3 ms·
You’re neglecting what fraction of users actually listen to indie artists’ music. It does hurt payoffs when listeners listen to more (diverse) music, but the pa
by ssivark 8y ago
You’re neglecting what fraction of users actually listen to indie artists’ music. It does hurt payoffs when listeners listen to more (diverse) music, but the payoffs are not diluted by the masses who individually listen to less, but cumulatively listen to much more music from mainstream artists. This combined meta-user is listening to a LOT of music, of which dilutes the number of plays of indie music. As long as there are users who listen to mainstream music but not indie music, indie artists will always be better of under the proposed scheme.
My intuition says that an example of Simpson’s paradox might be hiding here, in case someone is interested in constructing the mapping and making it explicit.
- paulgb 8y ago> As long as there are users who listen to mainstream music but not indie music, indie artists will always be better of under the proposed scheme. I don't think that's right? Let's say there are 99 users who listen to 10 mainstream tracks per month, and 1 user who listens to only to ABC band. As I understand it, ABC band gets 1% of the total share of the total pot under the user-centric model. Under the current model, though, if the ABC band listener listens to 100 ABC band tracks per month, while the mainstream listeners listen to 50 mainstream tracks per month, ABC band makes up 100 of the 5050 total plays, almost 2% of total track plays. So under the current system, ABC band makes nearly twice as much under the current system than the user-centric system.
- lacksconfidence 8y agoSuppose in addition to those 100 users you had 2 coffee shops that play the top 40 on repeat 18 hours a day. At least I think that is what was suggested.