Deezer Pros And Cons

Posted on by admin



Deezer Pros And Cons

By | Published on Wednesday 11 September 2019

Deezer has today formally backed the user-centric approach to distributing digital royalties. It has launched a consumer-facing website that explains what user-centric is all about and why it thinks it would be a fairer way of sharing out streaming income.

The global streaming firm has been quietly lobbying for a shift to user-centric for some time, but the new website sees it go much more public on the issue. At the same time, it is seeking to persuade labels and distributors in its home market of France to switch to user-centric next year.

Deezer is widely known for its superior audio quality, allowing users to stream hi-def CD-quality 1,411 kbps, 16/44.1 kHz music with the Elite subscription plan, which costs $14.99. Those who are fine with 320 kbps can buy the Premium subscription plan, which costs $9.99, or use the ad-supported Discovery plan for free. There has been plenty of debate in the music community in recent years about the pros and cons of shifting to a user-centric approach, especially since it became known that Deezer was both.

The streaming business model is, at its heart, a revenue-share-based-on-consumption-share model. And at the moment consumption share is calculated on a service-wide basis.

Each month – for each product type in each market – a streaming service calculates what percentage of total listening was of recordings controlled by any one label or distributor. It then allocates that percentage of its total income to said label or distributor, sharing that allocation according to its revenue share agreement.

So if one label’s catalogue accounts for 20% of overall listening, 20% of total revenues is allocated to that label. If the label has a 55/45 revenue share agreement to its advantage, the streaming service then pays 55% of that allocation to the label. Which then needs to split the money between all the tracks streamed and pay whatever royalties are due to each artist.

With the user-centric approach, the same process is employed, but for each individual subscriber. So instead of every users’ payments and plays going into one pot before the sums are done, each subscriber’s monthly payment would be split between the artists whose music they actually listened to.

The two approaches result in a different distribution of the monies mainly because, on any one platform, you have high-level users and low-level users, ie those who are streaming 24/7 versus those who stream for a few hours per week. To an extent, when it comes to royalty payments, the latter are subsidising the former. Which is to say, a chunk of the money paid by the low-level user is going to artists streamed by the high-level user.

Deezer’s new website championing user-centric royalty distribution attempts to illustrate the extent to which low-level users are subsidising high-level users, by allowing its premium subscribers to see how much of their monthly subscription fee is actually going to artists they listen to. The thinking is that most music fans would prefer – and possibly already assume – that money they put into the system goes to artists they actually listen to.

There has been plenty of debate in the music community in recent years about the pros and cons of shifting to a user-centric approach, especially since it became known that Deezer was both investigating and then championing such a shift.

Various people have been crunching the figures to ascertain what impact the shift would actually have on how all the money is shared out. Although different studies have reached slightly different conclusions, it does seem likely that user-centric royalty distribution would see top-level artists earn slightly less and lower level artists earn slightly more. User-centric would also likely benefit niche genres over mainstream genres, domestic repertoire over Anglo-American repertoire, and artists with older fanbases.

It wouldn’t make any difference to the streaming services, although it would mean that digital deals could no longer include per-play minimum guarantees, as they sometimes did, especially in the early days of streaming. And it probably wouldn’t make much difference to the bigger labels either, which – across their large catalogues – would likely see both the benefits and the downsides in a such a way that they would cancel each other out.

Many artists, songwriters and managers have argued that user-centric seems like a much fairer way to distribute streaming income, albeit usually with the proviso that they’d like to see more detailed figures as to what impact it would actually have.

Labels are more divided on the issue. And within the bigger labels there are differences of opinion across the group, because while the company at large might not really be affected one way or the other, individual units and departments could be winners or losers.

On its new website, Deezer identifies four main advantages of user-centric. Firstly, that it reduces “unfair revenue gaps that come from applying old ways of thinking to digital music”. Second, it would better “support local creators and niche genres”. Third it would promote “a diverse and vibrant music landscape”. And finally, it could help in fighting fraud.

The latter benefit of user-centric royalty distribution has become more newsworthy of late after revelations about how certain people have been scamming the system, not just to artificially boost the stats of any one artist, but to unfairly grab a slice of streaming monies.

Scammers create and upload their own catalogues of short tracks and then set up a stack of premium subscriptions that listen to that music 24/7. Under the current system they get back significantly more than the subscription monies they put in. But under user-centric, they could only ever get back their own subs, minus VAT and the streaming service’s cut.

