Facebook v. YouTube - Who Wins? 5 Part Test

At long last, just last week in time for the 4th of July holiday -- and in YouTube's own backyard -- Facebook shot off its video monetization fireworks, revealing for the first time how it planned to monetize its massively growing video business (and how video creators would share in it).  We already knew that Facebook video had become the first real threat to YouTube's dominance (a topic that I have previously explored) -- already crossing the "4 billion video views per day" threshold.  But, the rest was a mystery.

Well, mystery no longer (at least for the initial incarnation of Facebook video monetization efforts).  For a certain sub-set of its base (since these initial efforts are smartly an "experiment" in these early days), Facebook will now run auto-play ad interstitials in "suggested videos."  And, in what I find to be a bit of a surprise, it will split ad revenues 55/45 with creators a la YouTube (rather than give creators a higher split for, if nothing else, goodwill and PR -- remember, YouTube has been pilloried in the press about its 55/45 split).

So, what do I think about Facebook v. YouTube in this epic battle between the new mega-Challenger and the long-time Champ?  Which company has what advantage (and disadvantage) in the quest to be the most compelling home for video?  And, is it a "zero sum game" with one winner and one loser -- or does the entire industry "win"?

5 Part Test -- Advantage Who?:

(1) YouTube video is still the #1 "must publish" video platform and destination.

YouTube remains dominant, having crossed Facebook's "4 billion videos per day" threshold back in 2012.  Most creators still think, "you just gotta be there."  But, Facebook video is young (very young) and its growth has been explosive -- as has been overall creator and marketer excitement about the Challenger.  As one example, TV networks like HBO have now begun to sample their shows on Facebook "to leverage the massive reach of of their platform" (in the words of Jim Marsh, vice president of digital and social media) -- something that previously was virtually unthinkable in the YouTube-dominated world of not so long ago.  Cameron Saless, chief growth officer for "must know" digital-first video company Jukin' Media (a company I previously profiled), was just recently quoted saying "we're doing almost double the views on Facebook that we're doing on YouTube today, which a lot of people don't know."  When publishers start talking openly about those kinds of metrics (as is Jukin') and publicly pitting one behemoth against another, you know there is something really going on here.

So, Sheer Scale -- Advantage YouTube.

Growth and Overall Momentum -- Advantage Facebook.

(2) Facebook's video engagement rates surpass YouTube's.

That is the chatter everywhere (note Jukin' again) -- and that's massively important to both creators and marketers of course.  As I recently pointed out in VideoInk (welcome reporter Todd Longwell to VideoInk, by the way), Facebook has two seeming inherent strategic advantages over YouTube in this regard.  First, Facebook as much deeper and more precise information about its base than YouTube which, in turn, has the potential to lead to better targeting and higher CPMs.  And second, Facebook's DNA is also fundamentally different than YouTube's.  Yes, YouTube videos are share-able (and shared) of course.  But, YouTube is still primarily about personal and passive entertainment and engagement.  Facebook, on the other hand, is (and always has been) active -- it is all about sharing.  That is its raison d'être.  That's why Facebookers seek out their feeds multiple times throughout the day.  And, that bodes extremely well for Facebook's potential to build massive scale.

But note of caution -- as Todd Longwell pointed out to me in a direct exchange, is it really fair to equate Facebook video "engagement" with that of YouTube?  After all, Facebook counts auto-inserted, "auto-play" videos equally.  And, as Longwell also pointed out, video sound is likely frequently turned off in auto-play mode.  Further, paradoxically, YouTube's more passive "personal entertainment" DNA leads to more active user searching for precise videos that appeal to them (i.e., high relevance), whereas Facebook's more "active sharing" DNA and service-generated video auto-insertion likely lead to more video "noise" (i.e., low relevance), at least initially.

Viewer Engagement -- Advantage Facebook.

Relevance & Impact -- Advantage YouTube.

(3) YouTube still has the younger millennial audience that marketers most want to reach.

