4 ms·

Why don't they do that?

garrettgrimsley 11y ago
In any given period of time some people are going to listen to the same tracks multiple times. For example, on many radio stations the selection of music is really quite small, and the majority of airtime is occupied by less than 100 songs. If people are repeatedly listening to those songs then why shouldn't the artist that created them receive compensation proportionate to the number of plays the song received? I couldn't find data on Spotify users' listening habits, but here's my own, sorted descending by track plays, for example: http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks
- Eridrus 11y ago
  If everyone listened to the same amount of tracks, they would receive the exact same amount of compensation as they do now. My suggestion (which has been raised by others many times), is that if a user listens to 1000 tracks/month, their listens should be worth 10x less than a user who only listens to 100 tracks/month, since they are both paying Spotify the same amount. I'm not sure if it would result in very meaningful distinction in how much artists are actually compensated (maybe it would negatively harm smaller artists because, hypothetically, they are listened to more by people who listen to lots of music). I'm actually pretty curious about why they have chosen to stick with this model, since the alternative I've described is pretty obvious and has been proposed many times. I would say that there is more value in songs that are actively selected vs just played automatically (e.g. I often go to an artist's page, select a specific song, then let the playlist play without me paying much attention), but I don't know if that's really an economically meaningful distinction.
  - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
    I thought you were saying to drop compensation for repeated tracks. It looks like you're suggesting the payout be for each song be calculated as Subscription fee - Spotify's take --------------------------------------------- = Compensation from 1 user 1 user's plays of song / User's total song plays Is that correct?
  - xorcist 11y ago
    Flattr works like that. I found it made me, as a low volume user, very concious about what I click on. If Spotify made the change I would probably think more about what I listen to. Perhaps even use a second non-paid account for certain listening. But I might be a minority. I would suggest yet another model: payment per unique listeners per day (or week, or month). It wouldn't be a big step from their current model but would be a lot less gameable.
cwyers 11y ago
Because they compensate streams by paid users at the same rate as free users right now, and if they did that, free streams would suddenly be paid for at a lower rate.
- Eridrus 11y ago
  What is the downside to that though? There's a fixed amount of money to distribute, and in some sense it seems fairer to compensate those artists who have paid listeners more. Are they just trying to be super transparent with pricing to help artists feel like they're not being ripped off?
  - StringyBob 11y ago
    With my cynical hat on I can only assume that it would be more equitable, but the big music labels wouldn't sign on to that deal with Spotify initially as it was worse for the big labels (at a cost to smaller indies). With no data to back it up I'd assume the commercial pop music it more likely to be played by free/high listen paid accounts (kids/gyms/cafes etc), while paid accounts with small play numbers are more likely to be listening to indies (think stereotypical early adopters and HN readers). The current system benefits the labels with big commercial high volume pop music.

In any given period of time some people are going to listen to the same tracks multiple times. For example, on many radio stations the selection of music is really quite small, and the majority of airtime is occupied by less than 100 songs. If people are repeatedly listening to those songs then why shouldn't the artist that created them receive compensation proportionate to the number of plays the song received? I couldn't find data on Spotify users' listening habits, but here's my own, sorted descending by track plays, for example: http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks http://www.last.fm/user/GarrettGrimsley/library/tracks

Eridrus 11y ago
If everyone listened to the same amount of tracks, they would receive the exact same amount of compensation as they do now. My suggestion (which has been raised by others many times), is that if a user listens to 1000 tracks/month, their listens should be worth 10x less than a user who only listens to 100 tracks/month, since they are both paying Spotify the same amount. I'm not sure if it would result in very meaningful distinction in how much artists are actually compensated (maybe it would negatively harm smaller artists because, hypothetically, they are listened to more by people who listen to lots of music). I'm actually pretty curious about why they have chosen to stick with this model, since the alternative I've described is pretty obvious and has been proposed many times. I would say that there is more value in songs that are actively selected vs just played automatically (e.g. I often go to an artist's page, select a specific song, then let the playlist play without me paying much attention), but I don't know if that's really an economically meaningful distinction.
- garrettgrimsley 11y ago
  I thought you were saying to drop compensation for repeated tracks. It looks like you're suggesting the payout be for each song be calculated as Subscription fee - Spotify's take --------------------------------------------- = Compensation from 1 user 1 user's plays of song / User's total song plays Is that correct?
- xorcist 11y ago
  Flattr works like that. I found it made me, as a low volume user, very concious about what I click on. If Spotify made the change I would probably think more about what I listen to. Perhaps even use a second non-paid account for certain listening. But I might be a minority. I would suggest yet another model: payment per unique listeners per day (or week, or month). It wouldn't be a big step from their current model but would be a lot less gameable.

cwyers 11y ago

Because they compensate streams by paid users at the same rate as free users right now, and if they did that, free streams would suddenly be paid for at a lower rate.

Eridrus 11y ago
What is the downside to that though? There's a fixed amount of money to distribute, and in some sense it seems fairer to compensate those artists who have paid listeners more. Are they just trying to be super transparent with pricing to help artists feel like they're not being ripped off?
- StringyBob 11y ago
  With my cynical hat on I can only assume that it would be more equitable, but the big music labels wouldn't sign on to that deal with Spotify initially as it was worse for the big labels (at a cost to smaller indies). With no data to back it up I'd assume the commercial pop music it more likely to be played by free/high listen paid accounts (kids/gyms/cafes etc), while paid accounts with small play numbers are more likely to be listening to indies (think stereotypical early adopters and HN readers). The current system benefits the labels with big commercial high volume pop music.