Skip to content

About us

eCounsel group

A boutique firm with unparalleled expertise in business and technology. We have good command of industrial ecology and legal practice, and have undertaken highly regarded cases. Because the small business scope, we pay more emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency, and choose clients with deliberation. The managing partner not only has extensive experiences in various legal issues more over than 20 years, but invests and manages several technology companies. In addition, he always checks each case rigorously. Clients’ business objectives are our primary focus. To achieve the same in the most cost-effective fashion trumps all seemingly sophisticated legal discussions.

Nice-to-have vs. Must-have

2014 - 11 - 14

How many of us are music fanatics, consider it life necessity and have to listen to something everyday?


絕大多數人,是不是音樂的重度使用者? 必須每天都聽,是生命的必需品?

你我可能都有過經驗,被這三家電信公司之一強迫半買半送KKBOX, myMusic或Omusic個把月、然後莫名其妙帳單又不小心多付了幾個月,才驀然想起把它給停掉。在你擁有$149月付費帳戶的那幾個月裡,你搞不好從頭到尾總共聽不到10次,每次還只聽3首曲子就關掉了。

這樣,就算這幾家大唱片公司說「我們以後不提供免費音樂、以後要全面改採付費制」了,你會買單嗎?

“An average user of free, ad-supported streaming services generates revenue of around $4 a year to record companies, according to one label executive…”
[1]

有家唱片公司的主管表示,廣告補貼制的串流音樂服務使用者,平均每年會貢獻給唱片公司美金4元的營收…

是啊,Spotify的付費用戶每年所繳的美金120元裡有70%給了版權人,就是$84左右。姑不論裡頭還得包括詞曲和公開傳輸費在內,這樣了不起也就是$4的21倍。以KKBOX而論,一群拼了老命專心只做音樂的網路資優生努力了10年,在台灣付費用戶大概頂多也就是600,000人的規模,那你是覺得台灣只有這幾隻小貓在聽音樂嗎?

重度使用者就是這麼些,你再榨看看會不會更多啊。有本事,乾脆連Vevo和YouTube的MV都別推,祝你能把nice-to-have變成must-have。

腦袋打結、想錢想到爆炸;好像沒有人能靠這樣致富。不信,我們賭一下好了。最後,看屈服的是唱片公司,還是網路使用者。

資料來源:
[1]Era of Free Digital Music Wanes (Wall Street Journal)
[2]此為各個串流音樂平台目前表現得簡單整理。圖引用自華爾街日報。
A look at music streaming service

Recommended article 

Internal Control in Practice - Preface

In recent years, there has been series of local and international scandals. Whether it’s for the faulty operation, embezzlements, or wrongful financial reports, the news has caused investors to bleed and lose faith and create turmoil…

The Difficult Situations of Netflix, Spotify and Pandora

The online music and video streaming services are facing the same uphill battle. 目前線上的影音串流業者,都面臨類似的困境。Netflix只有美國的實體DVD郵寄業務賺錢,串流部分則是做得愈多,虧得愈大。Spotify更不必講了,在全球喊得很大聲,然而它不但年年在賠,還賠很多。 只有Pandora,在串流音樂的領域是非常成功的。它砍掉搜尋這種on-demand功能,而主張自己是radio station之模式,支付遠較Spotify這種業者低的權利金。惟其在北美以外一直沒有明確的海外擴張計畫,因此台灣對它比較不熟悉。 它的UI/UX看得出是千錘百鍊的最佳化配置、進入市場早(2000年)、每年包括MAU(目前有八千萬人)及聆聽總時數等等各重要數據都正成長(以營收而言,2012年4億、13年6億、14年9.2億、15年近12億);而在營收配置上,廣告占80%、premium訂戶占20%,更是值得參考的模式。 在影音串流領域表現佳,但目前在NYSE上,Pandora市值不到美金20億,去年營收近12億,四年來都一樣,小虧。併掉了Rdio之後也不會有改善。 讀者可以參考華爾街日報的這篇文章: Pandora Media Swings to Loss Amid Higher Expenses Web-radio-service Pandora Media Inc. on Thursday swung to a loss in its…

The Value of Legitimately Streaming Music

The CD sales had declined drastically in 21st century, we really can’t blame it to music streaming services after iPod, MP3 player, CD ripping and pirated music both on the Internet and in the night markets.…