YouTube is still a (if not, "the") "must use" entertainment and communication platform for millennials.  It is part of who they are and what they do.  And, those millennials are whom marketers most want to reach.  Facebook reaches an older demographic (anecdotally, neither my 15 year old daughter or 13 year old son use Facebook -- nor do any of their friends; in fact, Facebook never enters into their Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube-dominating conversations).  To a certain extent, this is a double-edged sword, however, because it is the older Facebook demographic that has more immediate buying power.

Demographics of Base -- Advantage YouTube.

Buying Power -- Facebook.

(4) Both YouTube and Facebook give creators 55% of ad revenues.

Strange.  Facebook had the chance to score a big PR win by upping that percentage even just to 60%.  But, it didn't.  Opportunity lost ... at least for now.  (And note, Facebook's 55% creator revenue share will be apportioned by time amongst all creators in a particular stream, meaning that each individual creator's share apparently will be less than 55%).

Creator Economics -- Advantage Neither.

(5) Facebook is treading carefully with its new video monetization efforts -- while YouTube carries the baggage of a certain industry narrative.

Facebook, the Challenger and newcomer, is smartly treading lightly in its initial monetization efforts -- experimenting only with a subset of its overall base.  Facebook can, accordingly, gather data (including creator and customer sentiment) and adjust from there.  It can bob and weave, fine-tuning and dialing in the "right" compromise between monetization and customer experience.  It has no baggage in that regard.  YouTube, on the other hand, carries a full load of baggage (rightly or wrongly) in the form of negative creator sentiment.  Let's face it, the Champ (in any industry) always faces the heat -- and YouTube is no exception.  Creators -- and virtually all competing services -- have gone out of their way to deride YouTube's 55/45 revenue split.  This theme of "fundamental unfairness" (some have called it greed) has become a widely-held industry narrative.  And, once that kind of narrative is developed, it is difficult to shake.

Industry Sentiment & The "Baggage" Factor -- Advantage Facebook.

BOTTOM LINE

Each mega-platform has its own inherent advantages.  And, gloves are off ... as are more and more creator videos from YouTube.  It's no longer a YouTube only multi-channel network (MCN) world (which it essentially was less than one year ago).  It is now absolutely a multi-platform network (MPN) world.

But, this is NOT a zero-sum game between the giants.  The pie expands -- and the winner here is the overall video industry and eco-system -- including content creators and consumers.  Never before have there been so many opportunities to create content -- to find distribution for content -- to find an audience for that content -- and for us, the consumers, to find content that specifically speaks to us ... as individuals.  THAT is power my friends.

And this brave new digital-first video world is still very much in its infancy ....

Peter Diamandis - My Conversation with XPRIZE's Founder & Noted Futurist

The world's greatest problems.  Climate change, longer human lifespans testing the limits of society's resources, the downside risks of artificial intelligence (machine v. man).

"All of these things are engineer-able, fixable."

So says Peter Diamandis -- entrepreneur, author, thought leader, visionary, futurist and one of the world's great minds.  "The number of people solving these things has exploded" -- as a result of the pace of new technologies enabling mass, democratized participation.  That's why Diamandis is an eternal optimist who preaches his thoughtful, inspiring -- and frequently convincing -- gospel to the world (literally) via an endless string of ambitious, audacious and passion-fueld mega-endeavors.

After all, Diamandis is Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE and XPRIZE Foundation, to which he devotes about 30% of his time.  But, when he's not sleeping (which I can't imagine he does much), he today also splits his time with (1) Singularity University (which he co-founded with noted futurist Ray Kurzweil), (2) Human Longevity, Inc., a company he also co-founded that focuses on extending the healthy human lifespan, (3) Planetary Resources, Inc, yet another company he co-founded that has the simple "everyday" ambition of mining asteroids via spacecrafts that also have earth-based agricultural applications, and (4) journalist (he has written multiple best-sellers), speaker (he travels the globe), advisor (serving on boards of some of the most innovative society-engagement technology companies in the world, including virtual reality (VR) companies Oculus and Magic Leap), and educator (he runs and leads executive thought leadership courses).  This is just a partial list of his endeavors.

