Bristlemouth: A Value Investing Blog
January 23, 2012

Has JB Hi-Fi struck a chord with NOW?

Has JB Hi-Fi struck a chord with NOW?

Amidst the doom, gloom and malaise of Australia’s retail sector, JB Hi-Fi has launched a beta version of its new music streaming service JB Hi-Fi NOW.

Subscription-based music services seem the logical way to listen to music. Why bother downloading and owning music if you can pay one subscription fee and access whatever music you want, whenever you want?

Like many seemingly obvious technological advances, the idea has been around for years but has been restricted by slow internet speeds. In many countries it is now taking off and, with the roll out of the national broadband network, Australia is likely to follow suit.

Will JB Hi-Fi be one of the winners? I set II Funds analyst Matt Ryan the task of checking it out (I’m not sure why but he seemed to appreciate his day listening to music more than testing out dental practices). Here are his thoughts:

The service is accessed through a webpage with no need to download an application for your desktop, and pleasingly I was actually able to start playing songs within a couple of minutes of loading the site. A mobile phone number is all that is required to start a 1 month free trial, no credit card details needed, and I didn’t have to waste any time filling in tedious forms or providing an email address to be relentlessly spammed with marketing.

The visual interface is quick and intuitive, though far from perfect, the fast forward and rewind buttons are too small for my liking, and the log-in is clumsy for use with more than one computer. The service enables you to stream but not download music, although you can create your own mixes and nominate tracks as ‘favourites’ (unfortunately you can’t ‘favourite’ entire albums at this point, have to do one track at a time). The beta has been launched only for desktop computers, however apps will be available for IPhone, IPad and Andriod devices soon, apparently these will allow caching so that you can avoid huge fees for data services, and also play music in areas with no network coverage.

The range of music is good but certainly not comprehensive, no difficulty finding The Rolling Stones or Elvis Presley, but The Beatles are noticeably absent, Australia bands Spiderbait and The Whitlams were available, but LA Style’s James Brown is Dead is missing as was Jump by Kriss Kross. Not being an expert on acoustics, I found the sound quality to be fine for my enjoyment.

When the full service is released subscription will cost $80 per year, and each user can use the service on up to 4 devices (computer/mobile/tablet). From the point of view of someone who hasn’t bought a CD or record in over five years, and refuses to purchase music from ITunes, I actually found JB Hi-Fi’s service to be a very good offering. In fact, if given only the choice between purchasing music online or in a store, listening to the radio, or subscribing to JB Hi-Fi NOW, I would definitely be willing to spend the $80 to subscribe.

I had a look around, though and there are plenty of global competitors: Grooveshark, Spotify, Sony Music Unlimited/Qriocity, Samsung Music Hub, and Rdio to name a few. And then there are potential competitors. Apple, which receives around $US6 billion in music revenues annually through ITunes, may be positioning itself to introduce subscription based music streaming through ICloud, and with its current dominance of the smart phone and tablet categories, Apple may well have the ability to crush the competition.

On the other hand music licenses tend to be negotiated country by country, and JB Hi-Fi has stolen the march on one of the current market leaders Spotify which is yet to launch in Australia, and another Grooveshark is caught-up in copyright controversy and its app is currently banned from Apple devices. By being the first to launch a solid product at a reasonable annual price, JB Hi-Fi may have given itself a chance to succeed.

Perhaps. But I doubt it’s going to add anything meaningful to JB’s $3bn-odd in annual turnover. They might be able to grab some early mover advantages, particularly the local copyright laws that make it difficult for the existing players to get established here. The product at the moment, though, is one that will only be interesting to early adopters. The landscape is set up to be dominated by global players like Amazon, Apple and Sony or established players with large amounts of existing revenue. By the time streaming goes mainstream in Australia and the services are user-friendly, JB Hi-Fi NOW will be a small time player at best. 

Comments

Geoff
January 23, 2012

I agree with your conclusion Steve. In fact, how does anyone make a profit in the music streaming business?

