Latitude

This post is part 3 of a 3-post series:

Part 1 – “Reznor vs. Radiohead: Sing-Alongs From That Place Between Business Models”

Part 2 – “Riding the Free Waves: the Most Audacious Experiment in Years (or, a Naive Approach)”

Premium Content & Services: An Artist’s Suggestions

When it comes to monetizing music, Radiohead (accusably, “one of the most future-proof brands around”) seems to think guerrilla warfare the best way (for them) to go.

Instead, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails is searching for novel, more standardized, models for generating revenue–which place the power (and revenue) in the hands of the artists. (For an overview of the current discussion and industry trends, see our first post).

Alongside access to digital content, the music industry has begun to accept the unchangeable nature of the “Free” bird, and is placing more emphasis around premium content and services.

In a Digg Dialogg interview, Trent Reznor hinted at collaboration with other artists on a project to challenge the existing and too-slowly developing models put forth by major record labels (realistically, he didn’t seem too concerned that they’d overtake him). Here are some crucial features to build in, as Reznor sees things:

“Let’s say that the major labels got to a point where they were willing to come up with a subscription model that would allow you to download anything you want, anytime you want, and maybe some broadband component that pumps it streaming to whatever you want as well– and it’s X amount per month, and it’s a reasonable fee, and they’re willing to figure out a way to split those revenues–

That could render what I’m doing obsolete… because it would be the thing you’d want to get. And we’d have to inevitably go in along with it, because we don’t want a Nine Inch Nails subscription model and then a rest-of-the-world subscription model.

Trent Reznor, Digg Dialogg

Mobile & Music Streaming

We’re particularly interested in the notion of streaming cached personal libraries or playlists (with more user control than recommendations-based Pandora or Last.fm); interviewing users who are highly engaged with music in the digital realm, Latitude found that accessibility and interoperability across personal devices were consistently prioritized features. The ability to access exponentially more tracks than one could ever actually store on his iPhone locally, with complete control, undoubtedly appeals to the masses.

A number of services are beginning to offer iPhone applications that address this need, but don’t allow users to access music from their portable devices when they’re not connected to the Internet– most notably, Rhapsody (which works in tandem with a $14.99/mo Rhapsody-To-Go subscription).

Even better than Rhapsody is Swiss-hailing competitor Spotify’s premium iPhone service:

Unlike many other iPhone music apps, Spotify’s iPhone service offers users the ability to select tracks and listen to them in an offline playlist. The ability to cache files is a huge asset to those who commute to work without a wireless connection.

ReadWriteWeb’s, “Spotify iPhone App Approved Thanks to the FCC”

Grooveshark, which allows users to “Play any song in the world, for free!” will, supposedly, also be releasing an iPhone app with the ability to cache files for offline play as a premium service offering. (Grooveshark’s current iPhone app doesn’t allow for offline play).

Accessing Media That I Own: Thanks, But Not Necessary

Spotify and Grooveshark have hit some bumps, but advancements in apps will continue to be made “assuming Apple doesn’t get all fussy and block it.”

In 2008, there were rumors of Apple adding an “iTunes Unlimited” feature for MobileMe users. No go, yet. But it’s no wonder Apple isn’t too keen on approving apps that improve music accessibility, whether working around, or leaving out the iTunes component entirely. You can, however, get ZumoDrive (cloud storage) for your iPhone, though.

It’d be nice to access one’s entire music library from a device with limited local storage space, but given evolving notions of ownership–one may not need, or care to, in the future. If I have continuous access to any song, from any of my devices, what’s the value of actually owning the file, whatever that means?

Reznor’s Vision: Word-of-Mouth and Premium Accessibility?

Continuous accessibility to an unlimited library constitutes the value add for services like Rhapsody.

But being able to share is an increasingly important feature of ownership and marketing (one that hasn’t always transferred well from physical to digital information goods). Although high on accessibility features for the premium subscriber, comprehensive services, such as Rhapsody, don’t build in much sharing functionality (because I don’t “own” the files), and other applications haven’t seemed to address sharing to or across multiple users’ mobile devices.

In the past, Reznor had strongly encouraged giving away DRM-free files–viewing word-of-mouth, visibility via fan-to-fan recommendations, and database-building (free content in exchange for contact information) as artist takeaways. (Not to mention, the secondary effects of increased ticket and merchandise sales, as well as physical album sales bundled with special tracks.)

With rising expectations for the interoperability of personal media and sharing in the digital age, throwing “added accessibility” onto the list of potential, exclusively premium offerings, invites the catch-22 of crippling other users’ accessibility (and sharing opportunities).

The cost in word-of-mouth which feeds other revenue streams is difficult to determine. What Reznor describes in his Digg Dialogg sounds an awful lot like a number of emerging premium services (except you could, supposedly, download unlimited songs on Reznor’s subscription-based model). It’ll be interesting to see how an artist–and a proponent of “free” music, for the purposes of sharing–finds a viable compromise.

Header image courtesy of joyzee_x’s flickr, (cc) some rights reserved.