And, I thought I had a lot on my plate!

Yesterday, I had the special opportunity to sit down one-on-one with Peter at his offices at the XPRIZE Foundation.  I had no agenda (both figuratively and literally).  No script.  Just wanted to learn more about his views on these massive, daunting global issues.  And also get his views on the new world of media, story-telling, and increasingly immersive and virtual social engagement and interaction.  He was engaging, generous with his time, charming, convincing.  I hopped from topic to topic during this hour -- and we touched upon all of these issues and more.  One of the most thought-provoking discussions I have had in my life.

And, here it is -- Peter's thoughts on those subjects.  All sentences with quotation marks and that are  italicized and in bold are direct quotes (I frantically took copious notes).  I'll start with the brave new -- and frequently daunting -- digital media world (especially focusing on VR's total immersion and what he calls today's "Hyper Connectivity").

I.  ON VIRTUAL REALITY

-- VR "will lead to brand new virtual worlds, virtual communities, across all ages."

-- Second Life (the virtual world global game phenomenon) pointed the way to VR, but "VR is fully immersive.  You will feel."

II.  ON THE DOWNSIDE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH VR, TOTAL IMMERSION & TECHNOLOGY-CHANGING HUMAN INTERACTION

-- I asked him about the deep societal risks of VR's total immersion, some of which include (1) feeling too much (imagine your kids playing "Call of Duty" in a VR world where the combat (and killing) become real to your brain and body, and (2) being used in the wrong hands (imagine terrorist groups like ISIS leveraging VR as core components of their engagement and intimidation strategies).

-- His responses: "You can't change it" (i.e., the reality of new technologies).  It changes you."  "It changes social norms -- how we interact."  Technology "re-wires how society interacts, even how our brain interacts, even the plasticity of the brain."

"Whether it is good or bad.  It just is."

-- And, that thought -- i.e., "It just is" -- is at the core of Peter's mind-set.  There is no judgment about how things are today in the world across all issues.  "It just is."  So, he concerns himself with thinking about how societies can mitigate those risks -- and "fix" the world -- and "better" the world.

-- After all, Peter underscores that "technology has always done these things."  "And what's to say that our interactions 50 years ago were better?"  "They were just 'different.'"  He "is absolutely positive that the same conversations would have taken place in the age of the Gutenberg Press."

-- He cites Steven Pinker's book "The Better Angels of Our Nature" that concludes that -- contrary to widely-held ... and media-propagated global belief (he doesn't watch traditional news outlets) -- we are living in the most peaceful time in human history.  He points out that in medieval times, different tribes essentially thought of others as being non-human -- which enabled violence and killing with emotional detachment.  "But communication has made us understand how inter-related we are."

-- I asked him about the transformational nature of our increasing virtual social interaction and "always on" information exchange via social media that has inundated our lives and the lives of our kids.  What he calls "Hyper Connectivity."

-- He underscored that Hyper Connectivity leads also to what he calls "Hyper Transparency" -- "the ability to know anything, anytime, anywhere" -- which, he believes, ultimately is a good thing and leads to a safer world (even amidst its frequently seeming daunting and brain-altering impacts).

III.  ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND MACHINE V. MAN

-- I asked about his concerns about AI-driven machine turning on its human creators via the not-too-distant expected singularity (which media recently depicted in the excellent "must see" movie Ex Machina).

-- That is a Hollywood sensationalist myth, in his view.  He is an optimist that AI will be harnessed for good.

IV.  ON CLIMATE CHANGE

-- He is absolutely certain that we have the ability to solve climate change.

-- As an example, he says we have the technology today that can block a certain percentage of the sun's rays.  "Structurally, that is not difficult to do."  The real question is rather whether society has the will to implement such technologies.

