Reason Financials 2021

[JiggeryPokery]

The report mentions revenue was down 43% from $10.7M to $6.1M and that 21% of the previous years' revenue has already been converted to subscriptions. They mention the revenue drop is expected during a transition period and that focus is to move more revenue to subscriptions. They took in an extra $1M capital from shareholders and signed a $4.1M three year loan at market rate (replacing previous loans). From what I can see the total expenses was pretty much the same as 2020 at ~$8M. The average number of employees was up from 41 to 44. They also mention the new R12 was received well by the market (not sure if I fully agree) giving customers the choice of a traditional upgrade license or subscription.

" 21% of the previous years' revenue has already been converted to subscriptions" Yup, sounds about right! They write that kind stuff but I doubt they know what that actually means either.

"They mention the revenue drop is expected during a transition period"—convenient!—"and that focus is to move more revenue to subscriptions".

I'd have thought a music software's focus would have been on making music software as compelling and bug-free a proposition as it can be to drive revenue, rather than just throwing a handful of FSB-based Combinator 2.0's weekly at the problem, but at least we now know, for the benefit of the tape, where the actual focussed priorities lie!

In any event, "transitioning" to subs—which, incidentally, strongly implies the long-term intent is to go 100% subs only, otherwise the words would be "augmenting with" subs—isn't an explanation for 43% revenue drop given that since both payment options existed last year, the revenue change on [hypothetically] similar ARPU y-o-y should be fairly neutral, e.g. reduced full upgraders being moreorless equally offset by new subscribers. That's not clearly not what's happening, albeit again with the caveat that it's only the first year of subs and we can't know the growth rate from zero to at least parity. (It also is based on assumptions using subscribers who may largely be paying on reduced cost deals, but I'd assume projections would have to based on a majority being signing via deals, and not full-priced whalers. But again, there's the issue of churn. How many cancel after intro deals and will be tempted to resign at full price, or wait until the next deal? Is the hope that being locked out of Reason between deals effectively forces people to resubscribe M-by-M at full price, even if only until the next deal in order to subscribe for an extended period at a discount rate? It all seems very confused, intentionally).

Given I assume you have access to the reports and have some background, curious to hear what do you make of the PH HoldCo figures that went live today? I've never understood about shells, so I offer no opinion on it, just it's always looked a little peculiar as the revenue is always the same as PH/RS itself, but the P/L is always different. But especially I've no clue as the nature of HoldCos here, where it's an umbrella for just a single business, and one that afaik doesn't license tech to third parties. Surely everything could just be run through the single business? Why did Verdane set up the HoldCo?

Here the loss is a massive $4.8m on the same $6.1m revenue. Any idea as to what's going on with the way P/Ls are different? Are they split? Is the total loss for 2021 actually the 4.8m here plus the 1.9m, for a total of 6.7m, far exceeding revenue? Or is it more complicated than that, like offsetting losses over multiple years or something? So 2020 merely reports a profit and 2021 results combine losses for both 2020 and 2021 etc? Or is it just a way of hiding additional losses, or just more non-specific conniving methods of tax avoidance?

https://www-allabolag-se.translate.goog ... r_pto=wapp

Screenshot 2022-08-08 132551.png

[mcatalao]

I'd have thought a music software's focus would have been on making music software as compelling and bug-free a proposition as it can be to drive revenue, rather than just throwing a handful of FSB-based Combinator 2.0's weekly at the problem, but at least we now know, for the benefit of the tape, where the actual focussed priorities lie!

On a Finantial report???? Come on. I'd be amazed if they'd give that kind of statement here.

[Billy+]

In any event, "transitioning" to subs—which, incidentally, strongly implies the long-term intent is to go 100% subs only, otherwise the words would be "augmenting with" subs

Is this turning into another subscription only panic thread?

[avasopht]

Why are they doing similar (but not the same) accounts for two different entities?

They both seem to have the same revenue, but different losses.

[QVprod]

I think this naturally leads on to the question of whether this even has much of an impact on their financials, and whether or not RS should devote many (or any) resources to competing with DAWs that already have huge market share. I mean you won't find a single producer alive who doesn't know of or use FL, Live, Cubase, Logic, or even Reaper. I'd say Studio One has gradually secured itself a place among them too. It might be that the reason we aren't getting much development on that front is that they've done the maths and it simply doesn't make sense to create a more powerful DAW if everyone's just gonna stay exactly where they are.

