Why Spotify Wins, and Google Can't

Branding and UI Matter

Spotify is the clear winner in music streaming, and will continue to be so. There are several reasons, and its clear that they "get it" - while most others do not.  In this blog post we will explore why.  ​It comes down to three things: UI (User interface), quality of the offering, and branding. Google has an huge opportunity in music but they have not yet realized their full potential.

User Interfaces

Spotify has the best UI. It looks great on both a computer and on mobile.  Its easy to use, things do not feel hidden, and nothing feels missing.  I give them an A for their UI; it is much better than any other music streaming service.

Apple is better than Pandora but not that impressive.  Apple users are somewhat of a 'captive' audience; Apple is unique in this way. I feel that there is nothing compelling about Apple that will draw in many non-Apple users.  Apple has potential to improve, however.

Google is another matter.  Their three music services are confusing, and with no end in sight, and Google user interfaces do not impress; Google+ is an example of a an unimpressive user interface, far less capable than other social networks, like Facebook.   I don't see Google making inroads on Spotify from a design point of view.

There are now over 200 music streaming services in the world. Many of the smaller ones were designed by 7Digital and some of those have very good user interfaces.

But Spotify is clearly the best.  UI matters - a lot.  Not everyone gets it right - and in fact, few do.
​

Quality

Everyone talks about the quality of music; comparing the CD to vinyl, different bit rates, and so on.  As an old-school audio buff, I wish there was better quality digital music.  Sadly, our world has such strong trends towards convenience over quality.

There is no single standard, or even language term, for high definition audio.  its a complex subject.  Standalone efforts at HD music like the Pono group have basically failed to get traction in the marketplace or even much investment.  Thus, the resurgence of vinyl, its the only way to get HD music in a simple and cost-effective way that will also stand the test of time; the equipment and the content will always be available.

Tidal is the one music streaming service that has made an effort in quality, and I applaud them.   Spotify is basically 'good enough', Tidal is better, and Pono is above that.  

Long term, I believe that music streaming services like Tidal and Spotify are the path to a solution (more than new standalone startups) as they can start slowly in this area, with moderate investment, and improve it and grow it over time.  The key factor really would be everyone working together.

But will these companies music companies work together?  It seems unlikely.  Apple, for example, launched their service at a lower bit rate than Spotify.  That makes no sense at all - why go backwards?   It suggests that Apple has no real commitment to HD music and this again comes down to the the usual situation with Apple, where the captive audience of Apple users being an easy to market to.  Thus, Apple has no pressure to do much better.

Google has such huge size with their brand, and long reach with Youtube.  But the confusion with having three services, and weak user interfaces, is matched by their lack of commitment to HD audio. If Google were really serious about HD audio they would have bought Tidal, invested in Pono, and done more for HD audio standards.  Google is the one company that could really set the industry in motion toward an HD audio standard, if they were really committed to quality.  But ultimately, Google's sheer size and high profits via search spoils them; and will hinder them from truly committing to other markets like music.  My opinion is that they just "do stuff' and it kind of works, but not always very well, and thus they never really have that singular, deep focus that is needed to succeed. Google is not 'hungry' to succeed.  Google is probably the most disappointing of anyone in the music market right now.
​

Branding

I again will start with praise for Spotify.  The brand message is clear and consistent, and the entire image breeds confidence. They are #1 in music streaming and will continue to be so.   They hit the 'sweet spot' in each area (UI, quality, and simplicity).

Tidal's branding suffered from an uneven launch, but they have kept up steady progress and I am hopeful that Tidal will continue to grow and be effective in this industry.   I am fan of Tidal and hope they commit to true HD audio in the future.  Tidal is making an effort to support artists - unlike Google who is going the other way by hurting independent producers on Youtube.

I feel that Google is basically a mess.  I don't personally know anyone who is impressed with Google music.  The confusion of having three services hurts branding.  The huge success of Youtube frustrates Google, I believe, because it is largely not monetized - but having a paid level of Youtube is just dumb. Teens will never pay for Youtube - plus, on the paid accounts the advertising is stripped away so all of those independent producers on Youtube get no income from such pages.  This means that Google will hurt these producers.   Finally, as many have pointed out, naming the paid-Youtube service "Youtube Red" is not good branding - just do a Google search for the very similar phrase 'red tube', for example and see what comes up.  

What is ironic is that the enormous content of Youtube could be used in a productive way, to Google's benefit - but ONLY if they do it the right way.  Here is exactly how Google should do its music branding:

• Keep Youtube free.  Don't fix something that is not broken! Make a formal commitment to continue support all the independent producers on Youtube - don't abandon them.
• Have an audio-only music streaming service, that has a full catalog (like Spotify); call it MusicStreaming.com, which is a branding that would give great clarity and recall for users; have all your music there - meaning, the most complete catalog of anyone because it can include all the music from youtube - just without videos.
• Have a free level, like Spotify does, and that free level would include all the music from Youtube.  Those pages would  naturally have ads and therefore, your content providers on Youtube get paid once again. Everyone is happy!  Instead of abandoning these small producers the way Youtube Red does, Google could give them even more support.
• Commit to HD music.  Buy Tidal and offer their music as your highest tier; invest a significant amount in Pono, and form an industry group to bring everyone to a single (and evolvable) standard for HD music.  Commit to a long term plan to move the world to HD audio.
• Do a better job at Marketing.  Look at work already works; Amazon Prime is a great example of a broad and deep loyalty program.  What if Google had a really useful membership, for all of its services?  Then a paying music customer could be given discounts on hosting, and  cheaper storage for backups, and savings on the paid levels of email.  Tie it all together, so people feel there is more value there in a Google account.  Others, like Amazon, are already doing this;  its really not hard to do.

In other words, Google could succeed if they made a consistent, funded, and effective effort, that had a very clear branded name (like MusicStreaming.com), a true membership program to reward loyal users, and a long term commitment to bring standardized HD music to the world.  This could change the world of music.

Youtube music is a significant differentiator for Google.  The URL MusicStreaming.com is another potential differentiator. Finally, deeply committing to HD audio is also a differentiator. Take all of this together, and with a good UI, means Google could become #1 in music.  

NOTE:  I have praised a few companies in this article (Spotify in particular) - so let me make clear, we are not investors in any of these companies nor beholden to them in any way.
​