V.  ON EXTENDING HUMAN LIFESPANS AND AN AGING AND EVER-GROWING GLOBAL SOCIETY THAT TAXES THE LIMITS OF EARTH RESOURCES

-- First, he points out that his friend Elon Musk is actually concerned about long-term shrinking global population numbers.

-- The goal of new life extending technology (including his company's) is not simply to extend life.  Rather, it's about extending the quality of life, without over-populating the planet.

-- "The goal is not just living older.  It's living better."

-- As an example of his optimism about technology's potential with human lifespans, he points out that many humans retire at the peak of their professional lives.  And, he asks me to imagine if that wasn't the case.  "That would increase the GNP of a nation substantially."


After all, "all of these things are engineer-able, fixable."

Want Music In Your Video? 5 "Must Know" Things So You Don't Get Sued -- Guest Post

[This post was written by two music experts on the Manatt Digital Media team -- long-time experienced and connected music attorneys David Rappaport (out of our NYC office) and Jordan Bromley (who works down the hall from me in LA).  Together, they represent some of the biggest and most innovative artists in the music industry.  A modified version of this post originally appeared in Newsweek.]

Last month we received a call from a woman who made an unassuming video of her daughter's wedding and added her favorite song as the musical bed. She was frightened, a little angry and perplexed by the copyright infringement letter she received from a major music publisher. 

"All I did was make a video for myself. I'm not selling it!" Unfortunately for her, she used a song that was owned by someone other than her...in this case, a music publisher that was intent on enforcing its rights. 

Granted, most music publishers don't go after people with aggressive letters, but it is no secret that video creators are constantly surprised by rightful infringement claims from songwriters, publishers and record labels. Most people don't know the correct way to "clear" music in their videos. Some don't understand that there is no "safe harbor" for use of music in a video. No matter how short, no matter how limited the views, no matter how you credit the creators…if you use it, and you don't clear it, you're an infringer.

HERE ARE 5 THINGS TO SAVE YOU FROM AN UNEXPECTED SURPRISE: 

1. There are two "sides" to every song – the musical composition and the master recording. Think of the composition as the sheet music, the song that you sing. Think of the master as every time you record that song. The composition is eternal, and the master is the recorded moment where you perform that eternal work. You HAVE to "clear" both. 

2. The "clearance" is called a "synchronization license" ("synch license" for short) since you are "synchronizing" the audio to the video. Boiled down, you need a synchronization license from the composition owner AND the master owners (it can be several people if various people wrote the composition/own the master) before you share your video with the world. It doesn't matter if you're making money or not, and it doesn't matter how little of the composition and master you use in your video; if it's a recognizable part of the composition, don't take a risk. If it is ANY part of the master recording, you need to clear it. 

3. Become familiar with the concept of "Most Favored Nations" (or "MFN" for short). This is a way the various owners of the music make sure no owner is earning more on the license than any other owner. It is also a way to legally "game" the clearance system. If you can find one sympathetic owner to grant a less expensive or gratis license, you can use that to get everyone else to come in on an MFN basis with the first licensor. This takes some finesse and knowledge of the major publishers and labels that own a majority of the world's musical content.  

4. You don't need a license from every co-owner of the composition or master. There is a more complicated way around a stubborn songwriter, publisher or record label in the rare instances where there are co-owned masters. Put simply, under the real property concept of joint tenancy, one owner can grant a non-exclusive license for 100% of the work, provided that the other owners are paid their respective portion of the income made from the license. If you need that license – and you can't get it from all owners – this is a way around replacing the song. 

