The news is out that Google is going to launch an online music service for the domestic market in China, according to this item in The Wall Street Journal (subscription required). But don't bother looking on Google's press release page or even on Google's "official" blog. There are no mentions of this service. This seems odd to me. Announcing a free, ad-supported online music service, allegedly distributing DRM-free files to the most populous nation in the world - a market oft-cited as one of the largest markets for pirated content of all types - isn't "market-affecting" enough to warrant a press release? Or even a mention in the official company blog?

As the kids say, "whatever."

But, let's for the moment assume that WSJ got the story right and Google has launched such a service. It's got all the elements of being truly important. It's got the "cloud" (content service in the cloud delivering music files without DRM and no direct consumer payment). And it's a huge market for content, albeit one apparently awash in pirated content - online P2P usage as well as physical piracy in the form of bootlegged DVDs, etc.

A couple things jump out at me:

• Content: The WSJ story notes Google is talking to many labels, but none of the majors or their China-based arms are mentioned. While it is Google we're talking about, it'll face the same challenges Amazon or Apple or Rhapsody faces: getting the content that music fans want. Never an easy task. On the other hand, I think Google has some free cash lying around. So money is not a problem.

• Revenue: The WSJ story claims Google's going to keep a cut of the advertising revenue; however, one reporter has contacted me and claims a Google person said the company wasn't going to keep any revenue but would instead give it all to the rights holders and artists. If true, let's not go drawing up the Nobel nominating papers just yet. My guess is Google's more than happy to get three things out of this: traffic data, usage data and perhaps some data indicating that providing a free, legal, convenient and reliable alternative to copyrighted music will shift the market away from illicit P2P-based options.

So now one has to wonder if the U.S.-based record label execs aren't hoping this thing is a rumor. Because if they were worried about a single player like Apple calling the tune, what would it be like if Google really took the online music market seriously? Given the decreasing margins of the prerecorded music market, maybe only Google can make it work.

Submit a Comment | Permalink

That is so cheesy and desperate of them. Just one more reason not to be on a major label. I am not a subscriber to the long tail theory when it comes to giving art away. I also believe that fans like to support artists by buying their music - especially before they are successful. Does Google understand that? Just one more reason to invest in self sustaining artist communities. What kind of ad revenues can you get for a downloaded song which then can be copied a million times somewhere else. If artists aren't making any money from these kinds of ventures they won't have a reason to participate in them. And we all know that without artists the labels have no reason to exist. What is the benefit of this thing for an artist? How do the fans benefit? Where is the apex now in the classic music industry pyramid scheme? Its looking rather flat to me. If the only people who benefit are the ad companies and google, the self respecting artists and fans will stay away.

While this service seems to be unnecessary, it could start to streamline people in China away from piracy.