@FeaturedArtist’s Lucie Caswell calls for “due reward” to artists from Spotify equity windfalls

[And what about the songwriters?]

As the trading floor eyes up Spotify’s float, the attention of the music industry is on its licensors. None more so than music makers, who created the assets which make Spotify and its rivals, the billion-dollar businesses they are today. In theory, those assets are due for a windfall as option agreements become exercisable and paper value crystallises into cash. This is potentially a moment which proves the extraordinary opportunities of our digital age, the borderless, boundless bounty of music, the leadership of music innovation and, the enormous value in this business we love, music.

Whose value and how much however, is the conversation of the day. Spotify floating as the New York Stock Exchange takes a hit, is hopefully not prescient of the rewards to the music value chain, through rights-owners and rights licensors who included equity in their licensing deals. Premium-priced initial sales would suggest otherwise. Those licensing deals intrinsically exist for the protection and monetisation of copyright – the music rights and songs artists entrusted to those licensors, for the best advantage to achieve fans and revenues. Rights-holders, distributors, aggregators and services like Spotify, all make money from that transaction and, that trust. Surely it is only sound business that the trust will be repaid and the creators receive due reward from those valuable assets, when money is made.  Whether marketing them, streaming them, building a business upon and around them or licensing them, this industry is sustained and sustainable only, with those songs and recordings.

How much value, will be a matter of the deal at hand and the hour at which the licensor cashes in (something which it seems, will be a tightrope dance of timing over the initial roller-coaster period of trading). From that point, the licensor must decide how to distribute the win across all of the assets it has licensed. Notice I say all. There is apparently some discussion of who should be included, of what repertoire may or may not feel the windfall and who is more valuable.

At this stage we point, as we have before, to the demonstrative WIN FairDigitalDeals Declaration. This landmark calling-card for fair play by rights-holders has come of age. Principle statements are now to become practice. This simple document, signed up to by a growing, global swathe of independent labels, is indicative of how good practice is the fair, transparent and creator-led business we strive for as the FAC.  Good players are many but they also provide precedent that business can be done with equal revenue shares, clear reporting and by fit for purpose, full and fair distribution of wealth to those who create it. Now is the time for all labels and licensors to really demonstrate good intent for artists, ensuring that our ecosystem is sustainable in practice and principled throughout.

Read the post in Music Week

Barf. Just Barf. — The Trichordist

[Editor Charlie sez:  The Music Modernization Act really is the Spotify IPO Preservation Act, as we suspected!]

David Israelite of the NMPA and Mitch Glazier of the RIAA have penned an op-ed for Variety Magazine, in which they extoll the virtues of various copyright reform proposals before congress. While I agree with them about the Classics Act (fixes pre-1972 loophole) AMP act (helps producers/engineers receive royalties from digital royalty streams) every day […]

via Barf. Just Barf. — The Trichordist

@musicbizworld: THE GREAT BIG SPOTIFY SCAM: DID A BULGARIAN PLAYLISTER SWINDLE THEIR WAY TO A FORTUNE ON STREAMING SERVICE?

[Tim Ingham tells a story of a Spotify royalty scam run by a “Bulgarian playlister” (…stop right there and go no further…who was running what are obviously scam playlists of snippets by manipulating Spotify subscription accounts.  As Tim notes, the fact that the “Bulgarian playlister” was able to manipulate a large number of “paying” subscription accounts, raises yet more important questions about Spotify’s subscriber numbers.  This is obviously of vital importance to potential buyers of Spotify’s stock–what subscriber numbers are real.  Perhaps the Securities and Exchange Commission will question the man behind the curtain.]

A Bulgarian playlist-maker scammed the Spotify payout system for months last year – and could well have made themselves a millionaire off Daniel Ek’s platform.

That’s the shock claim being made by multiple high-level industry sources to MBW this week.

Music Business Worldwide can today reveal details of the alleged shakedown, which reached its height at the end of last summer.

The evidence we’ve gathered strongly suggests that one party sucked a vast amount of money – as much as $1 million-plus – out of the Spotify royalty pool, and away from legitimate artists and labels.

And the best/worst part of all? They probably didn’t break any laws in the process….

Spotify tells us it’s now “improving methods of detection and removal”. But the big question remains: are the scammers out there improving their methods too?

Are there others, like our Bulgarian friend, purchasing multiple premium Spotify accounts and rinsing playlists stuffed with cheap music to which they own the rights?

If so, how many of these Spotify scammers exist – and how much money are they generating?

Are they operating at a lower commercial level than The Bulgarian and, therefore, not outing themselves by appearing on weekly top global playlist charts?

Crucially: what does all of this mean for the solidity of valuations for music’s biggest companies?

And even more crucially… what does it mean for the veracity of Spotify’s paying audience as the company begins its high-stakes escalation towards the New York Stock Exchange?

Read the post on Music Business Worldwide

 

@Maureenmfarrell: Private Trades in Spotify Shares to Play Key Role in Upcoming Debut

[Recall that Spotify is not doing a traditional IPO, but something called a “direct listing.”  The difference between the two is a bit down in the weeds, but is crucial.  In a traditional IPO (sometimes called a “full commitment underwriting”) a group of investment banks or the equivalent form an “underwriting syndicate” that buys new shares from the company at a valuation set by the underwriters.  Hence the “pricing” concept for IPOs–you will hear that right before a new company starts trading.  If the path to an IPO has been managed correctly, the underwriters’ valuation is higher than the last private valuation of the company’s last sale of its preferred shares to private investors.

The underwriters want to price in a range that they can resell to retail investors, so they wouldn’t ever price at $1,000 for a stock that is to sell in the open market.  Think about it–how long did it take Amazon and Google to get to $1,000 in the open market?  They didn’t start there.