5. Don't forget about public performance licenses! If you're exhibiting the video on your own website, you need to obtain a public performance license in addition to the synch license. This affords you the right to play the music in a public venue...in this case, on a public facing website. For more information, visit www.ascap.com / www.bmi.com / www.sesac.com / http://globalmusicrights.com/

Virtual Reality Update - Latest Developments - Manatt Digital Media Newsletter

	June 17, 2015 Manatt Digital Media – June Newsletter: Virtual Reality Update VR—Power, Potential, Risks . . . VR—The Engine of Empathy and Real Social Change Jaunt, VR and the Future of Media and Entertainment River—Accelerating Virtual Reality Start-Ups VNTANA Extends Live Experiences Globally MDM Spotlight Profile “VR technology will transform every industry over the next decade or two, just as the Internet was nascent twenty years ago but now is ubiquitous.”—The River Manifesto In MDM’s previous newsletter on Virtual Reality (VR), we covered some of the basics and gave an overview of the VR landscape. Since then, we have continued to immerse ourselves in the space, and engage with and advise some of its foremost leaders. In this month’s newsletter, we share with you insights from these experiences and innovators and from VR’s countless, game-changing applications—from games and media and entertainment to education, travel, healthcare and beyond.  VR—Power, Potential, Risks . . . By Peter Csathy Earlier this month, I moderated a VR and augmented reality (AR) panel at the SLUSH Future Brunch, hosted by organizers of Helsinki’s “must know” SLUSH digital media and tech conference held annually in November. My panel included some of the most important thought leaders and innovators in the VR space—Mike Rothenberg of Rothenberg Ventures (in which Manatt Venture Fund is an investor)—Rothenberg runs the first VR accelerator, called River; Danny Gabai of Vice Media, which produces some of the most inspired VR “experiences” to date; Andy Cochrane of Mirada Studios; and Neville Spiteri of WEVR. We covered a lot of ground during the session, including: 1. The state of VR today—and the prospects for the future—with all on the panel predicting mass consumer adoption of tens of millions of VR headsets within a couple of years (MDM completely agrees with that assessment). Read more VR—The Engine of Empathy and Real Social Change By Peter Csathy MDM recently visited Silicon Valley—and one highlight of that trip was pioneering VR company Jaunt (more on Jaunt in the profile below). Jaunt demonstrated just some of VR’s possibilities. Yes, media and entertainment. Yes, games and adventure. Those are obvious and frequently discussed. Read more Jaunt, VR and the Future of Media and Entertainment By Peter Csathy On MDM’s recent trip to Jaunt, CEO Jens Christensen first sat me down in the Jaunt demo studio (pictured here to the left),where I sat through and experienced four different demos. First demo: On the stage at a recent Paul McCartney concert (yes, these will sell big time). Second demo: Extreme climbing and parachuting off cliffs in Yosemite and other extreme lands. Third demo: Immersed as a character in a horror movie (complete with a blanket thrown over my head by one of the demons that made my entire body flinch). Fourth demo: A CGI EDM-driven segment. Read more River—Accelerating Virtual Reality Start-Ups By  Mary Ermitanio In December 2014, two-year-old fund Rothenberg Ventures first opened its doors to applications for River, its new virtual reality-focused accelerator. The three-month program aims to be the “world’s VR classroom” and offers start-ups $100,000 investments, mentorship by industry veterans, and office space at the Rothenberg Ventures’ 8,000-square-foot space in San Francisco.  Read more VNTANA Extends Live Experiences Globally By Sarah Chambless Earlier this year, MDM visited the Santa Monica offices of VNTANA. Tucked away in the rear parking lot of a multiuse space near Bergamot Station, VNTANA enables immersive, multilocation live experiences through high-definition, real-time hologram technology. Read more MDM Spotlight Profile Sarah Chambless leads Manatt Digital Media’s Virtual Reality initiatives. Sarah specializes in start-up company formation, early-stage finance, venture capital investment transactions and private company mergers and acquisitions. She advises emerging tech companies in digital media, technology, consumer products, social enterprise and nonprofit sectors, and represents both emerging companies and venture capital investors in seed and venture capital financings. She also has experience in fund formation and joint ventures. Prior to joining Manatt, she taught elementary school in Compton, California, as a Teach for America corps member.  View her full profile here.

