My First-World outrage of the day! ClassicalRadio.com and JazzRadio.com are now both subscription-based services (they are part of the same streaming network) that, henceforth, will only offer a mere five randomly-chosen free stations per day. I'm furious! These are two of my favorite streaming services of all time! And now I am expected to pay for the privilege of picking my stations?! Never!
I'm kidding about my outrage, of course. I understand that music services have to pay the bills just like anyone else. And, honestly, the membership fee of $60 a year, one that unlocks all six music streaming stations - DI.FM, RadioTunes, ClassicalRadio.com, JazzRadio.com, RockRadio.com, and ZenRadio.com - that are part of Ari Shohat's music network, is not unreasonable; it comes out to $5 a month, which would make it one of the cheapest subscription services out there.
But it comes down to this: I really enjoy JazzRadio.com, but would I pay to listen to it?
Honestly, not really. The simple reason is that there are lots of other streaming venues for jazz, and even more such venues for classical music. Yes, the channel selection offered by both is nicely curated - some of the best jazz thematic stations are on JazzRadio.com - but is it worth $5/month for that curation? I just don't see myself paying that fee when I have free streaming services, such as AccuRadio, Spotify, and Pandora to name just two, offering similar music selections.
Of course, the days of those other services offering ad-supported free content might also be coming to an end, too. I, for one, have not enjoyed witnessing the now-defunct Google Play's Music app being rolled into Youtube Music. Again, what was once freely available is now requiring a subscription if you want to play music "in the background," (i.e., you can turn your screen off/minimize the app and still have it play). Let's be honest: this is an essential feature for a music player, yet now we are expected to pay for it. This penny-pitching tactic on the part of Google should not come as a complete surprise because for years now some financial analysts have been saying the prevailing free-with-ads business model of modern streaming music services was unsustainable for all but the largest services (such as Spotify) in an age of rising royalties. If Mr. Shohat's message on JazzRadio.com is taken at face value, it looks like COVID economic crunch might have rushed this financial reckoning along. As with our favorite television shows and movies, the music enthusiast better get ready to open his wallet to subscription-based stations as music streamers are forced to contend with rising royalty costs.
I am curious to see how this plays out. If Shohat is going to make this work, he needs to really up his game so that the inherent value for that membership fee outshines what is offered by free services such as Spotify, Pandora, and so on (or, I suppose, just survive until all music services entail some sort of subscription!). Merely offering the bog-standard benefits of no ads, (marginally) higher audio quality, etc. will not cut it, especially when dealing with genres benefitting from many free streamers offering similar fare. I probably shouldn't say this out loud, but the only thing that could get me to fork over some cash to Shohat is if JazzRadio.com affiliate DI.FM joins the content lockdown, which it probably will in the near future. DI.FM is a great source of electronic music in a relatively new and rapidly expanding music genre that doesn't have as many comprehensive streaming alternatives as jazz and classical currently enjoy (only the excellent SomaFM challenges their supremacy). With that in mind, I might be willing to pay to get access to the vast curated library that DI.FM owns. But with SomaFM being available, I probably would not rush to do so. Heck, I might be quicker to make a donation to SomaFM as a reward for never backtracking on their "listener-supported, commercial-free" pledge.
And I think that the last point is the problem Shohat is going to have. One of the oldest maxims in the business world is that you can't give something away for free, reconsider, and then expect your customers to happily pay you and remain your customers (short of a business enjoying a monopoly, that is). As much as I enjoyed using Shohat's streaming station, I am already removing the associated apps and migrating over to competing streaming services that remain free. Even though Shohat's alteration of his business model is completely understandable - it is preferable to the stations just shutting down - it still rankles.
I wish Shohat and his streaming services well. Heck, I could envision a scenario where I would pay that $60 annual fee at some future point (perhaps a monthly fee option would be wise as well as it would sting less?).*1 It's just that...well, I'm not rushing to do so, not when other streaming venues are still free. And that, sadly, is the sour note in Shohat's plan.
*1: After poking around the various websites, I discovered that they do offer a monthly option in addition to the yearly plan (be sure to click on the subdued "view all plans" button to find it!). However, the monthly plan costs $7.00 per month, something clearly designed to incentivize you to take the full-year subscription plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment