| |
Celeb News: Jay Z: TIDAL Facts
Member Since: 6/13/2011
Posts: 11,601
|
Cringing! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 27,951
|
Quote:
Originally posted by AHemsworth
The only reason people are routing for it to fail is because of the artists involved. #Facts
|
Or they're angry that their fave wasn't invited to sigh that contract or treaty or whatever. Like its so petty. Most people wouldn't even care about how it was doing and treat it like another streaming service 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 9/14/2010
Posts: 78,921
|
It needs to be re-marketed and less about the company and its artists and more about the listeners.
It's like they're trying to cater to 'stans' and ultimately failing. Stans don't care enough to pay $20 for nothing in return.
Offer something that no one else is (not 'content' or 'CDQ' either). The product also shouldn't be dearer, it should be cheaper.
Idk, I see the flaws in this company, whether I'm right or wrong and Tidal itself seems to think its direction is working. Bye.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 23,128
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
It needs to be re-marketed and less about the company and its artists and more about the listeners.
It's like they're trying to cater to 'stans' and ultimately failing. Stans don't care enough to pay $20 for nothing in return.
Offer something that no one else is (not 'content' or 'CDQ' either). The product also shouldn't be dearer, it should be cheaper.
Idk, I see the flaws in this company, whether I'm right or wrong and Tidal itself seems to think its direction is working. Bye.
|
You're right but I've said this in so many Tidal threads I'm over it tbh.
It's more fun to just call them a flop and post gifs at this point. They can definitely rebound obviously but it's up to them to make the change IF they see it
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/12/2002
Posts: 21,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
It needs to be re-marketed and less about the company and its artists and more about the listeners.
It's like they're trying to cater to 'stans' and ultimately failing. Stans don't care enough to pay $20 for nothing in return.
Offer something that no one else is (not 'content' or 'CDQ' either). The product also shouldn't be dearer, it should be cheaper.
Idk, I see the flaws in this company, whether I'm right or wrong and Tidal itself seems to think its direction is working. Bye.
|
The biggest problem is misrepresentation of what they ALREADY offer.
I see so many posts talking about "Why would you pay $20 a month!!", it's in your post and it seems no one realizes that the normal subscription service is only $10 a month. It also seems that people don't realize the $10 service is comparable to what Spotify has, with added exclusives...
Either that, or people think it's fun to totally ignore facts because it's too cool to play troll on a internet forum.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2014
Posts: 7,746
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...a=twitter_page
Quote:
|
Now let’s talk about those subscriber numbers. Jay Z touted Tidal’s 770,000 subscribers, but 597,000 of those came from WiMP. That means less than 200,000 people have subscribed to Tidal in the close to a month since that disastrous March 30 presentation. Tidal also dropped out of iTunes’ top 700 most-downloaded apps chart this past week.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lose My Breath
The biggest problem is misrepresentation of what they ALREADY offer.
I see so many posts talking about "Why would you pay $20 a month!!", it's in your post and it seems no one realizes that the normal subscription service is only $10 a month. It also seems that people don't realize the $10 service is comparable to what Spotify has, with added exclusives...
Either that, or people think it's fun to totally ignore facts because it's too cool to play troll on a internet forum.
|
But as this article points out, http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...a=twitter_page, those "exclusives" aren't worth the money and could have been free from the get-go.
It's also not comparable to Spotify as Spotify has a larger catalog, a better app, a free subscription, and is available in more places.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, the “exclusive” content Tidal has been rolling out mostly consists of content that would be free to fans otherwise, e.g. streaming singles like Rihanna’s “Bitch Better Have My Money,” music videos, and the ability to livestream concerts, all of which people could’ve just caught on YouTube without paying a high monthly premium. Hell, one of the “exclusives” they offered was a playlist curated by a contributing editor from Vanity Fair:
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DripDrip
Or they're angry that their fave wasn't invited to sigh that contract or treaty or whatever. Like its so petty. Most people wouldn't even care about how it was doing and treat it like another streaming service |
All of our faves are on Tidal.  Why would anyone be angry that their fave wasn't invited? Those who weren't invited but are still on Tidal's service are reaping the benefits of its service without getting the backlash from the media and public for investing in the company.
Quote:
Originally posted by AHemsworth
The only reason people are routing for it to fail is because of the artists involved. #Facts
|
Well duh... The artists being involved is a big reason why this whole thing has come off as a giant, desperate money grab. A bunch of millionaires talking about getting paid fairly and how they need people to support them more...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/9/2012
Posts: 13,858
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bang Up
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...a=twitter_page
But as this article points out, http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...a=twitter_page, those "exclusives" aren't worth the money and could have been free from the get-go.
It's also not comparable to Spotify as Spotify has a larger catalog, a better app, a free subscription, and is available in more places.
All of our faves are on Tidal. Why would anyone be angry that their fave wasn't invited? Those who weren't invited but are still on Tidal's service are reaping the benefits of its service without getting the backlash from the media and public for investing in the company.
Well duh... The artists being involved is a big reason why this whole thing has come off as a giant, desperate money grab. A bunch of millionaires talking about getting paid fairly and how they need people to support them more...
|
Less than 200k
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 42,704
|
Mess at him comparing itunes/spotify to this. Spotify was one of the first (if not the first) streaming service provider.
It makes sense it took Spotify that much time meanwhile Tidal's launched when streaming is at it's peak right now.
Spotify didn't have the extensive promo, signing a piece of paper event, a bunch of well-established artists promoting it on twitter.
He can't compare Spotify to Tidal because the circumstances were VERY different then and now.
Just accept the fact that it's NOT what the geepee are here for because there's already another streaming service whose been doing that well for years now
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 1,327
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kleine
Thanks for reminding me Jay!
 |
RIP
This made me kackle
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 8,093
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/4/2012
Posts: 12,421
|
should've used the race card
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/20/2011
Posts: 2,265
|
He looks so desperate
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
It's kind of true. People are dragging a 3 week old business. What company breaks even 3 weeks after launch?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 13,150
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kleine
Thanks for reminding me Jay!
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 4,549
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
It's kind of true. People are dragging a 3 week old business. What company breaks even 3 weeks after launch?
|
A stillborn is just as dead on day 1 as 3 weeks later, 3 months later, 3 years later, 30 years later,...
Certain ideas/concepts are so wrong that no matter how much money, promo, force feeding,... is used, it isn't allowed to gain traction.
Microsoft tried to replace the Internet by their own proprietary version (comparable with those state controlled versions in certain countries) in the 90s by installing the software on every computer sold.
If you wanted to go on the normal Internet you had to use diskettes or a CD-rom to convert your computer to normal Internet ready.
Microsoft, Apple,... are like 10000 times bigger than Tidal. Even them couldn't make the customers swallow everything.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/20/2012
Posts: 2,735
|
The problem is for a service for all, it needs to appeal to all, and pop/r&b/rap music is a piece of the pie but it's stars have little influence on country, latin, indie, folk or rock fans, which make up the rest of the music listening world, at-least in North America.
Jay may have influence on rap fans, but the list ends there.
HOWEVER:
My question is: Will there be further removals from youtube, twisting the publics arm more and more? Or will they not even really notice Madonna, Rih or Nicki's catalogs being removed? As most people have their favorite music downloaded already.
If they all start releasing new music exclusively on Tidal, it will probably go unnoticed by the public and simply hurt their egos (If AO2 is any sign of what kind of MESS they will have waiting for them) You CANNOT make a hit song when only less than a million people even have access to it, at-least not a hit song at the caliber those acts are used to.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 1,484
|
In my opinion, there is no 'smear campaign'; people just don't want to have to pay to listen to music they can listen to on other free services such as Spotify and YouTube.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/28/2012
Posts: 11,072
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bang Up
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
Tidal will rise!
|
|
|
|
|
|