VR & AR - Power, Potential, Risks ... Thoughts of Leading Innovators In This Immersive Space

Last week, I moderated a virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) panel at the SLUSH Future Brunch, hosted by organizers of Helsinki's "must know" SLUSH digital media and tech conference held annually in November.  My panel included some of the most important thought leaders and innovators in the VR space – (i) Mike Rothenberg of Rothenberg Ventures (in which Manatt Venture Fund is an investor) -- Rothenberg runs the first VR accelerator called River); (ii) Danny Gabai of Vice Media (producers of some of the most inspired VR “experiences” to date, including "Clouds Over Sidra" about which I wrote previously); (iii) Andy Cochrane of Mirada Studios; and (iv) Neville Spiteri of WEVR.  We covered a lot of ground during the session, including:

(1)         The state of VR today – and the prospects for the future – with all on the panel predicting mass consumer adoption of tens of millions of VR headsets within a couple of years (I completely agree with that assessment -- and my team and I at Manatt Digital Media are working with a number of VR companies to accelerate that pace);

(2)         The fact that it is available content, rather than “ready for prime time” hardware, that is the bottle-neck for such mass adoption right now;

(3)         The unique power and opportunity for VR not only in the obvious areas of story-telling, but also for (i) live events (think of yourself being transported to your favorite music artist’s live event and sitting in the front row – would you pay for that?  I would – and just think of the potential of this new revenue stream for the music business), (ii) travel (being immersed in a foreign land rather than watching videos on a box), (iii) education (think of the power and potential in the classroom) and (iv) empathy and social change (e.g., "Clouds Over Sidra");

(4)         Andy Cochrane emphasized that the distinction between VR and AR is blurred and artificial – and rather than thinking of those two as being distinct concepts, they together represent what he singly calls “immersive and interactive” experiences;

(5)         Andy also underscored that we should be careful of placing VR experiences into a box like “VR gaming”, because VR experiences are entirely different in terms of structure and simply cannot follow typical games branches;

(6)         Mike Rothenberg, while massively bullish on the overall VR opportunity, also pointed out significant risks associated with VR experiences.  Motion sickness is the most discussed right now (but is fast being addressed by the industry).  But, less discussed – and significantly problematic – is the sheer overwhelming, and potentially extremely dangerous, immersion into high intensity contexts.  Think the video game “Call of Duty.”  Imagine the potential post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that could flow from being placed directly into battle and violence.  These risks are real – and companies are rising up now to address those dangers.  Think further of the potential for VR abuse in the hands of those with malevolent intentions (think ISIS).  It is for these reasons, that Mike anticipates a need for real regulations in this area.

It was a fascinating discussion cut short only by the need to end the event.

When "Body Lost Soul" - What Happened To Death Cab?

One of my favorite haunting songs of the past several years is Death Cab for Cutie's "Soul Meets Body."  Another is "Transatlanticism" (from the album of the same name).  Classic songs by one of my favorite Indie bands of the past decade.

But, both were long ago -- and Death Cab is now on its third major release since "Plans" (where "Soul Meets Body" found its home).  And, nothing from their past three albums touch the impact of those earlier tracks, albums, and overall mood and vibe.

THAT's what I miss the most!  That overall vibe.  The depth of emotion.  Those incredible lyrics.  Those intricate layers of sound.  I hear very little of that in the band's latest album Kintsugi.  Only when the band breaks away from its empty drum machine-laden tracks (which inexplicably have represented two of the album's first three singles) does the band begin to approach its former greatness.

So I ask the question, when did the band's body of work lose its soul?  And, how did that happen?

Or did my ears simply change?

Spotify's Hangover From Apple's Hard Cider -- 5 Daunting Dilemmas

It's the morning after yesterday's Apple WWDC bender.  Spotify, how's your head?  May be time to grasp for that Motrin -- because it's now officially "game on" with Apple Music (Cupertino's decidedly non-Beats music subscription streaming service announced yesterday and launching June 30th).

Spotify, yes you have a 15 million paid subscription lead over Tim Cook's gang.

