3 ms·
Idea: Rather than all-you-can-stream, charge a low rate per song play to users. Assume that existing services charges $15/mo, and heavy users might play 16 hou
by beastcoast 9y ago
Idea:
Rather than all-you-can-stream, charge a low rate per song play to users. Assume that existing services charges $15/mo, and heavy users might play 16 hours a day, and act song length is 3 minutes, that comes out to about $0.0015 per play to be the same value proposition. But guessing average is much lower so we could up the rate 2x or 4x and customers come out the same. Everyone gets the same cut of revenue per song play, so popular artists get the same cut of streams as indie artists.
Am I missing something?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jstanley 9y agoThe high-volume users are probably the biggest proponents of the service, so putting prices up for them might have negative effects.
- toast0 9y agoPer song is a terrible way to go, because then each 'skip' costs a whole song. Let's pay per time interval (also, that helps fairly compensate epic length songmakers)
- skybrian 9y agoThe distribution might not be what you expect because heavy users are people who use a stream as background music and let it play it all day. It's not like reading books or watching movies where heavy users are the most obsessed users. It might make some sense to charge for the number of different songs played each month, though this would tend to encourage channels that repeat songs more often (to save money), and perhaps for artists to record more variations on basically the same song. Incentives are tricky. When making rules like this, you have to think about how it might be gamed.