The music entrepreneur has accused critics of his new venture, Tidal, of having racist undertones but is he simply asking too much of consumers?
PERFORMING TO an intimate audience in his hometown of New York on May 13, Jay Z created the first of Tidal’s exclusive moments for the few lucky fans who got tickets through their membership with the rapper-turned-business mogul’s new venture.
Breaking away from his set list, the hip-hop star delivered a critical freestyle in which he accused competitors of spending millions on a smear campaign laced with racist undertones intent on ruining a black man’s effort to create and keep his own wealth.
“You bought nine iPhones and Steve Jobs is rich. Phil Knight is worth trillions, you still bought them kicks. Spotify is nine billion, they ain’t say sh*t," rapped the 44-year-old.
It was just two months ago (March 30) that Jay Z, born Shawn Carter, was joined on stage by 15 of the world’s leading music artists including Madonna, Rihanna, Coldplay’s Chris Martin and Kanye West, who gathered to sign a declaration which sent a clear signal that artists want to change the culture of how music is consumed.
“Tidal is an artist’s majority-owned company with a mission to re-establish the value of music and protect the sustainability of the music industry rooted in creativity and expression,” a section of the charter reads.
The question is, value for whom? For Carter, it meant a $56 million investment in Norwegian-based company Aspiro which first launched Tidal in 2014.
For the consumer, the value comes in the form of two subscription options: a £9.99 per month basic plan allowing users to stream music at standard definition with high-definition music videos, or a premium plan that streams music in a high-definition lossless format [a unique algorithm that compresses a file's size with no loss of quality] for £19.99 a month.
In a sit-down with LA-based radio station REAL 92.3, fellow mogul 50 cent criticised the business model. “The people that you saw [at the press conference] don’t even own the rights to their music.
They can’t say it’s just going to come out on Tidal – it has to go everywhere. So why would you actually buy Tidal to get something that would be everywhere else?”
Promising a catalogue of 25 million tracks, 75,000 high definition music videos and a superior audio quality, the service is marketed as a music connoisseur’s dream in the digital age.
Yet with all that it offers, it appears not everyone is sold on the concept of paying a premium monthly membership for what they can essentially get for free.
“We made Tidal for fans. We have more than just music. We have video, exclusive concert tickets for events…live sports!” said the usually reserved rapper in a stream of consciousness via his Twitter account.
The creation of Tidal ‘exclusive experiences’ as a selling point became particularly acute when Nicki Minaj and Beyoncè released the visuals for their summer anthem Feeling Myself on May 18.
EXCLUSIVE MOMENTS: Nicki Minaj and Beyoncé unveiled the music video for their summer anthem only on Tidal
Fans waiting for the video to appear on YouTube are more likely to see a rap battle featuring Theresa May and Harriet Harman representing their respective constituencies.
American author, economist, and social commentator Dr Boyce Watkins highlighted where he thinks Jay Z may have gone wrong.
“I think that going with an artist’s centre focus was not as effective as going with a consumer-driven focus,” he said. “You’ve got to tell me as a consumer why I am better off when I sign up for your service.”
Music journalist Kieran Yates told The Voice: “I think ownership and the importance of visibility of black-owned businesses is key to this, plus the idea that we [music lovers] may have to get used to paying for quality content.”
For Tidal detractors, particularly within the black community, there is no urgency to rally behind neither Carter nor any of the multi-millionaire artists he hauled on stage at the star-studded March event.
The service tumbled out of the App Store’s top 700 downloaded applications and currently doesn’t exist in a desktop form.
Priding itself on offering artists a higher return than any other streaming competitor including Spotify, the service seemingly benefits artists but consumers remain unable to stomach the concept of ‘making rich artists richer’.
“You need to make it about the people, people don’t care about the artist,” added Watkins.
Yates, however, said: “Even if you don’t agree with funding the life of rich and famous artists, it actually sends a powerful message about the need to financially get behind new businesses, creative projects, and rethink our natural aversion to paying for things we’ve gotten used to having for free.”
As the frontman, Carter appears to have spent an equal amount of time both defending and promoting Tidal.
Via Twitter, he responded: “Rich getting richer? Equity values…YouTube $390 billion. Apple $760 billion. Spotify $8 billion. Tidal $60 million. #TidalFacts.”
If anything is apparent, it is that in its early stages, Tidal seems to have over-estimated the morality of music consumers at a time where the market is saturated with free and easily accessible music.
The principle under which Tidal operates suggests that if you believe in an artist and have any desire to see them go far – you buy their music, pay for their concerts and should be ready to shell out £20 per month to ensure they are paid fairly every time you stream their music.
“I think we have to give it time,” concluded Watkins. “I think people initially overreacted by saying that Tidal was a failure or that it was a success.”
Time is all that the businessman has requested before judgements are made.
No comments:
Post a Comment