But, here's what Apple has that you don't:

(1) Fundamentally more business freedom as a result of a business model that you can never match.  Apple Music is one big advertisement for Apple hardware (iPhones, Macs) -- a marketing expense, if you will.  Apple Music can be a success even if it doesn't generate a single stand-alone $1 of profit.  You, Spotify, can't say that.  Here's my earlier detailed analysis that lays this all out.    Here's my earlier analysis that lays this all out in the context of Apple's inevitable OTT video service vs. Netflix (just insert "Spotify" in place of "Netflix" in my digital media version of Mad Libs) (and here's a second "bonus" analysis that adds further color).  You have only one obvious antidote to cure that ill -- and that is to be acquired by another "big fish" with an Apple-like multi-pronged business model (Google, Amazon, Samsung anyone?).

(2) Native distribution via Apple's ownership of the OS, iOS 9 that is.  Apple Music comes natively to iPhones and Macs with new iOS 9.  That's a lot of immediate and pervasive distribution (i.e., virtual real estate) that Spotify can't match.  Let's face it, membership has its privileges.  (And one more important thing, Apple Music will not exclusively be for the Apple core anymore -- it will be available for Android too in a few ... kind of like when iTunes crossed the chasm 10 years ago into the world of PCs, a seismic strategic shift proudly enabled by my former company Musicmatch);

(3) Massive marketing dollars & "real" real estate outside your grasp.  How about this for a 1-2 punch?  Apple Music surrounding you both natively and online on iPhones and Macs, but also in offline real estate -- i.e., in Apple's stores around the world.  Expect to be bombarded with Apple Music pitches (elegantly, of course) with every breath you take, and every move you make in the store near you -- and also via the Apple marketing machine turned up to "11" everywhere you glance (on TV, buses, subways, billboards, cabs, pedi-cabs ....).  There will be no escape.

(4) Significantly deeper and "invested" artist relations.  Apple Music has Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre leading the way in its overall artist-first narrative (and many of the service's announced features leverage that positioning).  Spotify, on the other hand, can count a very vocal and very bitter Taylor Swift.  You see, family heritage also matters -- and Spotify's hails from a distant land (foreign to most major music artists, at least) and proudly proclaims its tech-first bent -- while Apple and Jobs always (from the very beginning) played to artist sensibilities and were Californians just like many of them;

(5) Direct immersive artist-fan engagement opportunities to enable deeper connections and ultimately deeper monetization.  In fact, Apple calls this new feature "Connect" -- with the immediate benefit being that all artist social feeds are brought together in one place.  But, more interesting is the tantalizing possibility of artists giving their fans what they really want -- and that is, special access to them!  Rabid fans will pay for rapid access.  Rhapsody's recent deal with BandPage hints to these exciting new possibilities (here is my separate post about that new deal).  Artists win.  Fans win.  Apple wins.

Spotify.  Make no mistake.  Apple's threat is real.  It is daunting.  And, just because Apple Radio and Beats Music have done no damage to you or Pandora, doesn't mean that Apple Music will meet that same fate.  Apple is invested in every possible way to see Apple Music succeed.  It paid $3 billion for Beats.  But, much more than that, iTunes has been the "soul" of Apple (and the foundation for its rocket launch to becoming the #1 valued company in the world) for the past decade.  Apple Music is its hope ... nay, its mission! ... to transition effectively away from the download-driven world of yesterday to the subscription streaming-driven world of today and tomorrow.  In other words, Apple must succeed.

So Spotify, what's your next move, especially when daunting dilemmas #1, #2 and #3 are simply out of your reach by definition?  You are betting big on video of course to expand your current one-dimensional business model (here's my recent post about that major new strategic move).  But, will that be enough, especially when Apple inevitably launches its own "Netflix Killer" OTT video service later this year?  (More on that Apple v. Netflix discussion here.)

Or, will you need a little help from your friends ... the other 800 pound tech gorillas who feel threatened like you do today?