anything better to make up for the cost.
Am I evil if I am actually somewhat enjoying watching this fail? (Please don’t say yes…..)
I’m evil too. 😉
Probably the ‘smear campaign’ against Tidal and Jay Z is about as true-to-life as the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ that is trying to take down Hillary Clinton.
It’s hard to start a new business – any new business – and there are a lot of bumps along the way.
Claiming that there is a ‘smear campaign’ just because his new business is not going well makes Jay Z look amateurish and paranoid.
This man agrees:
http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_AndrewD/tin-foil-hat.jpg
Yep. Smear campaign.
All those points don’t mean Jack. And all the “other stuff” are ads for things like Kanye tour t shirts from 2008. I don’t want live sports in my music and I’m not sure who does. It’s not doing well because its not a good service. So unless they overhaul it, it’s just not as good as the rest.
The Daft Punk joke inserted was classic. Way to bring some humour Jay.
“One, it sounds like Jay is genuinely worried that he made a terrible investment and that the whole thing is blowing up in his face and he won’t be able to sell Tidal for a tidy profit.”
Because I hear Jay- Z is really hurting for money.
As far as a “smear campaign”…? It’s like he can’t live unless he over-dramatizes every aspect of this business, even when he’s defending it.
He doesn’t want to admit that he was actually the best spokesperson for Spotify. He blew their numbers up.
Schadenfreude 😉
I think Kaiser made a valid point when saying he is genuinely worried about having made a bad investment. There is nothing that will bother a wealthy person more than losing a chunk of their wealth. Believe me – this would absolutely be a problem for him, or at least his ego.
OK, I STILL don’t like how ugly Tidal looks and how it’s like $20 but I do like the idea better now that he’s explained in detail. I didn’t watch their little “Celebs on Stage ASPCA” launch, but I get the feeling all this other stuff wasn’t really mentioned.
Jay offered an inferior product at a higher cost. It was not going to do well. And he made the huge mistake of trotting out a bunch of million/billionaires and asking us to feel sorry for how little money they’re making.
For once, being Jay Z didn’t help his business venture.
Considering that streaming is going to be the future of music I think the Tidal endeavour makes sense and is actually helping artists and music creatives as producers and songwriters to get their fair share. The mistake was the marketing campaign which clearly should have been focused on how indie artists would profit instead of already well established superstars. I find disingenous how people know that artists should get paid for their work but want music for free. Even after articles on articles of how Spotify doesn’t compensate artists fairly I still see people complaining for the creation of a streaming service that pays creatives 75 % and try to avoid the middlemen who gain money on the back of the artists.
Thanks Jay. The real issue is the label and what cut is taken there. That’s why artists have had to tour more to recoup what is not gained through releases. Charging more for streaming doesn’t give the artist a larger cut from the release, but places the loss at the onset, and subsequent mark-up, squarely on the consumer. If you want to be fair to both artists and fans, then start a label and give the signed artists a hefty cut. Don’t try to make up the difference by hoodwinking the consumer.
But it’s 10 $ a month like Spotify (20 $ for the hi-fi version) and I’m not even a fan of Jay-Z I just don’t understand why people expect their favourite artists to be paid less for streaming.
ops double comment
That’s if you opt out of the free ad version. Look, I’m all for people being compensated for their work, but I also look critically at motivation and the end user. There is a way to give artists more of their due, but then they would incur a heavier cost/overhead at the start, creating an independent label. If you look at economics, in general, most wages have remained stagnant, for most people, except for the very top of the 1%. I realize he changed his tune, now, this being about advancing new artists, but the point is that he is adding the cost at the end, where there are alternatives which exist, that consider the consumer’s wants/needs, too. As to the higher quality it isn’t working in all scenarios where people listen to music on the run. There is too much wait for downloads and buffering and that TOO interferes with listening pleasure.
It’s a flop, everyone knows it’s a flop, whining about it won’t change anything.
If he doesn’t think that 60 million dollars is a lot of money, or that he’s already rich and this could potentially make him more, he’s seriously out of touch with a lot more than just marketing and music streaming.
It’s also funny that he says: “Tidal is doing just fine. We have over 770,000 subs. We have been in business less than one month. The iTunes Store wasn’t built in a day. It took Spotify 9 years to be successful… We are here for the long haul. Please give us a chance to grow & get better.”
Meaning, don’t compare us with the already established streaming services. But goes on to say: “Rich getting richer? Equity values… YouTube $390 billion. Apple $760 billion. Spotify $8 billion. Tidal $60 million.” Aka, comparing Tidal to established (streaming) services.
We’ll see what happens, but from what I’ve heard, it’s not that great and there isn’t much exclusive content or anything really new to discover at this point (I don’t know first hand because I don’t really care). While it does seem expensive and he seems disingenuous with his intentions, I don’t have a dog in this fight – I’m more of a movie person than a music person; I’m just here for the gossip and to see how it works out.