Of course, there’ll be other scams, but that particular method of gaming of the system for profit would be ended by the user-centric approach.

Critics of user-centric usually lead with the argument “be careful what you wish for”, positing that there are more cons than people probably realise. Obviously, for starters, there is the fact that everyone – streaming services, distributors, labels, collecting societies etc – have set themselves up to calculate, administer and audit monies on a service-centric model.

What would the costs and implications be of shifting over to something new? Deezer argues that any challenges linked to switch-over will only increase as the streaming market continues to boom. Therefore, if the music community agrees it’s a fair way of doing business, better to make the switch now rather than later.

Plus, with industry-wide streaming monies still rising significantly each month at the moment, superstar artists who will take the hit under user-centric will still likely see their overall income go up, just not quite at the level it would under the current system.

There is also the downsize that, arguably, user-centric is slightly more complex than service-centric. And, as we know, digital licensing is already pretty damn complicated.

At the moment, although the idea of there being a per-play rate on any one streaming service is actually very misleading, you can make approximations in each market. So that, in the UK, a million streams is probably going to generate about £4000-£6000 across recording and song rights. With user-centric, what any one artist earns from a million streams will depend on the kind of fanbase they have – ie are they low-level or high-level streamers?

Realistically, Deezer can only switch to user-centric if the majors buy-in, and – as referenced above – it seems that opinion is currently divided within those companies. But there are an assortment of indie labels and distributors already backing the streaming firm’s proposal to shift to user-centric for recording royalties in France next year.

France, of course, is the one market where Deezer has enough market dominance to put pressure on its label partners. And the consumer-facing communications campaign launched today might increase that pressure because, if a sufficient number of fans understand and support user-centric, it becomes harder for the superstars and big corporates to oppose it.

If Deezer does manage to persuade the record companies in its home country to switch to user-centric next year, the industry at large will watch that pilot with interest.

Obviously, Deezer’s ambition is to roll it out into other countries, and to also apply it to the way music publishers and songwriters are paid. If it did then have the positive impact that has been suggested on grassroots artists and niche genres, then pressure might mount on Deezer’s rivals to look into shifting over to a user-centric approach too. Though there’s still plenty of big “ifs” there.

Announcing the launch of the company’s new website on all things user-centric this morning, Deezer’s Chief Content & Strategy Officer, Alexander Holland, said: “Streaming has been the main innovation driver in the music industry for many years now. Digital technologies and data make it easier than ever to make sure that all artists and content creations have a fair playing field”.

“A user-centric approach is the next logical step”, he added, “and would mean that fans directly support the acts they love. Getting rid of bot fraud is a welcome added bonus and would make sure that your subscription money goes where it’s supposed to – the acts you love”.

Deezer Pros And Cons

The new website is here.

DeezerREAD MORE ABOUT: Deezer

Deezer My Account

Not too long ago, the music industry was in crisis, and CD sales were plummeting because people had found a better way to listen to their favorite artists: peer-to-peer file sharing internet services. It took a long time for the industry to embrace the internet and accept that people want to listen to music on demand, on any device, and from everywhere (primarily through a music streaming service).

Today, legal music streaming services are seen as the saviors of the music industry, bringing record-breaking revenues to independent and major record labels alike. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is no exception in this regard.

In fact, the competition in the region is getting so fierce that it can be difficult to decide which music streaming service to use. In this article, we’ve rounded up three popular music streaming services in MENA to see what their pros and cons are. But there can be only one winner, and you’ll find out which service it is at the end of this article.

People in the music industry like to describe Anghami as “the best music-streaming service you’ve never heard of,” but that’s, of course, true only outside the MENA region, where it provides unlimited Arabic and international music to over 55 million users.

Anghami was launched in 2012 by Eddy Maroun and Elie Habib. The two founders realized that there was no legal alternative to peer-to-peer file sharing internet services in the MENA region, and they decided to do something about it.

“Here in the Middle East we didn’t have any decent streaming experiences. There were no legitimate places to get music digitally,” said co-founder of Anghami Eddy Maroun. “We had the idea that there is a need, a future, and a demand [for it]. We had to go first to find out if the labels would give us the music or not – or if there was someone else doing it or not.”

Anghami sees itself as the Spotify of the region, but it has a much better understanding of the region’s unique needs than most competing music streaming services. Anghami started with the largest local label in Middle East, Rotana Records, because it has the largest library of Arabic music. In addition to Rotana Records, Anghami also has a partnership with the Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), which holds the rights to talent shows’ music such as Arab Idol, X Factor, and The Voice.

