4 ms·
Totally agree. But, as usual with "nice things", this one doesn't align with Spotify's best interests. If it did, this would have been solved a long time ago -
by ts330 11y ago
Totally agree. But, as usual with "nice things", this one doesn't align with Spotify's best interests. If it did, this would have been solved a long time ago - it's not like they haven't acquired the tech/skills to do so.
Those nice little lists Spotify helpfully shows are almost guaranteed paid-for inclusion (apart from the chart-style lists, to a degree, but that's another ball game). Labels/Record Companies/Promoters etc are almost certainly paying for inclusion there as it drives huge awareness and subsequent merchandise, ticket etc sales. Much like radio airplay, where the station controls the programming, this is where Spotify gets access to the same revenue stream.
So giving me perfect recommendations filtered through an exclusion list for which, let's be honest, the maths and data science for have long been sorted out via standard ad-tech and e-commerce recommendation engines, is simply not going to aid in the value proposition for a nicely curated list they can charge to be in.
- qq66 11y agoI doubt that Spotify is charging money for inclusion in the Discover Weekly playlists. This would run counter to the goals of promoting Discover Weekly usage, which is to get more users thinking "What's new on Spotify this week?" rather than "Let me pull up the new Taylor Swift album." The more that users flock to Discover Weekly, the more leverage that Spotify gains against the labels, so my guess is that they're striving for a wide diversity of rightsholders in Discover Weekly so that any one label threatening to leave will not damage the playlist too badly.