I wish I had so much money that I would think $60million isn’t a lot
Jay Z’s biggest mistake was starting and working on this business from an artist’s POV rather than a consumer POV.
I’m sympathetic to those artists who are smaller and struggling but it’s called ‘indie’ for a reason. The truth is technology makes life better for the consumer and typically harder for everyone else. Hardly anyone buys a full album anymore because they don’t have to. Entities like ITunes gave people the ability to purchase that one song without purchasing albums that had 3-4 hits with 6-7 filler songs. Studios and executives weren’t exactly innocent in that. Many of them padded their client’s good songs with filler filled albums to make sure they made their buck on all of it.
As soon as things like Spotfiy came along what happened to ITunes? Profits went DOWN. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. New advancements in technology create new expectations. For those struggling artists the reality is they may never reach outside their ‘indie’ audience because the majority who already isn’t paying for their music isn’t going to be interested enough to suddenly pay even more. That’s not their fanbase and that’s just a simple truth.
I’m absolutely sympathetic but art, all forms, never really guaranteed financial sustainability. Culture changed and individuals who would have bee begging on the street centuries ago now have the ability to be multi-millionaires, but that still doesn’t change the reality that unless it’s a life’s necessity that there’s no real way for indie artists to get that automatic spotlight and proper compensation. They’re young and struggling so their fanbase is small and probably more loyal so they’re contributing what they can. To the average individual who considers their song something they enjoy hearing on the radio once or twice paying $20 to support that person or band may never happen.
Jay Z wants us to sympathize with artists who are multimillionaires while offering ‘exclusive content’ like playlists by editors from Vanity Fair. Of course the consumer isn’t impressed. You may only be able to afford one private jet Jay Z unless you can find some Magic way of making people actually want to give you more money for the same quality of product.
“Jay Z’s biggest mistake was starting and working on this business from an artist’s POV rather than a consumer POV.” this plus a million.
His business model seems to be “I want more money, therefore you should give it to me”
I wouldn’t pay for Tidal when I already have a radio, you tube, and a million cds.
Yeah me too. I dont even have Spotify, I have one app for music, TuneIn, and that’s what I usuallly listen at work.
I wouldn’t pay for Tidal either. There are literally dozens of websites and apps where you can listen to free music.
Exactly.
Really? No ones gonna comment on the, “My cousin went to Nigeria” line?
Because that gave me shades of the, “I’m a Nigerian prince” email, lol.
I understood what Jay Z was saying but it just made me snort. Also does no one else thinks it’s hilarious he writes EXACTLY how he speaks? “We’re human, even Daft Punk, (haha)” POL.
lmao!
I think the biggest issue isn’t tidal itself but how it was marketed and launched. It needs to pull away from that vibe and go for its niche audience. People who genuinely spend lots of money on music, sound systems and concerts/performances. If you want just a few songs here and there – Tidal isn’t for you. Its the high-end of music services.
Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie said it best – Jay had an opportunity to put indie artists and up and comers who are struggling to make a living in music on that stage and that would have endeared this to the public. But instead, he trotted out one private-jet owner after another to plead poverty and make total fools of their pretentious selves. He blew his chance for this to be taken seriously. And always remember, when you get right down to it, people love their money way more than they love their favorite songs. You can download any song for free on you tube, you always have to go out and make more money.
Doesn’t Jay-Z own a record label? Rocafella? So if the problem is that labels take too much of the cut then he can sign artists to his label and give them a higher cut. He gets top talent and promotes his stated objective. Unless he’s being disingenuous and his real goal is that streaming is a big industry and he’d like a piece of that action. And no shame in that, but if that’s the case, please don’t come at me like some humanitarian.
Also I wonder why they didn’t do a launch concert and feature new music from artists who have ride or die stans and then have those established artists introduce new indie artists who are exclusively streaming on Tidal. Jay can promote artists off his label, show Tidal to be a service for those who are artist-focused, and still promote music from the established big players. For instance, Rihanna drops a new single at the launch concert. All her fans go nuts and are watching. Them Rihanna introduces some new artist off of Jay’s label. “If you like me, here’s [New Artist]!” New Artist goes out and theoretically kills it. Jay comes out an announces that New Artist is exclusively on Tidal along with other exciting new talent that you should know about.
Really Tidal’s big problem is that they don’t have any market advantage. They’re not first to market, their product isn’t substantially different in the way that people feel the need for it, and it’s focused on what the consumer can do for the company and not the other way around. A mentor of mine has often said to me “In business people will almost always do what’s in their own best interest. The trick is to figure out what that is.” A big part if the problem is that Jay-Z didn’t think of how he could make this product fit the best interests of his intended market and they responded exactly the way an unexcited market is supposed to. They shrugged and walked away.
All Jay-Z has to do is reseach streaming music services and put what he has learned into his own investment (Tidal), and maybe it just might work.