Another reason–which I suspect is the true reason–that Spotify is not going the underwritten IPO route is because they can’t get the valuation they want.  This may have something to do with another aspect I believe to be true–Spotify is not cracked up to be a public company.

Chris O’Brien in Venture Beat has a really insightful post on Spotify’s problems with valuations:

The reality is that by taking this route Spotify is pursuing a risky strategy. And it’s likely only doing so because it was backed into a corner by its investors and by private fundraising that led to a dangerously high valuation of $19 billion.

“This is not a story of problems in the IPO market,” according to Kathleen Smith, a principal at Renaissance Capital and manager of IPO ETFs. “It’s a problem with Spotify’s valuation.”

So let’s be honest–the reason why Spotify wants to trade publicly has a lot more to do with Daniel Ek’s misplaced ego than it does with any intrinsic value of his company.   And don’t forget–when the dust settles, it is his company and this was his idea.  Genius or goat, he will get the credit.

But of course Spotify’s “public or bust” approach is really designed to allow existing stockholders to cash out.  And here’s the twist–if you’re going to sell, someone has to buy.  And if you don’t have underwriters standing behind a price point, then there is no floor to the stock price if the sellers start running for the exits.

So–Spotify is trying to look to existing private market sales–very limited and nothing like public market sales–for guidance on its stock price.  (Private markets are sometimes called “secondary markets” where you can buy private company shares.)  Maureen Farrell in The Wall Street Journal has some reporting on this which is both murky and enlightening coverage of who Spotify is “managing” (some might say “manipulating”) its stock price already.  And if you wonder what running for the exits looks like, check out the VIX crash.]

Spotify AB is counting on its surging private-market value to bolster the music-streaming service’s appeal to investors in an unorthodox public debut that could be the biggest since SnapInc.’s $20 billion IPO last year.

The listing, expected as soon as the end of March, isn’t an initial public offering, in which underwriters set a price and place shares with chosen investors before trading. Instead, the Swedish company will simply float the shares on the New York Stock Exchange and let the market find a price, in what is known as a direct listing.

While Spotify and its advisers are still determining how exactly the process will work, the company and its banks are expected to have a role in helping guide the market to a price and connecting buyers and sellers initially, people familiar with the matter said. A suggested price range is expected to be relayed to the market before trading starts, but the price will ultimately be set by what buyers are willing to pay and the price at which sellers part with their shares.

Private trading is expected to be a key part of the company’s effort to guide the market to a price, people familiar with the matter said.

The so-called secondary markets in private technology stocks are typically an afterthought in an IPO, in part because trading tends to be thin and not always a reliable indicator of value. But Spotify and its advisers at Goldman Sachs GroupInc.,Morgan Stanley and Allen & Co. are closely watching trades among private investors and have taken steps to spur volume, the people said. The company recently informed existing investors that it waived its right to buy shares before they are offered to others.

Read the post on the Wall Street Journal

@artistrightsnow: Content Creators Coalition: Spotify’s Wall Street Cash Out Leaves Artists Behind

PRESS RELEASE

Washington, D.C. – The Content Creators Coalition (c3) released the following statement on Spotify’s plan to go public on the New York Stock Exchange:

“Spotify’s founders had an opportunity to pioneer new models and partner with artists on ways to make the music ecosystem work for everyone – services, artists, and fans.  Instead, they cashed in – enriching company owners and deep pocketed investors and doing nothing for working artists who continue to chase pennies online.  This IPO chooses a short term payday over long term progress and will only weaken the streaming ecosystem, burdening the art of music with Wall Street’s bottom line first mentality and erecting new barriers between creators and their fans.

“Spotify’s algorithms and curated playlists have already failed artists and songwriters, making haphazard and emotionally stunted connections between supposedly ‘related’ acts and pushing costly advertising tools as the best way to reach new fans.  The result is the worst of all worlds – at one end artists and independent rights holders have no meaningful input into how their work is presented and promoted on the service and at the other end, they are paid grossly substandard wages for the airplay they do receive.  And it will get worse as Spotify’s managers focus more and more on shareholders and less and less on music.

“Artists stand ready to embrace streaming models that work for all.  But we will always reject corporate greed and ‘too big to fail’ models that squeeze the soul out of our work and distances us from our fans.”

About c3:

The Content Creators Coalition (c3) is an artist-run non-profit advocacy group representing creators in the digital landscape. C3’s work is significant to anyone who creates and makes a living from their creations. c3’s objectives are two-fold: First, economic justice for musicians and music creators in the digital domain. Second, ensuring that the current and future generations of creators retain the rights needed to create and benefit from the use of their work and efforts. C3 has grown into a national organization based on representation, advocacy, and mobilization for sustainable careers in the digital age.

@obrien: Spotify’s risky IPO reveals a valuation crisis, not a Wall Street revolution

There’s no narrative the tech industry likes quite as much as a good revolutionary tale in which a startup pursues a strategy that topples an established order. Such a mythology is now being constructed around the upcoming Spotify IPO.

It goes like this: Spotify is doing an end run around investment banks by listing its shares directly on the stock market. This is supposed to result in fewer fees for impoverished investment banks and new freedom for tech companies. That was the vibe of a story by the Wall Street Journal this week: “Spotify Disrupted the Music World, Now It’s Doing the Same to Wall Street.”

The reality is that by taking this route Spotify is pursuing a risky strategy. And it’s likely only doing so because it was backed into a corner by its investors and by private fundraising that led to a dangerously high valuation of $19 billion.

“This is not a story of problems in the IPO market,” according to Kathleen Smith, a principal at Renaissance Capital and manager of IPO ETFs. “It’s a problem with Spotify’s valuation.”

Read the post on Venture Beat