Tastes in music are broad, so gaining a significant market necessitates licensing a lot of music. Some services are offering circa 13million tracks courtesy of a wide raft of licensing deals with the people who really make the money - the recording labels. I believe JB has 10million or so trackes, which is impressive, but presumably not cheap.

According to some sources I've read there are circa 5 operators in Australia right now, though some are yet to build out their music libraries. JB looks to be aiming to be the low cost supplier. That's not a surprise - what else can JB bring to the party to create competitive advantage?

Jason Prowd (II)
January 24, 2012

That's a good point Geoff.

I wonder if the contracts are structured like radio? Such that you only pay for what is used/played? Perhaps that makes it cost effective?

I'd also be surprised if Apple goes down the subscription route, although it appears they're preparing for it.

I would have thought a sub model only works if you can convince more 'low demand' customers, who were going to spend less than the annual sub fee to sign up, than 'high demand' customer, who would probably experience a massive reduction in music costs (much like unlimited mobile phone plans).

Perhaps a more profitable model is one where you combine both. Why not sell individual tracks with a conditional licence that only lasts 6 or 12 months?

RichardW
January 24, 2012

At their 2011FY briefing JBH said that they would be investing around $400k in capex, that there were little in the way of up-front costs as the IT infrastructure is hosted by 3rd party providers and JBH simply clipped the ticket between the supplier and the consumer. They claimed that they would break even with 30,000 subscribers. So whilst this may not be the holy grail of online delivery (and I doubt it will be) the downside does seem to be reasonably well capped.

January 24, 2012

I tried out a couple of services in various places while travelling over the past year. These included Pandora while in the US and Spotify while in the UK. Both have advertising models (an ad plays every 3 or 4 tracks), which you can pay to remove. Spotify also has a monthly limit (20 hours, from memory).
With Pandora, you don't have anywhere near as much control over what gets played vs Spotify (where you have complete control). Pandora is great for discovering music similar to your existing taste. Though Spotify can fulfill a similar purpose through playlists. For example, online magazine Slate set up a 'Best of 2011' playlist on Spotify that anyone could access and listen to.
Pandora listed in the US last year (on the New York Stock Exchange under the one-letter ticker P), so might be worth looking at their figures/business model and following that story for anyone who owns JB Hi-Fi or is researching it in a serious manner.

Gavin Smith
January 25, 2012

Further to your comments Greg, Grooveshark appears to do *exactly* what jb-hi is doing. Only it's entirely free (to the desktop, $5/mo or so to the mobile) and has no played ads (they make money from background ads on the website). Saved playlists, etc - the whole nine. Unlike Pandora (which is an interesting and different model), Grooveshark is available internationally, yes, this includes here in Australia.

So, no first mover advantage and a massively overpriced service. Pretty ordinary really... I assume they're living in the same deluded belief as many retailers here that they live on both a literal metaphorical island (of products).

One positive compliment I will make - the selection of music was comprehensive (their selection of Zola Jesus was pleasing).

Lastly and in case it speaks to the target market, I'm gen-y and lived in the States for 3 years.

Mark Wade
January 27, 2012

While I regard the move into streaming as reasonable, it is hardly going to move the dial. The key question is whether online sales are a zero, or even negative, sum game?

As it currently stands, JB generates around $250m in annual sales of physical music [that's $3bn in group revenue X 25% to games/music/movies X ~one third to music alone]. To entirely replace that with streaming would require 3.125 million users (or 14% of the population), each paying $80 per annum. That seems a stretch!

Never mind that streaming margins are bound to be lower than that of the physical product, even if they are comparable with the entire group.

JB's CEO recently commented on the service in a short Q&A:

"JB Now is in beta mode — any chance of incorporating video for a full service?

We have a great opportunity to include video in JB Now, we’ve got those relationships now with the movie studios and we’re going to continue to look at that.

Has JB Now take-up been on track?

Take-up has been reasonable, we’re still waiting to launch the mobile app, which is vital for subscriptions going forward and we hope to do that in the coming months."

http://www.current.com.au/2012/01/25/article/Ultrabooks-Dick-Smith-and-J...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Syndicate content
Legals