5 ms·

Yes, they pool all payments, then portion out according to the share of plays compared to the total number of plays on the platform. That obviously favors popul

Yes, they pool all payments, then portion out according to the share of plays compared to the total number of plays on the platform. That obviously favors popular artists, but it is a reasonable way of portioning payment, based on absolute popularity. Exactly as with traditional record sales, highly popular artists get the lion's share of the total revenue. In that sense, they payment scheme behind Spotify is absolutely nothing new. I would absolutely prefer if my subscription payment got portioned out to only the artists I personally listened to, but I can also see how that would be a daunting task to portion payment based on the listening profile of every individual user out of millions. It would be more fair, obviously. I bet there is/would be a lot of pushback from the big labels, obviously. All of this mess is why I still buy downloads from my favorite artists, especially if they're niche bands. I'm not gonna necessarily going to buy the next Kreator or Judas Priest album, but I'll definitely buy the next release from Bonehunter or Blackrat, precisely because they get shafted by the combination of Spotify, big labels and "creative accounting".

ReptileMan 8y ago
No. Reasonable is to split each individual sub proportionally to the artists listened by it. If I listened only to Gojira and Satyricon this month - I want them to take my mpney and spotify their cut, not Cardi B.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  I would prefer that arrangement as well, and I don't know if the reason for not doing it is technical, or because of contracts with the big labels. It may be a deal with the devil to let Spotify continue to exist, as the labels could easily crush them. And you can already support your favorite artists directly, by going to their shows, buying their merch and buying their music on Bandcamp. Some artists even use Patreon now, which is a sort of interesting return to the days of artists working for wealthy patrons.
  - naivefool 8y ago
    I always assumed it was to account for the non-paying listeners (i would rather this was done through a budget - e.g. 20% of listeners are not paying so upfront take 20% of my money to pay for them - then do a fair calc on splitting users revenue by their listens). I think effectively record labels can say something like this to spotify: hey 70% of music listened to is the charts by non paying members, what are you doing to protect our investment? i dont know if its a simple as that but i can imagine there are very particular shapes to listening behaviours/

ReptileMan 8y ago

No. Reasonable is to split each individual sub proportionally to the artists listened by it. If I listened only to Gojira and Satyricon this month - I want them to take my mpney and spotify their cut, not Cardi B.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
I would prefer that arrangement as well, and I don't know if the reason for not doing it is technical, or because of contracts with the big labels. It may be a deal with the devil to let Spotify continue to exist, as the labels could easily crush them. And you can already support your favorite artists directly, by going to their shows, buying their merch and buying their music on Bandcamp. Some artists even use Patreon now, which is a sort of interesting return to the days of artists working for wealthy patrons.
- naivefool 8y ago
  I always assumed it was to account for the non-paying listeners (i would rather this was done through a budget - e.g. 20% of listeners are not paying so upfront take 20% of my money to pay for them - then do a fair calc on splitting users revenue by their listens). I think effectively record labels can say something like this to spotify: hey 70% of music listened to is the charts by non paying members, what are you doing to protect our investment? i dont know if its a simple as that but i can imagine there are very particular shapes to listening behaviours/