4 ms·

(I misread. It's 8/100th of a cent. Much more realistic.) Artists on Spotify earn 8 cents each time their song is played? That figure seems really, really high

(I misread. It's 8/100th of a cent. Much more realistic.) Artists on Spotify earn 8 cents each time their song is played? That figure seems really, really high to me. I'm not especially surprised this is possible, but it comes as a huge shock that it would be financially profitable for someone. A quick glance at some other articles (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-m...) shows drastically different figures: "For example, Spotify says that its average payout for a stream to labels and publishers is between $0.006 and $0.0084 but Information Is Beautiful suggests that the average payment to an artist from the label portion of that is $0.001128 – this being what a signed artist receives after the label's share." This would make it much more expensive to run a botnet through AWS than any potential profits it could generate. Some other thoughts after reading more closely: - It's surprising that the minimum listen time required for payout is 30 seconds when average song length is 3 minutes (or even higher? A reported 3m 45s: http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=28647&groupid=948 http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=28647&...). Is listening to 3/18th of a song really enough to warrant payout? Maybe. - The opening sentence isn't all that truthful. It's implying that an average user is just going to open Spotify, mute it, and go to sleep. That means they won't be there to skip every 30 seconds. So, we fall back to the 3 minute average. Assuming you sleep for 8 hours that means you're only going to get 160 plays or ~12 cents not 72.

michael_fine 11y ago
artists’ take for ad-supported listeners was **0.08** cents per song Actually, it's 8 hundredths of a cent per song, which is more in line with other sources on that.
azeirah 11y ago
You misread it, it says "was 0.08 cents per song", that's 8/100th of a cent, not 8/100th of a dollar
- SeanAnderson 11y ago
  Ahhh, okay. My mistake. That makes more sense.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - degenerate 11y ago
    Your mistake reminds me of this famous Verizon recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9LZ3ojnxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9LZ3ojnxY
    - SeanAnderson 11y ago
      Woah, woah, woah. Just because a guy hasn't finished his morning cup of coffee yet doesn't put him on the level of Verizon employees. :) But yes, definitely the same mistake.
EC1 11y ago
Spotify is shit for artists. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  I'm not a liar when I say Spotify has expanded my global listener base beyond any other service I've used in the past. Through DistroKid, I can actually examine where, when, and how my music gets to listeners. That includes country of origin. Yes, the prospect of worthwhile income is shit, but it always has been whether on the radio or signing over a license just "for exposure." Or, yeah, Spotify is shit for people who signed a shit contract with a shit label who doesn't do shit for their artists other than point the finger elsewhere. I'll give you that. So I guess this is a matter of perspective, because I'm not a liar and I don't think it's shit for artists.
  - EC1 11y ago
    It's not a matter of perspective. The numbers you would need to be pulling on Spotify are huge to sustain yourself on a decent level. By that point, you're already big enough where you wouldn't need Spotify's income because you're big enough to have other sources.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Okay, I'll give you one more response after you "moved the goalposts" so quickly: The only perspective that Spotify or iTunes is an avenue to make a living is straight up delusional. Getting a hit song on the radio, on iTunes, or Spotify is about opening up opportunities where there is a demand for the commodity - the music - and gives the artist a better bargaining position. Making a living in music is about having other sources as a fundamental rule of the industry. One good contract for a license to a commercial on broadcast television likely would dwarf the income one would receive from an entire year of streaming income. Selling t-shirts will make more than streaming income. I've made more money busking with an acoustic guitar on a busy corner in 2 hours than I've made from streaming. This is how I use Spotify - it's a street corner that pays in pennies. However, I can't afford to travel the world to get in front of people. Thus, while it's very close to the "exposure" concept of compensation, at least there's an exchange of monies as a matter of principle.

michael_fine 11y ago

artists’ take for ad-supported listeners was **0.08** cents per song Actually, it's 8 hundredths of a cent per song, which is more in line with other sources on that.

azeirah 11y ago

You misread it, it says "was 0.08 cents per song", that's 8/100th of a cent, not 8/100th of a dollar

SeanAnderson 11y ago
Ahhh, okay. My mistake. That makes more sense.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- degenerate 11y ago
  Your mistake reminds me of this famous Verizon recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9LZ3ojnxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9LZ3ojnxY
  - SeanAnderson 11y ago
    Woah, woah, woah. Just because a guy hasn't finished his morning cup of coffee yet doesn't put him on the level of Verizon employees. :) But yes, definitely the same mistake.

EC1 11y ago

Spotify is shit for artists. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

6stringmerc 11y ago
I'm not a liar when I say Spotify has expanded my global listener base beyond any other service I've used in the past. Through DistroKid, I can actually examine where, when, and how my music gets to listeners. That includes country of origin. Yes, the prospect of worthwhile income is shit, but it always has been whether on the radio or signing over a license just "for exposure." Or, yeah, Spotify is shit for people who signed a shit contract with a shit label who doesn't do shit for their artists other than point the finger elsewhere. I'll give you that. So I guess this is a matter of perspective, because I'm not a liar and I don't think it's shit for artists.
- EC1 11y ago
  It's not a matter of perspective. The numbers you would need to be pulling on Spotify are huge to sustain yourself on a decent level. By that point, you're already big enough where you wouldn't need Spotify's income because you're big enough to have other sources.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Okay, I'll give you one more response after you "moved the goalposts" so quickly: The only perspective that Spotify or iTunes is an avenue to make a living is straight up delusional. Getting a hit song on the radio, on iTunes, or Spotify is about opening up opportunities where there is a demand for the commodity - the music - and gives the artist a better bargaining position. Making a living in music is about having other sources as a fundamental rule of the industry. One good contract for a license to a commercial on broadcast television likely would dwarf the income one would receive from an entire year of streaming income. Selling t-shirts will make more than streaming income. I've made more money busking with an acoustic guitar on a busy corner in 2 hours than I've made from streaming. This is how I use Spotify - it's a street corner that pays in pennies. However, I can't afford to travel the world to get in front of people. Thus, while it's very close to the "exposure" concept of compensation, at least there's an exchange of monies as a matter of principle.