This exactly. They thrive as a niche product. Studio One has pushed through for having a phenomenal workflow in an era where Avid has chased PT users away. But their audience seems to be people who record audio primarily, though their midi features are quite good. Thats a place where FL and Live are zero competition in. Even then, it took a couple years to be at the slight popularity that it's at now. Reason will never compete with that without pretty much redesigning the whole program. We saw how big of a change just the HD graphics was... imagine a redesign...

That said, I finally fully switched over to Using S1 as the main with RRP and I feel just as at home as I do in Reason standalone.

I'd have thought a music software's focus would have been on making music software as compelling and bug-free a proposition as it can be to drive revenue, rather than just throwing a handful of FSB-based Combinator 2.0's weekly at the problem, but at least we now know, for the benefit of the tape, where the actual focussed priorities lie!

C'mon, even you know this is a false equivalency. We know full well they've been working on both; or rather focusing on one and outsourcing the combi 2 stuff. Compelling is relative to the user. No one cares how presets are made aside from sound designers lol. And even if the DAW aspect is fixing massive bugs, wouldn't that count as making it a bug free proposition?

[guitfnky]

it continues to boggle the mind that RS can be that utterly clueless about how close they are to having a world-class, first tier DAW capable of truly competing with the big dogs. they’ve been ridiculously close for years, yet keep putting that off in favor of dumb overhyped instruments and effects (seriously, no matter how good it is, who needed a new vocoder?)

Reason was positioned perfectly in the sweet spot to make it as powerful as anything else out there without being bloated or unintuitive. instead, they’ve introduced enough problems that they have to constantly work on bug fixes and stability.

[Pepin]

Reason will never compete with that without pretty much redesigning the whole program.

I'd have to disagree with this sentiment and the general idea that RRP is the superior experience, at least not for everyone.

For me, Reason's strength is not the rack itself but rather the tight integration between all parts of the system. This includes the different devices but also includes the rack, mixer, and sequencer. There is a consistency and logic throughout the system that minimizes mental overhead and distractions, so you can focus squarely on the creative aspects of your work. The whole appeal is that it's not bloated with countless features, but the features that are there work seamlessly together.

Once you strip away the mixer and sequencer, and you separate each instrument into a different rack instance, you lose too much of what makes Reason appealing IMO. Yes, you still might have access to 80% of Reason's features, but the workflow is no longer there. Tbh when I use Logic, I usually don't even bother with RRP, as it feels clunky even compared to run-of-the-mill VSTs.

Honestly, I don't think the DAW needs that many improvements to remain relevant. The improvements just need to play to its strengths, which are its deeply integrated systems and workflow. That is how it can differentiate itself in the market, as there really is no comparable software in that regard. It does not need to compete feature-for-feature.

[guitfnky]

Tbh when I use Logic, I usually don't even bother with RRP, as it feels clunky even compared to run-of-the-mill VSTs.

Honestly, I don't think the DAW needs that many improvements to remain relevant. The improvements just need to play to its strengths, which are its deeply integrated systems and workflow. That is how it can differentiate itself in the market, as there really is no comparable software in that regard. It does not need to compete feature-for-feature.

1000% agree. the rack in Reason is great *because* it’s in Reason. using it in another DAW robs it of most of what makes it engaging and enjoyable to use. I actually kinda loathe loading up the RRP, and it’s caused me to buy some VSTs that I wouldn’t have any use for if I needed to use them inside of Reason.

and you’re right it doesn’t need to try to compete feature for feature with other DAWs—if they tried to, it would probably fail to live up to expectations. focus on filling out the basics in a well-integrated way and that’s it.

[jlgrimes]

Reason will never compete with that without pretty much redesigning the whole program.

I'd have to disagree with this sentiment and the general idea that RRP is the superior experience, at least not for everyone.

For me, Reason's strength is not the rack itself but rather the tight integration between all parts of the system. This includes the different devices but also includes the rack, mixer, and sequencer. There is a consistency and logic throughout the system that minimizes mental overhead and distractions, so you can focus squarely on the creative aspects of your work. The whole appeal is that it's not bloated with countless features, but the features that are there work seamlessly together.

