AN OP-ED ON TIDAL

There is no shortage of streaming services already in existence, and in 2015 we are sure to see more announced, released, and available globally. Just in the last few weeks we've heard of alternative services like Sony's partnership with Spotify for streaming on their consoles and phones, and Guvera's streaming DJ service Fradio. Right now we're anticipating Apple's announcement of their own streaming service (in partnership with recently acquired Beats service).

So why on earth did Jay-Z (and friends) purchase Tidal, a streaming service that's only distinction is a MORE EXPENSIVE ($19.99/month) Hi-Def tier, and the inclusion of videos (theoretically available on YouTube), and a 'curated editorial' section? Does any of that sound like reason enough to switch services for a higher price point? Probably not to most people.

It should be noted that Tidal does offer a standard tier that is $9.99/month, on par with most other streaming services, and that it has absolutely no free tier, which they are trying to use as a selling point.

Another perk that Tidal has going is that Jay-Z offered equity in the company to artists in exchange for timed exclusives on the platform. These artists include Beyonce, Madonna, Deadmau5, among others.

They are trying to tout themselves as an artist owned service, and while that may be true, the artists that have ownership are wealthy artists that are already getting paid very well. So of course they are in favor of this model. They stand to make a percentage off of every subscriber regardless of if that subscriber listens to their music at all.

What Tidal is betting on is that the average consumer will choose their streaming service so that they can listen to new releases from popular artists before you can stream them anywhere else. I just hope that consumers are aware that this is no more an arist friendly service than Spotify is. Both are concerned first with their income and second with artist happiness, if they're even concerned with the second at all.