But unlike any of those other companies, Google's music service could fail to capture market share from the big players and still be a success. That's because delivering music and new accounts is yet another way for Google to amass personal, intimate details about its hundreds of millions of users -- information that enables it to better target ads.Another smart guy I have sparred with on CNBC, Drew Olanoff of TechCrunch, covered similar ground with respect to Twitter's new music service. The data Twitter collects on music listening habits can help the music industrial complex do a better job at promotion (not to mention generating new, more sustainable revenue streams) in the digital age.
But there's a question Stenovec and Olanoff did not ask. I wish I could take credit for it. But it must go where it's due. To a Nashville-based Twitter follower, Danny Murphy, who has misplaced more knowledge about the music industry than I'll ever possess:
Do music rights-holders share also in iAd revenue when music data is used to more perfectly target ads, or is it limited to only iRadio ads?— Danny_Murphy_Sports (@Murphy_Danny) June 4, 2013If the music industry only receives a cut of iRadio revenue (and Google All Access-related revenue), but not a portion of the overall iAd business at Apple, for example, it's selling itself short. Getting screwed. Again.
Because I would be flat stunned if Apple or Google agreed to share ad revenue outside of what is directly generated by their music platforms with the music industry. Let's operate from that relatively safe presumption. This hands music publishers, yet again, the short end of the stick. It appears the deal Apple signed with Warner's publishing arm provides it with more than double the ad revenue Pandora ( P) pays publishers. Pandora pays 4%. Let's assume, as I have seen reported, Apple will give up 10%.