Independent musicians detail how Bandcamp is putting money in their pocket in a more meaningful way than Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube.
First, Spotify is gaining power over podcast distribution by forcing customers to use its app to listen to must-have content, by either buying production directly or striking exclusive deals, as it did with Rogan. This is a tying or bundling strategy. Once Spotify has a gatekeeping power over distribution, it can eliminate the open standard rival RSS, and control which podcasts get access to listeners. The final stage is monetization through data collection and ad targeting. Once Spotify has gatekeeping power over distribution and a large ad targeting business, it will also be able to control who can monetize podcasts, because advertisers will increasingly just want to hit specific audience members, as opposed to advertise on specific shows.
Not so long ago we stored our music in records, radio cassettes, discs and our MP3 players. We always carried our music with us. Today, There is no more need for that, we use streaming services. But what happens if you want to switch from one service to another, and move all your music from Spotify to Deezer? or when you find a great YouTube playlist but you want to listen to it in Spotify? or maybe you just want to upload your local MP3 library to your favorite streaming service? TuneMyMusic solves exactly that.
To create Discover Weekly, there are three main types of recommendation models that Spotify employs:
- Collaborative Filtering models (i.e. the ones that Last.fm originally used), which analyze both your behavior and others’ behaviors.
- Natural Language Processing (NLP) models, which analyze text.
- Audio models, which analyze the raw audio tracks themselves.
Swift’s deal is a perfect parable about how artists actually get paid: not by blindly ratcheting up copyright (giving artists more copyright just gives labels more power, since those new rights are non-negotiably acquired from the artists as a condition of doing business with the labels), but by increasing competition for artists’ services.
A Spotify playlist tailored to your DNA is the latest example of brands cashing in on people’s search for identity.
If this were simply about wearing kilts or liking Ed Sheeran, these ads could be dismissed as, well, ads. They’re just trying to sell stuff, shrug. But marketing campaigns for genetic-ancestry tests also tap into the idea that DNA is deterministic, that genetic differences are meaningful. They trade in the prestige of genomic science, making DNA out to be far more important in our cultural identities than it is, in order to sell more stuff.
DNA-testing companies are careful not to use racial categories in their tests, instead reporting breakdowns of specific regions around the world. And they say that their tests are meant to bring people together by highlighting shared ancestry and challenging the idea that people are “pure.” I don’t doubt that DNA tests have sparked meaningful explorations of family history for some people and filled in the blanks for others whose histories were lost to slavery and colonialism. I do doubt that a DNA test will solve racism.
It’s a nice message. But it elides history. Mixed ancestry does not necessarily mean a harmonious coexistence, past or future. African Americans have, on average, 24 percent European ancestry. To take a genetic-ancestry test is to confront a legacy of rape and slavery—perhaps to even recognize one’s own existence as the direct result of it. There is a way to use genetics and genealogy to uncover injustices and properly account for them. The 23andMe-sponsored podcast Spit, for instance, has featured some nuanced conversations about race. But it’s not through feel-good ads that paper over the past.
via Audrey Watters