Once you strip away the mixer and sequencer, and you separate each instrument into a different rack instance, you lose too much of what makes Reason appealing IMO. Yes, you still might have access to 80% of Reason's features, but the workflow is no longer there. Tbh when I use Logic, I usually don't even bother with RRP, as it feels clunky even compared to run-of-the-mill VSTs.

Honestly, I don't think the DAW needs that many improvements to remain relevant. The improvements just need to play to its strengths, which are its deeply integrated systems and workflow. That is how it can differentiate itself in the market, as there really is no comparable software in that regard. It does not need to compete feature-for-feature.

I pretty much agree with this. That said I'm guessing certain things like Track Freeze would be hard to implement but would really help the Reason workflow if they implemented it.

And you are correct RRP in Ableton is not the same as Reason standalone, as you lose a huge chunk of integration when you go to a VST. I also experience a good deal of crashes with the RRP in Ableton. The plugin can use some improvments (mainly the browser which is very clunky to navigate as something with VSTs don't allow Window resizing (seems to be a problem on many VSTs but that said most have found a way to still workaround this issue, RRP requires alot of side scrolling if you are browsing files anywhere other than factory libraries or stock RE folders).

[Jagwah]

Reason will never compete with that without pretty much redesigning the whole program.

I'd have to disagree with this sentiment and the general idea that RRP is the superior experience, at least not for everyone.

For me, Reason's strength is not the rack itself but rather the tight integration between all parts of the system. This includes the different devices but also includes the rack, mixer, and sequencer. There is a consistency and logic throughout the system that minimizes mental overhead and distractions, so you can focus squarely on the creative aspects of your work. The whole appeal is that it's not bloated with countless features, but the features that are there work seamlessly together.

Once you strip away the mixer and sequencer, and you separate each instrument into a different rack instance, you lose too much of what makes Reason appealing IMO. Yes, you still might have access to 80% of Reason's features, but the workflow is no longer there. Tbh when I use Logic, I usually don't even bother with RRP, as it feels clunky even compared to run-of-the-mill VSTs.

Honestly, I don't think the DAW needs that many improvements to remain relevant. The improvements just need to play to its strengths, which are its deeply integrated systems and workflow. That is how it can differentiate itself in the market, as there really is no comparable software in that regard. It does not need to compete feature-for-feature.

Definitely agree one of Reason's big strengths is in its workflow or integration between sequencer mixer and rack.

If they could just make the sequencer look as good as those new players and rack devices they keep releasing I swear they would be more than halfway there in competing with other DAWs.

[alipi]

Given I assume you have access to the reports and have some background, curious to hear what do you make of the PH HoldCo figures that went live today? I've never understood about shells, so I offer no opinion on it, just it's always looked a little peculiar as the revenue is always the same as PH/RS itself, but the P/L is always different. But especially I've no clue as the nature of HoldCos here, where it's an umbrella for just a single business, and one that afaik doesn't license tech to third parties. Surely everything could just be run through the single business? Why did Verdane set up the HoldCo?

I actually only read the parent holding company's report, it usually gives the full picture. I'm no expert, but main reasons are usually limiting risks and optimizing taxes. They can for example spin up a new wholly owned "child" company to do e.g. Allihoopa 2.0 and limit the risk if it fails without affecting other entities or if it's a success and sold to Spoitfy for $1B the profit is kept in the holding company without paying taxes and can be invested in another entity like Reason Studios. The parent company actually also owns an American Inc and two of the employees are registered on that one, two other employees are registered on the parent company and the rest are RS. Another reason could be to have a different board of directors for parent and child companies.

Here the loss is a massive $4.8m on the same $6.1m revenue. Any idea as to what's going on with the way P/Ls are different? Are they split? Is the total loss for 2021 actually the 4.8m here plus the 1.9m, for a total of 6.7m, far exceeding revenue? Or is it more complicated than that, like offsetting losses over multiple years or something? So 2020 merely reports a profit and 2021 results combine losses for both 2020 and 2021 etc? Or is it just a way of hiding additional losses, or just more non-specific conniving methods of tax avoidance?

Regarding losses, as mentioned the total expenses were roughly the same as the previous year at ~$8-9M (maybe ~$0.5M more in loan costs). In addition to expenses the yearly asset write-offs were also about the same at about $1.7M. So before taxes you get:
2020: $10.7M - 9.7 = $1M
2021: $6.1M - $ 10.1 = -$4M

[QVprod]

Reason will never compete with that without pretty much redesigning the whole program.

