| >I still don't think referring to it as (un)favourable makes sense. It's simply the cost of doing business. If Spotify can't convince enough people to pay them enough money Got it and I totally understand exactly what you're saying. It's a matter of perspective and what you said is also true. That said, let's put some context and boundaries around "unfavorable terms" when it's used to analyze Spotify's financial situation. If we use an alternative perspective of measuring how Spotify can compete with Apple who has solidified an anchor price[1] of $9.99, it means that Spotify is heavily pressured to not be more expensive than that. Yes, Spotify could theoretically charge more such as $11.99 to cover the higher licensing percentages of 55% or 58% but they probably feel that it kills their demand curve. Spotify's pricing has to work in between "free" (piracy) and Apple's $9.99. They don't have the leverage or differentiation to convince consumers to pay $11.99. So one perspective is that Spotify needs to increase subscription prices to whatever level they need to in order make a profit and to hell with losing millions of customers to Apple's $9.99 deal. Possible eventual outcome is that Spotify dies in bankruptcy because of dwindling user accounts. The other perspective is that $9.99 is a too much of a consumer-ingrained psychological price so don't bother fighting it. The better chance of survival is to renegotiate with the record labels for more "favorable terms" so it's possible to make a profit at $9.99. So far, the digital music streaming business can't figure out the money puzzle to make everybody happy. Many consumers already think that $120 a year is too much to pay. At the same time, many artists believe they get too little money[2]. tldr; Spotify can't lose a price war [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring [2]http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/09/24/my-song-was-playe... |