Jimmyn Parc The Divergent Paths of Digital Music Service Providers: A Comparative Case Study of Melon and Spotify1 Introduction Digitization has changed the landscape for many businesses, including the music industry. With digital technologies, music styles, genres, and production methods have become more diversified. The range of ways to consume music has also varied. Among the different sectors in the music industry, distribution has recently attracted significant attention around the world as digital forms have replaced traditional ones. In particular, the birth of digital music service providers or streaming service providers has even affected music producers and production companies as well as outlets as they have shifted the paradigm from “possessing music” to “accessing music” through the Internet (Parc and Kawashima, 2018). Notable examples in this regard include streaming service providers such as Amazon Prime Music, Apple Music, Google Play Music, Spotify, and YouTube Music. They have all shifted the focus of music production from albums to individual songs as consumers can purchase any specific track instead of having to acquire the whole album. Alongside this deve- lopment, the importance of visual images has become more noticeable as a number of streaming service providers have promoted the shift from sound devices such as cassettes and CD players to portable smart devices like tablet PCs and smartphones. This signifies a transformation from “music to listen to” to “music to listen to and watch” as visual images have been added (Parc and Kawashima, 2018). 1 This work was supported by the Laboratory Program for Korean Studies through the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the Korean Studies Promotion Ser- vice of the Academy of Korean Studies (AKS-2015-LAB-2250003). 51 In this new environment, securing a large pool of music is considered to be one of the prerequisites toward increasing the brand power of these streaming service providers. In this regard, the size of the home music market can be seen as an important factor as music is closely related to local tastes and consumption; thus, the United States has a great advan- tage as it possesses one of the world’s largest music markets. However, it is interesting to see that the competition for audio streaming has been led by Apple Music and Spotify in 2019 (Germain, 2019), and the home of Spotify, Sweden, has a relatively small market when compared with other countries such as the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and even South Korea (hereafter Korea). Among these countries, Korea can be a good comparison target with Sweden. Interestingly, Korea’s music market size was smaller than that of Sweden, but it has grown significantly since the emergence of Korean pop music or K-pop while the Swedish market by contrast has shown only slow progress. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), Korea has the sixth largest music industry whereas that of Sweden ranked fourteenth as of 2017. The retail values for each country are US$ 494.4 and US$ 199.5, respectively (Recording Industry Association of Japan [RIAJ], 2018). The Korean music industry is also one of a few that have successfully adapted to digitization in the early years. Its leading streaming service provider is Melon which began its service in 2004 while the Swedish company Spotify launched its service in 2008. Given this context, it would be expected that Melon would enjoy a better performance and a larger coverage than Spotify. However, in contrast to such expectations, the overall performance of Melon has been very different. Based on traffic statistics, Spotify’s global ranking is 105 whereas that of Melon is astonishingly at 4,531 as of May 2019 (SimilarWeb, 2019a,b). Why has Spotify been able to become one of the top global service providers despite its small home market while Melon has failed to make its mark although it has a larger market size and enjoys the increasing international popularity of K-pop? This paper analyzes the reasons for these contrasting performances through the following contents. The first section begins with a brief introduction of Melon and Spotify and their evolution in the era of digitization. The second section analyzes the reasons for the divergent paths of Melon and Spotify. The third section discusses the real contribution of streaming service providers and other related issues. Lastly, the conclusion summarizes the findings of this pa- per and suggests areas for further studies. By analyzing the various aspects 52 of these two service providers, this paper aims to deliver meaningful im- plications for the global music industry and its sustainability. Melon and Spotify in the Era of Digitization Melon was founded in 2004 by the major Korean telecommunication operator SKT. During this period, the Korean music industry was endu- ring “hardships” as a result of the technological transition from traditional music players such as cD players to new digital devices like the MP3 player. However, there were even further changes afoot; the MP3 phone entered the market around the same time as a device to replace stand- alone MP3 players. With the emergence of MP3 phones in the market, the Korean telecommunication operators developed their own music streaming services which allowed their customers to down-load music freely (Parc, 2019). Under these circumstances, the core function for Melon differed from similar streaming service providers in other countries due to several reasons. First, the primary purpose of Melon is not simply to play music, but is an additional tool to promote SKT as it was in competition with other operators who were similarly introducing MP3 phones. Second, Melon has been focused mostly on K-pop which has been the main source of consumption for music in Korea. Lastly, the focus of Melon has been on the domestic market as its initial role was to support SKT’s MP3 phone product. Recently, Melon has merged with Kakao which is behind the popular mobile instant messaging application Kakaotalk. As Melon and Kakaotalk have set up an interconnected service, it is expected to bring about beneficial synergies. With the increasing international popularity of K-pop, the Melon Music Awards has become one of the major music awards shows in Ko- rea. Through this, the brand name of Melon has been further recognized among international K-pop fans. Despite all this popularity, Melon still does not have any English websites and the availability of its application for smartphones is limited to a few countries. As the coverage of Kakao- talk is mostly in Korea (Farid, 2019), its international influence is some- what limited. Domestically, the competition has become more severe as other local service providers such as Genie, Bugs, and Naver Music have aggressively challenged the predominant position of Melon. Further- more, Apple Music, YouTube, and other foreign streaming service pro- viders have entered the Korean market. In particular, the number of Ko- rean users for YouTube has significantly increased recently (Kim, 2018). For these reasons, it can be interesting to see how Melon will come 53 through all of these new challenges. Spotify was founded by Daniel Ek and Martin Lerentzon as a small start-up in Stockholm, Sweden in 2008. Initially, they aimed to develop a more general media distribution platform based on peer-to-peer techno- logy. In the early years, they focused on reducing the physical and tempo- ral distance within the music industry, notably between the United Sta- tes, and its consumers who enjoy music free of charge in Europe, notably Sweden (Vonderau, 2017). However, this model was not efficient enough to generate revenues. Instead of receiving fees from service users, Spotify relies upon advertising revenue to compensate for its operational costs. By doing so, Spotify was able to generate revenue as well as to encourage advertising-averse users to pay for its premium service, and thus ad-free streaming (Blattberg, 2015). There are a number of reasons why this system has been considered to be an innovative model. First, consumers do not need to pay any fee for a regular service although they do need to permit advertisements to play. Therefore, consumers avoid copyright infringement due to the fact that Spotify has been able to provide the music industry with a certain amount of financial contribution from the revenue generated from adver- tisement. It is important to stress the fact that this financial contribution did not exist before Spotify launched its service. Second, their advertise- ment technologies and relevant endeavors can be seen as a way to reduce the piracy problem which has severely plagued the music industry since the emergence of digital devices. Last, Spotify has tackled the mismat- ched problem of supply and demand in the global music industry. consu- mers can easily encounter foreign music that is closer to their own tastes while it increases the exposure of lesser-known musicians and their music. Yet, the view from the music industry and musicians is somewhat different. Musicians such as Adele, Taylor Swift, Eminem, and others believe that this financial contribution has been far too limited and some of them have boycotted Spotify or even sued the company (Buchanan, 2015; Statt, 2019; Sweney, 2017). In order to solve these copyright and licensing issues, Spotify has been working with various artists to produce in-house albums. Furthermore, although it has been a leading service pro- vider in the audio streaming market, the challenge of video streaming ser- vice providers such as YouTube have threatened its share of the market. Despite these meaningful aspects, Spotify has suffered from long-term deficits due to the burdensome nature of music licensing fees (Peterson, 2018). After a long journey, Spotify has finally been able to record its first 54 operating profits in 2019 (Söderpalm and Swahnberg, 2019).