I'd have to disagree with this sentiment and the general idea that RRP is the superior experience, at least not for everyone.

For me, Reason's strength is not the rack itself but rather the tight integration between all parts of the system. This includes the different devices but also includes the rack, mixer, and sequencer. There is a consistency and logic throughout the system that minimizes mental overhead and distractions, so you can focus squarely on the creative aspects of your work. The whole appeal is that it's not bloated with countless features, but the features that are there work seamlessly together.

I don’t believe RPP is a superior experience. I believe it’s an option that’s equally as good. Of course YMMV. I feel equally at home with RPP as I do the full DAW. At least in Studio One, which to be fair has quite a few “Reason-like” features. There are slight differences in the workflow (for me) but not enough to make much of a difference. Reason’s sequencer gets the job done but I don’t think is any more integrated than any other sequencer. The only exception I think (specifically with RPP) is with player devices. The mixer being fully available is nice, but I don’t like mixing in Reason. Not because it’s not capable, but because I find it tedious unless I’m only using the SSL. There are better ways of working with insert plugins and splitting multiple outputs from VSTs imo whereas Reason is a little too true to the analog experience for my taste.

Should mention I’m also an audio engineer. Learned the analog workflow in college, and like a true millennial… I don’t like it lol. And in this regard is what I meant by Reason not coming competing with the likes of say Studio One, Logic, Cubase.

Honestly, I don't think the DAW needs that many improvements to remain relevant. The improvements just need to play to its strengths, which are its deeply integrated systems and workflow. That is how it can differentiate itself in the market, as there really is no comparable software in that regard. It does not need to compete feature-for-feature

.

Here we completely agree. And this was my exact sentiment in my comment. Reason shines as a niche product. I don’t think the sequencer is nearly as bad as people say it is. Try using Maschine…. I was still choosing to work in Reason over S1 until this week.

[Jagwah]

it continues to boggle the mind that RS can be that utterly clueless about how close they are to having a world-class, first tier DAW capable of truly competing with the big dogs. they’ve been ridiculously close for years, yet keep putting that off in favor of dumb overhyped instruments and effects (seriously, no matter how good it is, who needed a new vocoder?)

[Jac459]

I don’t believe RPP is a superior experience. I believe it’s an option that’s equally as good. Of course YMMV. I feel equally at home with RPP as I do the full DAW. At least in Studio One, which to be fair has quite a few “Reason-like” features. There are slight differences in the workflow (for me) but not enough to make much of a difference. Reason’s sequencer gets the job done but I don’t think is any more integrated than any other sequencer. The only exception I think (specifically with RPP) is with player devices. The mixer being fully available is nice, but I don’t like mixing in Reason. Not because it’s not capable, but because I find it tedious unless I’m only using the SSL. There are better ways of working with insert plugins and splitting multiple outputs from VSTs imo whereas Reason is a little too true to the analog experience for my taste.

Should mention I’m also an audio engineer. Learned the analog workflow in college, and like a true millennial… I don’t like it lol. And in this regard is what I meant by Reason not coming competing with the likes of say Studio One, Logic, Cubase.

Honestly, I don't think the DAW needs that many improvements to remain relevant. The improvements just need to play to its strengths, which are its deeply integrated systems and workflow. That is how it can differentiate itself in the market, as there really is no comparable software in that regard. It does not need to compete feature-for-feature

.

Here we completely agree. And this was my exact sentiment in my comment. Reason shines as a niche product. I don’t think the sequencer is nearly as bad as people say it is. Try using Maschine…. I was still choosing to work in Reason over S1 until this week.

Well I find it healthy that we have all different ideas and preferences...

The reason I am saying that RRP is a first class experience compare to using reason as a DAW is that you have it "all". You have the full featured DAW with M1, VST3 and more importantly MPE support AND the awesomeness of reason modular environment.

Then some will say: "yes, from a feature standpoint, but it is all about workflow !"... And.... They would be true also...
Playing with Reason in Reason only and only with Rack Extension is a very enjoyable experience.

