Member Info for reynard28

The licensing fee relates to the supply chain and reporting capabilities 7Dig provides, which essentially bridges the gap between record labels/distributors own delivery systems and the Triller platform. 7Dig does this for a number of DSPs.

The usage based payments will relates to music licensed to Triller by 7Dig which, outside of Universal, Sony, Merlin, Warner, is very little.

These are not going to be huge revenues and the placing makes sense for the company to meet demands and continue to grow to win new contracts.

You lot are quite delusional. If you dispute what I'm saying you've not done your research.

I'm invested here and in EVRH (for many long long years). What I'm saying doesn't mean I don't support 7Dig, clearly. Just because (as you should know) FB, Apple or TikTok are not a likely partner, it doesn't mean the global company isn't going to be massive news and have a very positive impact on share price, be it Snapchat, Pelton etc etc.

Dark horse you and anyone else can and should read all my posts - I've only ever offered informed opinions. You can call it trolling if you like but it exposes your fragility. Your previous posts also suggest you understand very little about 7Dig and what they are doing for Triller.

FWIW - I've only ever invested in two shares so am relatively new to the game. What has surprised me over that time is the amount of hate and vitriol for someone who offers informed opinions rather than constant ramping. All ive said on this board is something that's truly obvious and you've turned me into a conspiracy :)

There seems little incentive for exclusivity with a 7Dig. Triller, Snap etc should, in theory, already have licences in place for the music and so exclusivity on supply chain providers, of which there are very few, would be counter intuitive for 7Dig.

Spotify, Instagram and TikTok all generate hugely significant revenues.

It remains to be seen what MVR will pull in terms of sponsorship/advertising but, until they have anywhere near a significant user base, brands won't be inclined to dig deep.

Themis the agreement with Facebook that you understand to have ended was to allow FB to use MVR assets within advertising for the Oculus products. It was not, to my understanding, the agreement between MVR and FB allowing MVR to exploit their own content on the Facebook apps.

Yup, here I am. LTH and firm believer...

If you're suggesting otherwise, tell me why? Have you looked at other companies with licenses similar to MVR and quantified the value of the licenses (see Jaxsta fyi). Do you know if MVR are still in license with all of the rights holders listed in all these posts?

The licenses are valuable but Melody have not done anything that many, many other companies have done before.

See other 'music services' such as Electric Jukebox etc. Having a license doesn't mean the product (MVR) is 'valuable'.

What makes you think that Stu?

optimist you always seemed on the edge but has isolation tipped you fully through the looking glass?

You're kind of just proving the points BadDad...it's me recommending your posts btw, you're great entertainment!

I feel humbled to have my very own board post!

Honestly, i'm telling you more than you deserve here, this was the first share I ever invested in and you can track back through my comments if you're so inclined. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!!

The weird paranoia, the childish name calling, the inability for blind investors to engage in useful conversation around topics that don't immediately 'ramp' the share were a real shock to me and I know put a lot of other investors off making useful contributions here.

Btw - you "seeing" the company being worth 1b+ or "guessing" that Spotify bought the rest of the shares is, frankly, of no use to anyone. I "hope" that is the case and, if so, see you at the £1 party!!

Cool!

I'm heavily invested here for years, before their first of the seemingly many launches. I continue to believe in the idea and app, and continue to HOPE the reason we hear very little from the BOD about the detail of their developments is down to NDAs etc.

I agree with a lot of your comments Codey - for years most people here has been blindly ramping this company HOPING that something big is going to happen tomorrow, the next day, the next day and so on until you're at the £1 party that is often touted. Even in this crisis, they're going to have the same struggles to build a subscriber base as Spotify, if not more as we see music streaming drop (aside from a few select genres) and likely in the mid term start to see people cancel subscriptions as they lose work/jobs due to the impact of the virus and tighten purse strings. The company is not going to turn profit for a LONG time.

£1 !!!!!! You're all nuts - and yet you turn on Codey who is actually offering some interesting and different opinions on the REALITY of what's going on. I got shut down for opening up a conversation here that challenged the idea of subscription. I'd love for MVR to be worth ~£1bn and be a household name, but it's not, and it's a long long way away from either. The saving grace for you all seems to be the agreements with the major labels - sure, it's a great show of faith, but why don't you go and do some research on the 100s of music companies that have agreements with the 3 majors and tell me how many of those are household names. Roxy f.k.a Electric Jukebox as an example.

