總部位于瑞典斯德哥爾摩的Spotify是全球排名第一的流媒體音樂公司，但如果看看其資產負債表，你可能會有受騙的感覺。盡管付費用戶（7500萬，仍在增長）和收入穩步增加（上季度約13.6億美元），Spotify仍在虧損。2018年前三個月虧損4900萬美元左右，原因并非無法控制支出，而是供應商失控。是的，沒錯：隨著Spotify發展，向唱片公司和其他提供商的版稅支出也會增加。而相關邊際成本也是Spotify盈利的基礎。

其實沒必要如此。另一家流媒體明星公司Netflix就能做到一邊維持用戶增長，一邊控制住劇集費用。可惜Spotify做不到，主要因為跟“三大巨頭”——索尼、環球和華納簽訂的協議，還有與獨立音樂版權代理機構Merlin簽署的協議。去年，幾家巨頭合起來擁有Spotify上85%的音樂版權。

是的，隨著不斷發展，Spotify是可以跟各家伙伴協商降低費用，也可以找其他收入來源。（首席財務官巴里·麥卡錫認為，電臺廣告市場規模超過180億美元。“勝出者能享受巨大回報。”3月他在業績發布會上表示。）但如果Spotify開始學習Netflix，發力原創內容呢？Spotify能實現盈利么，還是會引起唱片巨頭死命反抗？

曾摘得格萊美獎的制作組合J.U.S.T.I.C.E. League成員艾里克·“盧克”·奧提茲表示，由于供應商手中掌握著大量藝人資源，Spotify不太可能終止合作。他認為，如果平臺上沒有一些經典藝人，例如披頭士、王子和麥當娜等，吸引力會急劇下降。“（如果真沒了）會變成小眾圈子。”他表示，跟音樂平臺Bandcamp差不多。

另一方面，巨頭們也不愿輕易割舍Spotify每月1.7億活躍用戶。不過巨頭們還有別的選擇，可以轉投蘋果音樂之類的競爭平臺。“蘋果為什么不提供一年免費服務爭取Spotify用戶呢？”洛杉磯私募股權公司Patriarch Organization首席執行官埃里克·希弗問道。“其實Spotify提供的服務競爭對手都能替代。”

其他一些人則表示樂觀。“我覺得藝術家們都很支持Spotify。”美國雪城大學創業學教授大衛·帕克表示。他指出，去年泰勒·斯威夫特就決定重返該平臺，而且其數據很方便藝術家使用。

這也意味著Spotify的優勢其實比表面上大。“如果想找當今真正流行的音樂，”希弗表示，“Spotify上有很多真正原生流行動態，方便你緊跟熱門。”現在對Spotify來說最重要的就是想辦法從中盈利。（財富中文網）

本文首發于2018年6月1日《財富》雜志。

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

?

Take one look at the balance sheet for the world’s No. 1 music-streaming company, and you might think it’s being a little bit bullied. Despite steadily increasing paid subscribers (75 million and counting) and revenue (about $1.36 billion last quarter), Spotify continues to bleed. The $49 million or so that it lost in the first three months of 2018 wasn’t because the company can’t keep a tight rein on its own spending, but because it can’t keep a rein on its suppliers. Yes, that’s right: As Spotify grows, so do its royalty payouts to record labels and other music providers. And those marginal costs are an anchor on the Stockholm company’s profit potential.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Netflix, the media-streaming darling of a different kind, is able to keep its programming expenses locked down as its user base grows. But that’s not so for Spotify, thanks to the agreements it struck with the “big three”—Sony, Universal, and Warner—as well as Merlin, a licensing agency for independent labels. Together, the group accounted for over 85% of the music streamed on Spotify last year.

Sure, Spotify could negotiate its rates down when the time comes. It could also explore new revenue sources. (In CFO Barry McCarthy’s sights: the more than $18 billion radio advertising market. “There is an enormous payoff for whoever wins,” he said on a March earnings call.) But what if it took a cue from Netflix and began producing original content? Would Spotify finally realize its profits, or would it spark a devastating record-label revolt?

Erik “Rook” Ortiz, half of the Grammy award–winning production duo J.U.S.T.I.C.E. League, says the allure of artists’ back catalogs makes it unlikely that Spotify could cut out its suppliers. To him, the platform would become irrelevant without the inclusion of enduring artists like the Beatles, Prince, or Madonna. “It becomes a niche thing,” he says, no different than, say, Bandcamp.

It’s also unlikely that the music labels would want to lose access to Spotify’s 170 million monthly active users. Still, they could easily redirect their content to competing platforms like Apple Music. “What’s stopping Apple from giving Spotify subscribers a year for free?” asks Eric Schiffer, CEO of the Patriarch Organization, a Los Angeles private equity firm. “Everything Spotify is doing can be usurped by a competitor.”

Others remain optimistic. “I think Spotify is winning the hearts of artists,” says David Park, a professor of entrepreneurship at Syracuse University, noting Taylor Swift’s decision to rejoin the service last year as well as its artist-friendly data insights.

That gives Spotify a little more leverage than it gets credit for. “If you’re looking for true popular music in today’s zeitgeist,” Schiffer says, “Spotify has real, unvarnished info that can really tap you into what’s hot.” All the company has to do is figure out a way to profit from it.?

This article originally appeared in the June 1, 2018 issue of Fortune.