To me there are still 3 reasons that make me "not" regret the reason workflow too much:
1 - The zoom is awful. Zooming in the arranger is a pain, not intuitive at all and it takes long time (you need to drag both side of the below bar !!!!). In bitwig you just zoom on your trackpad as you would do on your phone and it is done.
2 - The VST integration is in fact great in Bitwig and finally as smooth as the rack extensions. In reason, even with a big screen, I was needing to resize or navigate in order to get to the UI of my Rack Extension. In Bitwig, I create a shortcut and boom, I press x, the vst display, x again it disappears. It is much faster. On top of that, the main knobs of the VSTs are automatically available without needing to open the VST UI... So you endup by keeping a very integrated experience.
3 - Even if I was super happy with RE only, at one moment it gets limited, and then the VST experience is quite bad, even for VST2. For example Izotope very famous plugins are not working due to DPI issues....

But again, I am just sharing my own experience and I fully agree that YMMV. One thing I miss a lot on Reason DAW is the preset browser where you can find the presets of all your Rack Extensions...
So basically, even if I am super happy with Biwig + Reason as VST, I also fully understand why people are happy with Reason standalone.

[avasopht]

Here we completely agree. And this was my exact sentiment in my comment. Reason shines as a niche product. I don’t think the sequencer is nearly as bad as people say it is. Try using Maschine…. I was still choosing to work in Reason over S1 until this week.

Yeah ... if I had to pick a worst sequencer editor, it would definitely be Maschine. It's so counter intuitive with features hidden behind obscure icons and arbitrary shortcut keys (or only accessible via hardware controller ... but even remotely clear what the feature is supposed to do without reading up on it or a long trial and error epic).

And the list of core and simple basic features it don't have could kill a baby tree.

But tbh, I do find my recording workflow in Reason is pretty tight. I tend to prefer it over other DAWs because of what it has deeply integrated.

I got on quite well with S1, but I do all my mixing and recording in Reason.

[chimp_spanner]

On RRP being the better experience, I have been trying to force myself to use Live + RRP as a way to get the things I need (folders, more/better audio warp options, loop slicing) but there's always some issue I come up against that I'm like...ugh...this isn't a problem in Reason.

Like recently I started a whole new project for work in Live, got vocal stems off a composer and then remembered Live doesn't have pitch edit. Faced with the prospect of having to jump back/forth between Live and Reason just to edit vocals, I ended up scrapping the Live set and just doing it in Reason.

Or another smaller but equally annoying thing; if I search my Splice folder for 'snare' in Reason, I get a results list of all audio files from all sub-folders. In Live, it shows me every folder containing a match (even if it's just one file) and I have to go into each one.

Automation is WAY more fiddly in Live, IMO. I mean it has some good things (I like the whole range select + pull up/down thing). But I really miss how easy it is to work in automation clips.

Pattern devices and players in general just aren't as fun or spontaneous to use with RRP. You have to set up the source track, then the destination, then configure its IO and monitoring, then record real time. Vibe killer.

I dunno. These are just a few of the things that keep me working in Reason even though I know Live is, on paper at least, 'better'. It's not as simple for me as simply using RRP and having the best of both worlds. I have most of the best, but not all, whichever DAW I choose. But isn't that always the way? If you ask me it's a conspiracy by Big DAW to get us to buy them all

[PhillipOrdonez]

To me there are still 3 reasons that make me "not" regret the reason workflow too much:
1 - The zoom is awful. Zooming in the arranger is a pain, not intuitive at all and it takes long time (you need to drag both side of the below bar !!!!). In bitwig you just zoom on your trackpad as you would do on your phone and it is done.

Jac, zooming in the sequencer is much easier than that. Press control + shift + scroll wheel (Windows,, probably similar on osx) to zoom in and out. To scroll press shift+ scroll wheel. To make the tracks bigger or smaller, control + scroll wheel.

There's also the z key when you have a clip selected to zoom right in and being it into focus.

I have literally never used the below bar and I do tons of audio editing on the reason sequencer!

[JiggeryPokery]

. They thrive as a niche product.

Yes, I think I would have, perhaps naively, agreed in previous years.

Being perceived as a niche product has perhaps been a lot of its charm over the years, and it makes me consider how being seen as the underdog can be a legitmate marketing tactic for a business and is likely a notion they've subtly used to their benefit in the past. However, with your own use above of the term "relative", well, aren't "thrive" and "niche" also relative terms? We might see it as thriving. They demonstrably don't.