Read Now:Anghami Review – The MENA’s Favorite Music Streaming Service

But Anghami has a lot more going for it than its attractive library of regional music. The service has made a huge impact with a feature called Video Expressions, which lets you create your own videos on top of music from Anghami. If the concept seems familiar to you, that’s probably because you’ve heard of TikTok, a short-video social platform developed by Chinese Internet technology company ByteDance. Video Expressions are just as engaging, and they’re baked right into Anghami.

Pros:

  • Offers a huge library of Arabic music.
  • Easy to use and almost free of bugs.
  • Many unique features that distinguish it from the competition.
  • Allows you to listen even without an internet connection.

Cons:

  • It would be nice to see more underground artists.

Anghami works on all major platforms, including Windows, Android, iOS, and the web. To unlock all features, such as lyrics, offline playback, and CarPlay & Android Auto support, you have to spend $4.99 per month or $44.99 per year for Anghami Plus.

With 14 million monthly active users, 53 million licensed tracks, and over 30,000 radio channels, Deezer is one of the most popular music streaming services in the world. It operates in more than 180 countries and has recently become available in the MENA region – including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria, Kuwait, Tunisia, Oman, Jordan, Bahrain, and Mauritania – thanks to its new partnership with Rotana Records.

Cons

“We are really excited to bring Arabic listeners a unique and unrivaled blend of the best exclusive Arabic music and the most popular international tracks in one place,” said Deezer CEO Hans-Holger Albrecht in the official announcement. “We are also proud to now offer music fans the Deezer app in Arabic, with an affordable premium offer as well as the opportunity to try Deezer for free.”

Deezer

Deezer is widely known for its superior audio quality, allowing users to stream hi-def CD-quality 1,411 kbps, 16/44.1 kHz music with the Elite subscription plan, which costs $14.99. Those who are fine with 320 kbps can buy the Premium subscription plan, which costs $9.99, or use the ad-supported Discovery plan for free.

Pros:

  • Attractive family and students plans available.
  • Live radio and podcasts.
  • Lets you upload MP3 files from your computer so you can listen to them everywhere.
  • Streams music in higher quality than other music streaming services.

Cons:

  • The desktop app lacks offline mode and isn’t as polished as we would like it to be.
  • Lacks social features.

Deezer’s music library offers a nice blend of contemporary music, old-school classics, and underground artists you’ve probably never heard of. We like the option to listen to a Pandora-esque personalized radio station with the Flow feature, but we would appreciate more social features to keep us engaged with our favorite artists and the Deezer community.

Spotify pleasantly surprised the entire MENA region when it announced its entry to 13 new markets in – which include United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the Palestinian territories – on November 14, 2018.

“From Arabic classical and pop to gritty folk, funk, and hip-hop sounds, Arabic music is alive, poetic, energetic, and complex. This is why we are excited to announce that today, Spotify is launching in 13 new markets across the Middle East and North Africa – and making these unique sounds available to music lovers around the Arab world and beyond,” said the company in its official announcement.

According to Cecila Qvist, Spotify’s Global Head of Markets, the service is entering the region with dozens of locally curated playlists for every mood and moment, such as Today’s Top Arabic Hits (أفضل الاغاني العربية), Feel Good Arabic Hits (احساس جديد), and Arabic EDM (بالعربي), and its entire library of more than 40 million songs, which are enjoyed by 191 million monthly active users.

Deezer Pros And Cons Youtube

Pros:

  • Polished desktop and mobile application that lets you play locally stored audio files.
  • Huge library with artists from around the world.
  • Podcasts and early album releases.
  • Relatively affordable premium plans, especially for students.

Deezer Web

Cons:

  • Spotify’s web player feels very clunky.
  • The search functionality can be a hit or miss.

Deezer Pros And Cons 2020

Spotify offers an incredibly polished music streaming service with just a couple of small blemishes we hope to see smoothed out in the future, namely its web player and search functionality. While you can listen to Spotify without paying with ads, serious users should do themselves a favor and purchase Spotify Premium for $9.99 a month.

Verdict

Deezer Pros And Cons List

We can wholeheartedly recommend all three music streaming services mentioned in this article. But unless you don’t listen to Arabic music at all, Anghami is the best choice when it comes to legal music streaming in MENA. It offers the largest library of Arabic music, has a whole host of engaging social features that are guaranteed to make you come back for more, and its support for offline listening is impeccable.