And for the record, i've done my research, read all the RNS' and likely have a better grasp of the music industry than most of you. I think the potential here is massive but a lot of you here seem to have a pretty warped view on what the actual reality is here.

No offence taken, Ferrisc. I can assure you I am well loaded here and have been for some time. No subtle deramps intended whatsoever.

I am interested in musing on the topics below; I don't think anyone here has the answers and it doesn't seem like anyone is willing to entertain me in any detail. I will say - subscription has become a double edged sword for the music industry - in one part 'saving' it from the demise of physical in contributing tangible revenue back to rights holders and artists while, on the other, putting power in the hands of said tech giants who can drive down the value of music by bundling subscriptions with on demand tv/movie and hardware packages. The industry needs Spotify to survive but the only way is to decrease the amount they pay back to the industry, something that's only possible now they have achieved a significant user base - and that's the effect of subscription only at scale.

Anyway, you make a great point about sponsorship revenues and I can only stress again I have faith in the BOD here. Realistically, and sorry if this is not what you want to hear, we are WAY off being a household name, even with the best intentions from Nikki and co.

I'll let you go back to arguing with each other now.

Thanks, Petebo.

Instagram is part of FB and the other tech companies I mentioned in my initial post are some of the most profitable in the world, which does, undoubtedly, drive share price. They can also adopt a subscription model, generally at a loss (until scaled) to funnel users towards other goods or services. This is well documented.

You are of course very right in that there are lots of examples where revenue and profitability are not relative to the share price, and Spotify may be one of those. That said, after 12 years Spotify has ~100m paying users (and more free users) and was not public until they were close to turning profit.

I only suggest that MVR profit dictates the share price as that seems to be the general sentiment towards this share. There is an opportunity right now to expedite growing a user base and I truly believe in Nikki and the team they have behind this, but would be disappointed if we had to ride this out until they reach the scale where profit is generated through subscription.

@Ferrisc that's about as unhelpful a response as you can get. If you're alluding to me not being a real investor you are free to think that but it would be quite wrong and also quite a strange accusation.

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this thread?

Thanks, Petebo. I have done that extensively for the last 3 years and have found many of yours and others comments on here helpful. Some not so. It still does not answer why subscription now is a good way to go. MVR is a far cry from being a household name and the recent RNS talked of an acceleration towards subscription. I'm not disputing the idea of MVR or of it being an incremental revenue to labels/artists/publishers, rather, if profit to MVR is what drives the share price - that's not going to come soon and it is a genuine concern as a shareholder.

Funny that people on here would rather sling very childish insults at each other or try to decode some lyrics in a tweet, than discuss the fundamental commercial model of the business they are invested (or not) in.

I still would like some clarity around the rush to launch a subscription model. Unless you’re a tech giant like Apple, Amazon, YouTube, where revenue is propelled by other services - profitability is, in their own words and as we see with Spotify etc, only achievable at scale. Once the labels/publishers/venues/ticket sellers etc all take their slices, MVR is left with little to cover operating costs.

Spotify is only turning profit 12 years later and still struggles to convert the majority of its users to premium subscribers.

MVR has an opportunity unlike the other streaming services in that it could act more like a download business where averagely as little as 5 individual songs cost the same as a monthly subscription. How many people buy random **** from games on their phones each month that equates to a subscription, yet people are less likely to spend that money on a subscription. Hard to justify, but is the reality of it. To be, MVR is, in the short, mid and relatively distant future, not going to be profitable through subscription but could be through content purchases.

Re Live - right now, there are very few users on MVR's platform. An artist doing a live stream has to make the choice between being paid (MVR) or reaching a larger audience (FB/IG/YT/TikTok). If the shows scheduled by MVR during the pandemic are going to be free to the user (no confirmation of that yet, as far as i’m aware), they need to convince the artists/managers/labels/publishers etc that MVR is the right partner for them over the existing audiences they have on the other platforms…

All that said, why would MVR be rushing to launch and build a subscription user base? I’m hoping it's to prove to a potential buyer, perhaps one of the platforms mentioned above (FB), the concept and lay the foundation for what could be FBs first foray into a premium subscription offering in music.