Actively "thriving" as a niche product I'd suggest doesn't jibe well with the act of moving to a subscription system, as that's solely about tying people down into maximising revenue out of users, literally nothing else. It is not to lower the cost of entry, although of course it does looks like that in the short term, so they play on that in marketing to their benefit. It's always "just £20 a month!", not "just £240 year!" If they were happy and thriving on perpetual revenues as a niche product, they'd have no need to convert to subs and just be happy pootling along as a decent mid-size business as they were under Ernst.

If they're thriving as a niche product, then the revenue spikes and troughs we can see over the past 12 years balance out and that's all quite normal. There are good years, there are lean years, but it all averages out to a niche, but thriving business overall.

That they're changing that means they consider they are either not actually thriving, or they don't want to be niche. So either they just want to maximise revenue on the same number of users and remain niche, or grow to such an extent they are not niche and but additionally need to maximise revenue with the increased likelihood of user churn. Either way, you can't be both niche and massive!

But they believe—maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, only time will tell—they can earn more money off their niche product by moving everyone to subs, and at some point down the line—they're playing the long game here—people who don't want to pay subs will, eventually, be told to pony up monthly with the rest or fuck off. We reasonably guess that's the case that's the psychological game being played in everything Agevik writes, by undermining perpetual users as users who don't pay their a fair amount and are somehow now, after 20 years, suddenly the only thing ever holding RS back [from not being niche!!], and in doing so creating an us/them division where subbers can look down on perpetual license holders as inferior, and guilt users into getting subs in order to support RS. It's weaponised FOMO as a marketing trick, one that scammers use a lot. That was the intent, or else why bring it up? I can't find his exact quote now on the blog atm, maybe it's been removed, and I can't recall the exact phrase other than it was discussed on RT at the time so it's probably around here somewhere.

Here's something he wrote I did find again and is something only a marketeer could write:

"believe it or not, there are actual real people who prefer to subscribe over buying. In fact, we’re pretty sure about that because we confirmed it with both of them before launching Reason+. "

Let's apply some basic critical thinking. He's written that they asked people if some people like something and people agreed that some people can like something they don't like.

Quelle surprise!

One arguable takeaway from that is people who hate subscribing and prefer to buy is actually the vast majority, or else he'd publish the figures demonstrating that's not true, given he's so happy to even mention it. The latter half of the statement is just plain weird and is one of those phrases that look positive but actually says nothing: using a generous reading they confirmed that users who prefer to buy also believe there are also users who prefer to rent. Well, yeah, ok. Er... And?! Your point, Nik?

What, exactly, does that tell anyone about anything? It's bizarre. It's like asking someone with dairy intolerance "Does anyone else eat cheese?" The only possible answer is "yes". But selective use of stats can leave the impression of the result only being in favour of the message you want to transmit.

I've seen their questionnaires before. I'm pretty confident I can tell you with near-precision how this went down even though I didn't do whatever questionnaire that gem came from:

Code: Select all

Question 1: Do you like Subscribing to software? Yes / No? : "NO"

--->"No": GOTO 3: Question 3: Do you think some people prefer subscribing to software? Yes / No? : "YES"

The only reasonable answer to question 3 there is Yes", because the respondent would be aware that saying "no" would make them sound like a fucking moron and as fans of a product people using that product generally want to be seen as being helpful and honest to a company they want to trust, and not be seen as a complete idiot. So the only valid answer there is "yes". That trust, however, is now actually twisted because now RS can say they have data that says everyone agrees there are people who prefer subs. The intention of which is they hope people read it as "people prefer subs", and so if you don't prefer subs you're the one who's wrong and needs to get with the program. It's the reverse of negative marketing. Intentionally ignore Q1 completely in the results and focus on the overwhelming numbers of people who answered "Yes" to Q3. It's insidious.


Then add statements like:

"many of you are coming around to seeing that Reason+ is actually a pretty good deal" . Keep hammering the message constantly and consistently and hope it gets through, that R+ is better value than Reason 12/upgrade, even though for I suspect a majority it isn't going to be.


This is fun too, remember this?

chart1.png

"Monthly Reason users over the last few years", published 7 September 2021.


You can tell it's misleading due to the lack of any numbers, dates or general reference points, and there is no breakline to condense the upper scale, so the bars are linear and contiguous. If baseline is zero, then wow, that looks jolly great.

