????如果創(chuàng)新就意味著大筆賠錢，那在線音樂服務(wù)業(yè)顯然明白怎么像個搖滾明星似的大把燒錢。

????對這個圈子里的少數(shù)幾家頂級企業(yè)如流媒體音樂服務(wù)提供商Spotify和Pandora來說，用戶使用率和收入增長率是實實在在的，比如日前Pandora的財報就聲稱已經(jīng)實現(xiàn)了收支平衡。但運營的成本到底如何呢？很多情況下，尚不清楚用戶增加之后利潤是否也會同步增長。每過幾年就會興起一種新服務(wù)，吸引用戶，但隨后就會碰到和以前的服務(wù)一樣的成本問題：和版權(quán)所有人的合作條件。唱片公司、音樂出版商、以及一些嶄露頭角的音樂人往往會繞開傳統(tǒng)音樂版權(quán)的行規(guī)選擇單飛，比如現(xiàn)在自己做老板的泰勒?史薇芙特（Taylor Swift，美國鄉(xiāng)村音樂女歌手——譯注），他們都希望、并且需要從流媒體或音樂下載中分一杯羹，而這種做法既能促成交易，也能毀了交易。

????談到這個行業(yè)性問題，音樂網(wǎng)站MP3tunes.com的首席執(zhí)行官兼創(chuàng)始人邁克?羅賓遜寫道：“在大多數(shù)行業(yè)里，如果供應(yīng)商提出了無理要求，零售商就可以去找其他供應(yīng)商。但因為版權(quán)法賦予了唱片公司和音樂出版商政府許可的壟斷權(quán)，并不存在這種選擇。因此數(shù)字音樂零售商只有兩條路可走：要么接受合作條件，要么在貨品清單里清除這些歌曲。”

????盈利能力問題

????據(jù)《華爾街日報》（The Wall Street Journal ）報道，從2010年到2011年，Spotify的營收增長了140%，達(dá)到2.36億美元，付費訂閱用戶達(dá)到400萬人，注冊用戶為3,300萬（其中多數(shù)人使用的是Facebook上的免費含廣告版）。2010年，Spotify的營收還只有9,900萬美元。不過，一些分析師和行業(yè)觀察家關(guān)注的是虧損率這一數(shù)字。2010年，Spotify虧損5,700美元，比2009年的虧損額4,200萬美元高出不少。與之相似，今年第二財季Pandora為了購買內(nèi)容支付了6,050萬美元，也就是付給音樂行業(yè)的版稅，而去年同期該費用僅為3,370萬美元。

????行業(yè)咨詢公司Digital Cowboys的分析師大衛(wèi)?庫薩克稱：“目前（線上音樂業(yè)）仍處于相對早期的發(fā)展階段，線上音樂只占市場整體的一小部分（人們?nèi)匀辉谫徺ICD）。目前還沒有真正成熟可行的商業(yè)模式……別忘了，發(fā)現(xiàn)并分享新音樂最大的線上來源仍然是YouTube。”

????眼下，在線聽音樂、分享音樂已經(jīng)方便到了極點，或者說已經(jīng)到了各家快打破頭的局面。只要用手指一劃，或是點點鼠標(biāo)，就能輕松享受各式各樣的服務(wù)：依托于于算法、電臺風(fēng)格的（Pandora）；社交分享流媒體式的（Spotify）；下載到蘋果獨家設(shè)備的（iTunes），以及幾乎其他所有設(shè)備都會采用的、由亞馬遜（Amazon）和谷歌（Google）提供的下載保存在云端的服務(wù)。還有那些規(guī)模較小、提供流媒體和訂閱服務(wù)的企業(yè)：Rhapsody（它沒能搭上社交媒體這艘大船），Slacker, Rdio, MOG及其他不計其數(shù)的公司。此外，還得算上赤裸裸的盜版行為。

????實際上，在線音樂產(chǎn)業(yè)現(xiàn)在共有兩種商業(yè)模式：廣告模式——庫薩克認(rèn)為這種模式會隨著規(guī)模擴大而導(dǎo)致虧損加劇；還有就是訂閱模式，這是他認(rèn)為長期來看更可行的模式。

