4 ms·

> Way to go Spotify, you paid more for that advertising space than you did to the artist for streaming their their content to your users. How do you know what

> Way to go Spotify, you paid more for that advertising space than you did to the artist for streaming their their content to your users. How do you know what they paid? > Using someone else's art as a surveillance marketing tool? They're not using someone else's art for these statistics.

bogomipz 9y ago
>"How do you know what they paid?" It's well known that artists get paid less than 1 cent for a stream [1]. Do the math with the figures they mentioned in those ads. Now look at the ad rates for the New York City subway stations.[2] >"They're not using someone else's art for these statistics." When you are an artist and you write songs, those songs belong to you. So yes they are using somebody else's art. [1] https://www.spin.com/2013/12/spotify-details-royalty-payouts-cents/ https://www.spin.com/2013/12/spotify-details-royalty-payouts... [2] http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/15156/ http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/1...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > artists get paid less than 1 cent for a stream Spotify pays 70 to 85% of its revenues to music labels as royalties [1]. The problem isn’t with Spotify. It’s in the contracts between the labels and artists. [1] https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-revenues-topped-2bn-last-year-as-losses-hit-194m/ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-revenues-topp...
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"The problem isn’t with Spotify. It’s in the contracts between the labels and artists." That's the convenient lie - "Oh we have nothing to do with that, that's between the record label and the artist." The overwhelming majority of Spotify users are free tier users(90 million) not paid users(50 million.)[1] Ad supported streams pay out an even worse royalty rate to artists than the paid user tier royalty rates. And that free tier rate appears to be declining as well.[2] Spotify's business model depends on converting those free tier users to paid users - that's the funnel. So yes Spotify very much depends on this awful arrangement between the record label and artist. [1] https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/spotify-announces-140-million-users-as-its-paying-subscription-base-approaches-40/ https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/spotify-announces-140-mil... [2] https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/16/spotify-audiam-low-rates/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/16/spotify-audiam-l...
    - bkor 9y ago
      If Spotify gives 70-85% of their revenue to the rights holder then why do you call this a lie? Please explain.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        Did you read the rest of what I wrote? Because the rest of what I wrote explains exactly why this is a lie. Paying out 75 cents on the dollar does not mean they aren't propping up that corrupt system. Spotify likes to repeat this line about payouts as if it absolves them from any blame in a system where artists can't make money from their recordings.
        JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > Paying out 75 cents on the dollar does not mean they aren't propping up that corrupt system So...anyone listening to music is "propping up that corrupt system"? If so, that's a nifty moral framework you've got there? Not very practical, though, if it sorts everything into the "bad" pile.
        bogomipz 9y ago
        >"So...anyone listening to music is "propping up that corrupt system"?" That's a total strawman and not at all what I said. I would gladly pay artists more than .001 cents a stream if I could but I can't. There is no option to do that. I actually believe that music is worth more than $9.99 a month. And in case you hadn't noticed there's not many record store left so the ability to buy hard product that offers artists a better royalty rate is getting harder. My only other options are to support those artists is by paying to see them live which is the only way most of them are able to make money now. And I pay to see live music all the time. I also visit their merch booth and generally buy something there like a piece of vinyl where all the money goes in their pockets. The Spotify model is not the only model. Artists largely don't need record labels any more but there is no way alternative where artists can deal with Spotify directly. Why is that? Because if Spotify announced that they were doing to allow artists to deal directly with them the records companies wouldn't renew their licensing when it came due. So yes they are very much propping up that system. You might want to look into how how the Spotify model actually works to see why this claim of "we pay out 70% of everything we make" argument falls flat: https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-to-make-streaming-royalties-fair-er-8b38cd862f66 https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-to-make-streaming-royalties-... So no, I created no "piles" or "nifty moral frameworks"

bogomipz 9y ago

>"How do you know what they paid?" It's well known that artists get paid less than 1 cent for a stream [1]. Do the math with the figures they mentioned in those ads. Now look at the ad rates for the New York City subway stations.[2] >"They're not using someone else's art for these statistics." When you are an artist and you write songs, those songs belong to you. So yes they are using somebody else's art. [1] https://www.spin.com/2013/12/spotify-details-royalty-payouts-cents/ https://www.spin.com/2013/12/spotify-details-royalty-payouts... [2] http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/15156/ http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/1...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> artists get paid less than 1 cent for a stream Spotify pays 70 to 85% of its revenues to music labels as royalties [1]. The problem isn’t with Spotify. It’s in the contracts between the labels and artists. [1] https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-revenues-topped-2bn-last-year-as-losses-hit-194m/ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-revenues-topp...
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"The problem isn’t with Spotify. It’s in the contracts between the labels and artists." That's the convenient lie - "Oh we have nothing to do with that, that's between the record label and the artist." The overwhelming majority of Spotify users are free tier users(90 million) not paid users(50 million.)[1] Ad supported streams pay out an even worse royalty rate to artists than the paid user tier royalty rates. And that free tier rate appears to be declining as well.[2] Spotify's business model depends on converting those free tier users to paid users - that's the funnel. So yes Spotify very much depends on this awful arrangement between the record label and artist. [1] https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/spotify-announces-140-million-users-as-its-paying-subscription-base-approaches-40/ https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/spotify-announces-140-mil... [2] https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/16/spotify-audiam-low-rates/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/16/spotify-audiam-l...
  - bkor 9y ago
    If Spotify gives 70-85% of their revenue to the rights holder then why do you call this a lie? Please explain.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      Did you read the rest of what I wrote? Because the rest of what I wrote explains exactly why this is a lie. Paying out 75 cents on the dollar does not mean they aren't propping up that corrupt system. Spotify likes to repeat this line about payouts as if it absolves them from any blame in a system where artists can't make money from their recordings.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > Paying out 75 cents on the dollar does not mean they aren't propping up that corrupt system So...anyone listening to music is "propping up that corrupt system"? If so, that's a nifty moral framework you've got there? Not very practical, though, if it sorts everything into the "bad" pile.
        bogomipz 9y ago
        >"So...anyone listening to music is "propping up that corrupt system"?" That's a total strawman and not at all what I said. I would gladly pay artists more than .001 cents a stream if I could but I can't. There is no option to do that. I actually believe that music is worth more than $9.99 a month. And in case you hadn't noticed there's not many record store left so the ability to buy hard product that offers artists a better royalty rate is getting harder. My only other options are to support those artists is by paying to see them live which is the only way most of them are able to make money now. And I pay to see live music all the time. I also visit their merch booth and generally buy something there like a piece of vinyl where all the money goes in their pockets. The Spotify model is not the only model. Artists largely don't need record labels any more but there is no way alternative where artists can deal with Spotify directly. Why is that? Because if Spotify announced that they were doing to allow artists to deal directly with them the records companies wouldn't renew their licensing when it came due. So yes they are very much propping up that system. You might want to look into how how the Spotify model actually works to see why this claim of "we pay out 70% of everything we make" argument falls flat: https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-to-make-streaming-royalties-fair-er-8b38cd862f66 https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-to-make-streaming-royalties-... So no, I created no "piles" or "nifty moral frameworks"