But it's hard to believe they'd doubled users in 24 months, looking at the 2021 results again, so that baseline isn't zero. If we made the baseline an arbitrary 40,000 and each line represents just 20, that's not looking so good now, is it?

chart2.png

Now obviously—cos clearly my sense of humour isn't that obvious to some—my figures are an extremely stupid example just to highlight the equally extreme stupidity of showing that chart in the first place, but it reveals the deliberate manipulation of how they present but mispresent data, that publishing it in that format wasn't stupid, it was very, very deliberate. If we conclude they've not really doubled active users in 24 months, then in reality maybe that period might not actually be up to August 2021, instead maybe covers Covid and is actually 2018-2020, and shows that a lot of existing lapsed license holders opened up Reason in a way that connected to their server to register it as being open/updating at least once during lockdowns to stave off boredom. That could conceivably be a figure well into the hundreds. Or it indicates a lot of people trialled Reason during the graphed period, and that's still classed as "using Reason". In other words, it says somewhere between nowt and bugger all about growth of users or growth of revenue in relation to actively paying users.

All that said, I'm using the generous assumption that "we asked both of them", in Agevik's embiggened quote above, refers to two separate groups of multiple people who like and don't like subscribing, and doesn't mean they literally asked only the two people who they already knew both happened to prefer subscribing and are basing their entire subscription transition on that ...

Yup, given their disingenuous and misleading use of words and pictures, you're not so sure that my long-winded generous assumption holds up now, are you?

[Jac459]

Here's something he wrote I did find again and is something only a marketeer could write:

"believe it or not, there are actual real people who prefer to subscribe over buying. In fact, we’re pretty sure about that because we confirmed it with both of them before launching Reason+. "

Let's apply some basic critical thinking. He's written that they asked people if some people like something and people agreed that some people can like something they don't like.

Quelle surprise!

Well I guess you missed this very funny joke... (yes this is actually a joke).
I translate for you in French: "Croyez le ou non, may il y a reellement DES gens qui preferent le model subscription. En fait, nous en sommes vraiment certains puisque nous avons confirme en leur demandant a tout les 2 avant de lancer Reason+".

. Pretty funny no ?

[Jac459]

Jac, zooming in the sequencer is much easier than that. Press control + shift + scroll wheel (Windows,, probably similar on osx) to zoom in and out. To scroll press shift+ scroll wheel. To make the tracks bigger or smaller, control + scroll wheel.

There's also the z key when you have a clip selected to zoom right in and being it into focus.

I have literally never used the below bar and I do tons of audio editing on the reason sequencer!

Thank you Philip to take the time to answer. I actually know all these part, but they are all way longer than a gesture (if you are on a track pad) or just a drag of the bar. To be clear, in bitwig, by dragging the bar you both control if you go left or right and the amount of zoom so you directly center on where is the action for you.
Control + scroll is just zoom, it is 2 actions instead of one, and you only control the zoom, you don't center at the same time.
Z was the one I was using the most but then you only see the part you want, it is too zoomed in my taste, you lose the context.

But anyway, I was just expressing my own taste and not bringing as a fact that the ergonomy I prefer is the right one .

[MuttReason]

If they're thriving as a niche product, then the revenue spikes and troughs we can see over the past 12 years balance out and that's all quite normal. There are good years, there are lean years, but it all averages out to a niche, but thriving business overall.

That they're changing that means they consider they are either not actually thriving, or they don't want to be niche. So either they just want to maximise revenue on the same number of users and remain niche, or grow to such an extent they are not niche and but additionally need to maximise revenue with the increased likelihood of user churn. Either way, you can't be both niche and massive!

The problem RS have is that venture capital doesn't do niche unless the niche in question is immensely profitable and commercially unassailable by rivals, neither of which applies to RS.

The whole point of VC is to buy something that's undervalued and make it much more valuable, and ideally within a 3-5 year timeframe, then flip and exit or hold and reap nice big annual dividends. Buying a niche business that stays niche with low profitability and low sales numbers (let alone losses and declining topline sales numbers) is about as far from what Verdane or any other VC firm wants. The only reason to stick around is if the business is growing sales and increasing profits. Otherwise it is simply impossible for any VC fund to pay the returns they've promised to their investors. The business case for the investment doesn't stack up.

