By Aylin Aliev

TIDAL was acquired by Jay-Z in 2015 for $56 million from its Norwegian parent company, Aspiro. Since then, TIDAL has been much more than a music streaming app – it was marketed to be the Next Big Thing. 

TIDAL was ready to push rivals Spotify and Apple Music out of the way with its exclusivity and sleekness. The marketing strategy for TIDAL was suited for the technology age - put a smart sounding person on a podium, darken the lecture hall and project a pretty looking app on the screen and you are set. However, Jay-Z’s Steve Jobs-esque launch failed to propel itself with the momentum pent up in the initial phase of TIDAL. 

Why? 

There are many reasons why TIDAL didn’t have the impact and trajectory it was predicted to have. Arguably, the most interesting aspect of its failure is how did it struggle in the digital streaming age of music? The streaming market is huge, and in 2020 music streaming hit an all-time high with an 8.2% increase. With content-hungry consumers, it seems almost impossible to fail, so where did it go wrong? 

When TIDAL was first released it was widely discussed and debated because it aimed to revolutionise what Spotify and Apple Music had done to the music industry. 

Around this time in 2015, musicians would complain about how Spotify and Apple Music wouldn’t pay artists enough per stream and how they were being taken advantage of. As such, TIDAL wanted to change this and make its main business strategy a ‘more equitable [business] model for artists’. So, artists can make more money while fans stream their music. 

As a result, Jay-Z’s business plan managed to gain the attention of other famous artists such as Beyonce, Kanye West, Alicia Keys, Coldplay, Madonna, Daft Punk, Arcade Fire and others who stood in solidarity with musicians being taken advantage of on other streaming platforms. Hence, these artists were all shareholders each owning 3% of TIDAL, with Jay-Z owning the biggest share.

Additionally, in order to make TIDAL more attractive to Jay-Z and Kanye West fans, they initially decided that their whole music category would be only available on TIDAL. Therefore, fans who use Spotify and Apple Music would miss out on the experience of listening to new releases at the time, such as West’s album The Life of Pablo (2016). Also, Beyonce’s surprise release Lemonade (2016) was only released on TIDAL and this album was the biggest hype of that year – hence, it was the only major subscriber intake in all of TIDAL’s history. 

Kanye, Jay-Z and Beyonce fans felt like their Spotify/Apple Music memberships were futile – what’s the point of paying for a streaming service if they can’t listen to their favourite artist? Bad for Spotify, great for TIDAL. 

Yet, all of this wasn’t enough to keep this streaming service afloat and as a strong competitor for Spotify and Apple Music. In fact, TIDAL doesn’t release any statistics about their customer usage. The last time they did so was in 2016 when they reported 3 million subscribers (though this was disputed as being inflated) – this is a far cry from the 30 million subscribers Spotify had in 2016. 

While TIDAL was promoting equity for musicians, it also promoted exclusivity. Exclusivity has the potential to be a great marketing strategy for consumers - however, it must be used correctly. That is, while you’re making your company appear very exclusive and niche, you need to also make sure that you’re allowing everyone the chance to get in on the act. 

TIDAL has always been the most expensive streaming service at around $20 a month because it promises higher quality audio. However, it also meant that Kanye, Jay-Z and Beyonce fans who couldn’t afford this amount were left out of their fanbase, thus preventing many from subscribing to TIDAL. 

Additionally, Kanye West decided to put his albums on Spotify in 2016, and then in 2018 Jay-Z made his whole catalogue available on Spotify as well. Beyonce followed suit. These moves added to the fading of TIDAL’s efforts to make waves. 

Also, streaming services such as Spotify emerged organically. When it first started, it was practically unheard of. Nonetheless, Spotify started subtly seeping into everyday life, making its way through the app store, spreading via word-of-mouth and backed up with ads and celebrities. Suddenly, it entered everyday vocabulary. TIDAL, on the other hand, felt as if it was almost forced on pop-culture ‘junkies’ such as myself, and music fans alike.

TIDAL had the potential, and maybe it still does as it’s been rumoured that Square Inc., the digital-payment company run by Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, has held talks to acquire it.

Who knows where TIDAL will be in a couple of years’ time? It could still be the next big thing, if it learns from its previous mistakes.