5 ms·

I can't speak as to the other platforms, but spotify's revenue sharing model really sucks for small artists. For example, if someone signs up for Spotify to li

by mfoy_ 9y ago

I can't speak as to the other platforms, but spotify's revenue sharing model really sucks for small artists. For example, if someone signs up for Spotify to listen to exclusively songs by one artist, that artist is not getting that user's monthly fee... they're probably getting a couple pennies tops, if that.

luhn 9y ago
I've heard this before. I think it's definitely possible that Spotify's revshare works out in favor of big artists, but I haven't heard an argument for that that didn't involve making broad, unsupported assumptions about users' listening habits.
peapicker 9y ago
I really do wish that the part of the money I pay Spotify that goes to royalties ONLY went to the artists I listened to...
dkrich 9y ago
But why should they get most of the monthly fee? Spotify offers the ability for that user to listen to that artist plus a million others and thus carries the overhead required to create a platform for that artist to publish in the first place. This seems a bit like saying that I as a taxpayer should only have to pay for the public services that I, at this point in time, take advantage of.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  That's why Spotify takes its cut, no? Comparing listening to different artists to funding multiple agencies with tax dollars isn't a valid comparison. It's like saying that when I buy my favourite brand of ice cream at the store, that the other ice cream brands will get a cut simply for gracing the shelves.
  - dkrich 9y ago
    No, it's like saying that when you buy your favorite brand of ice cream at the store the grocery store keeps most of the profit because without the store the ice cream manufacturer wouldn't have a place to sell to the masses. If said artist is in such high demand, then he or she can go make their own streaming platform, charge $10/month, and keep 100%. Obviously that isn't the case, so they must get some utility out of using the Spotify platform.
    - mfoy_ 9y ago
      No... you're missing the point entirely The store is Spotify. The brands are artists. If I buy brand A, the store gets a cut, and brand A gets a cut. Brand B gets nothing. With Spotify, if I listen to Repartee, Justin Bieber is still getting some of my money.
      - dkrich 9y ago
        Saying Justin Bieber gets some of your money isn't really the whole story. Justin Bieber's songs are streamed billions of times a year, so his music accounts for a very significant percentage of total streams, and consequently use of the Spotify platform. Thus, he is bringing an outsized amount of value to Spotify, so he rightly is deserving of more money. Again, Repartee is free to pull their songs and sell them directly to you if they think that will bring them more fans and more money. It's kind of funny for two consenting parties who both use a platform to complain that the platform is treating them unfairly.
        nicpottier 9y ago
        Are you sure you are understanding the argument being made here? I think the argument, which is fair, is that it is very weird that if I pay Spotify $10 a month and listen exclusively to a single artist, that artist may get a penny from me and Justin Bieber may get $3 from me, despite me never listening to a single track from him. Nobody is arguing Spotify can take it's 20% or whatever, people are just arguing that the calculation Spotify uses to distribute the monthly royalties severely penalizes small artists. (because it looks in aggregate across all listeners instead of divvying per user)
parthdesai 9y ago
I think it's pretty well known that artist's make really less from streaming or even album sales. That's why i usually buy t-shirts or something like that of the artist to support them. Fortunately for the type of music i prefer, soundcloud is enough for as of now.
mcherm 9y ago
The point of this article is that spotify's revenue sharing model really sucks for BIG artists. Justin Bieber definitely qualifies as a "big" artist.
- bpicolo 9y ago
  To be fair, Spotify isn't mentioned at all
saaaaaam 9y ago
Deezer is apparently beginning to address this.

by mfoy_ 9y ago

luhn 9y ago

I've heard this before. I think it's definitely possible that Spotify's revshare works out in favor of big artists, but I haven't heard an argument for that that didn't involve making broad, unsupported assumptions about users' listening habits.

peapicker 9y ago

I really do wish that the part of the money I pay Spotify that goes to royalties ONLY went to the artists I listened to...

dkrich 9y ago

But why should they get most of the monthly fee? Spotify offers the ability for that user to listen to that artist plus a million others and thus carries the overhead required to create a platform for that artist to publish in the first place. This seems a bit like saying that I as a taxpayer should only have to pay for the public services that I, at this point in time, take advantage of.

mfoy_ 9y ago
That's why Spotify takes its cut, no? Comparing listening to different artists to funding multiple agencies with tax dollars isn't a valid comparison. It's like saying that when I buy my favourite brand of ice cream at the store, that the other ice cream brands will get a cut simply for gracing the shelves.
- dkrich 9y ago
  No, it's like saying that when you buy your favorite brand of ice cream at the store the grocery store keeps most of the profit because without the store the ice cream manufacturer wouldn't have a place to sell to the masses. If said artist is in such high demand, then he or she can go make their own streaming platform, charge $10/month, and keep 100%. Obviously that isn't the case, so they must get some utility out of using the Spotify platform.
  - mfoy_ 9y ago
    No... you're missing the point entirely The store is Spotify. The brands are artists. If I buy brand A, the store gets a cut, and brand A gets a cut. Brand B gets nothing. With Spotify, if I listen to Repartee, Justin Bieber is still getting some of my money.
    - dkrich 9y ago
      Saying Justin Bieber gets some of your money isn't really the whole story. Justin Bieber's songs are streamed billions of times a year, so his music accounts for a very significant percentage of total streams, and consequently use of the Spotify platform. Thus, he is bringing an outsized amount of value to Spotify, so he rightly is deserving of more money. Again, Repartee is free to pull their songs and sell them directly to you if they think that will bring them more fans and more money. It's kind of funny for two consenting parties who both use a platform to complain that the platform is treating them unfairly.
      - nicpottier 9y ago
        Are you sure you are understanding the argument being made here? I think the argument, which is fair, is that it is very weird that if I pay Spotify $10 a month and listen exclusively to a single artist, that artist may get a penny from me and Justin Bieber may get $3 from me, despite me never listening to a single track from him. Nobody is arguing Spotify can take it's 20% or whatever, people are just arguing that the calculation Spotify uses to distribute the monthly royalties severely penalizes small artists. (because it looks in aggregate across all listeners instead of divvying per user)

parthdesai 9y ago

I think it's pretty well known that artist's make really less from streaming or even album sales. That's why i usually buy t-shirts or something like that of the artist to support them. Fortunately for the type of music i prefer, soundcloud is enough for as of now.

mcherm 9y ago

The point of this article is that spotify's revenue sharing model really sucks for BIG artists. Justin Bieber definitely qualifies as a "big" artist.

bpicolo 9y ago
To be fair, Spotify isn't mentioned at all

saaaaaam 9y ago

Deezer is apparently beginning to address this.