????而使問題進一步復(fù)雜化的癥結(jié)是音樂產(chǎn)業(yè)所特有的特點：太多彼此獨立又相互競爭的利益方都在爭奪這塊大蛋糕上屬于自己的那一份。唱片公司、音樂出版商以及音樂人自己（這個群體爭奪的勁頭要小得多）都有一套對他們自己有利的條件，其中包括最惠國待遇，最低付款額，單曲價格，公司總收入所占百分比，還有就是最讓人抓狂的、詳盡闡述競爭格局的報告。

????庫薩克稱：“要就全球性合作來談條件真是困難異常。這個行業(yè)的人習(xí)慣的情況是，存儲格式變了，營收就隨之而來，從唱片到8軌軟片，從盒式磁帶到CD，營收總是水到渠成地跟著而來。但自從MP3出現(xiàn)以后，他們習(xí)慣的這一幕就消失了……”

????If disruption means losing money, then online music services know how to spend like rock stars.

????Adoption and revenue growth rates at a few top players like Spotify and Pandora are real -- Pandora (P) reported earnings yesterday, breaking even -- but what are the costs to play? It's still unclear in many cases if audience growth will translate to profit.

????Every few years a new service rises up, captures audiences but then has the same cost-centric problems as every one that has come before: negotiating terms with rights holders. Music labels, music publishers, and in some cases, emerging artists who circumvent traditional music property conventions by going it alone -- think self-managed Taylor Swift -- all want or need a stake in streams or downloads, and that can make or break a deal.

????"With most other businesses, if a supplier makes unreasonable demands, a retailer can turn to other providers," wrote Michael Robertson, CEO and founder of MP3tunes.com, about the problems with the industry. "Since copyright law gives record labels and publishers a government-granted monopoly, no such option is possible with music. Digital vendors have only two options: Accept the terms or not include those songs in their offering."

????The profitability problem

????From 2010 to 2011, Spotify grew revenues 140 percent to $236 million with a paid-subscription base of 4 million users and a total of 33 million registered users (most of whom use the free ad-supported version via Facebook), the Wall Street Journal reported. Spotify revenue grew from $99 million in 2010. However, the number some analysts and industry watchers are looking at is the rate of loss. In 2010, Spotify lost $57 million, which was an increase from 2009's $42 million in losses. Similarly, Pandora, paid $60.5 million in the second quarter this year for content acquisition --royalties to the music industry -- a number up from $33.7 million in the same period last year.

????"It's still relatively early days," said David Kusek of industry consultancy Digital Cowboys. "Online music is a still a small percentage of the overall market (CDs still being consumed). There really is no perfected business model yet. .. Remember, the largest online source for discovery of new music and sharing is still YouTube."

????Listening and sharing music online couldn't be more convenient or crowded. Options are easily found at the swipe of a finger or click of a mouse: the algorithm, radio-style option (Pandora); a social-sharing streaming strategy (Spotify); the download model to Apple-only devices (iTunes) and the download, keep in-the-cloud options from Amazon and Google on almost every other device. Then there are the smaller streaming and subscription players: Rhapsody (who has missed the social boat so far), Slacker, Rdio, MOG and more. Or, there is straight-up piracy.

????There are essentially two business models for online music right now: advertising--a losing model with scale, says Kusek, or subscription, which he thinks has more viability long term.

????What complicates the issue further is unique to the music industry: Too many separate, competing interests fighting for a piece of the pie. Music labels, music publishers, and artists themselves (to a much lesser extent) all have certain terms in their favor including most favored nation, minimum payments, per-play costs, percent of total company revenue, and one of the most head-scratching, detailed reporting of the competition.

????"Negotiating deals on a global scale is extremely hard," said Kusek. " What you used to have was revenue following format changes: From vinyl to 8 track to cassette to CD, the revenue always followed. That didn't happen with MP3s exactly… "