Everything I've seen from Verdane implies that they want RS to move from niche to mass market. That is what they need for the numbers to go round from an investment proposition perspective. Trying to squeeze more revenue from a small user base is a very high-risk strategy in a market with many good alternative choices in DAW and plugins. The only way to make this investment work is get Reason back on the radar in the wider music production world, expand the user base and drive up sales. Which is what all of us who've used Reason for years and who stick with the Props/RS rollercoaster despite everything would also like to see (and, in the process, finally sort DAW shortcomings/VST3/M1 etc etc etc etc, without which accessing the wider music production market will forever remain a challenge).

The problem for Verdane is - so far at least - that doesn't seem to be happening, if last year's net sales figures are any guide anyway. Hopefully next year will be different. Either way, they need a big step change.

And, yes, that bar chart presented by the CEO with no labels on either index was a joke. Pretty insulting really because he took all of us for fools. Crass spin, really.

[QVprod]

. They thrive as a niche product.

All that said, I'm using the generous assumption that "we asked both of them", in Agevik's embiggened quote above, refers to two separate groups of multiple people who like and don't like subscribing, and doesn't mean they literally asked only the two people who they already knew both happened to prefer subscribing and are basing their entire subscription transition on that ...

Yup, given their disingenuous and misleading use of words and pictures, you're not so sure that my long-winded generous assumption holds up now, are you?

I think we can pretty much call this marketing. Apple does the same thing with graphs. And I don’t think moving to a subscription model signifies them not doing well. Literally the entire industry has been moving in that direction. Slate, Universal Audio, Presonus, Avid…etc…

Whether or not R+ is working for them is still at the 'too be seen' stage. It’s only been around a year and a half and audio software subscriptions in general are a fairly new thing.

[ravasb]

I have been using Reason since version 2 and am a subscriber now. I like it still and use it fairly regularly. I think a problem is when old people think modular they relate to Reason. When young people think modular they think Eurorack. Reason feels super nostalgiac to me, not cool or up to date, which is fine, but I am an old guy myself. Reason was originally for people who wanted an alternative to hardware. That is not the young person market. I know that you can make any kind of music on Reason, but it just does not look that way to someone looking to start making music. It is also a kind of underspecced DAW and a confusing and expensive VST. I am not sure who there new market could possible be.

[Eprom]

I see the term "niche" a lot in this thread.

Reason doesn't have to be a "niche" program if RS finally understands that musicians don't buy a program for the amount of included devices, but for easy of use and features.

Ableton doesn't have a ton of synths and samplers, neither does Logic, Reaper or Cubase. But what they do have is tools to make music. A full featured sequencer and mixing tools. (and Apple M1 support) Users are then free to add whatever AU/VST they need or want.

Dear Reason Studio's, STOP focusing on adding the next Player of gimmick sampler, spend some time on the sequencer and if THAT part is one of the best in the industry, (pro) users will come flooding.

[MuttReason]

I see the term "niche" a lot in this thread.

Reason doesn't have to be a "niche" program if RS finally understands that musicians don't buy a program for the amount of included devices, but for easy of use and features.

I think Reason has become niche by accident not design, and it's a commercial point not a point about how the product operates or what it does.

Reason is a pretty good product that IMO easily compares with the best in the market in terms of plugin instruments and (for all its faults) isn't the worse DAW in the market either (and the DAW could get better over time if RS decide to fix the list of things that bug people).

The problem is that, over time, Reason has fallen behind the other major DAWs in terms of adoption (and also behind the major plugin firms like NI). Several factors behind that. Some of them are down to management obduracy (eg refusing point blank to consider adding VSTs, for years). Some of them are down to changes in user patterns and behaviours (old guys like me grew up with hardware and cables and love the rack for that reason.... but skeuomorphic design isn't common elsewhere in the digital world now). And some of them are just down to commercial mis-steps (e.g. Ableton have pursued a super aggressive software bundling strategy for years, offering free Live Lite licences with so many different hardware manufacturers and a clear and simple upgrade path.... where were Props/RS all that time?).

So for "niche" read: small user base. But Reason does not, in itself, have to be a niche product. It didn't feel niche back in the day when Reason often made the cover story in music production magazines and a lot of producers I knew used it daily. And - I think - it can stop being 'niche' in the future if RS/Verdane turn things round.