6 ms·

http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-laughable-pathetic-110205/ http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-laugha... Good for label

http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-laughable-pathetic-110205/ http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-laugha... Good for labels, not so good for artists

tintin 16y ago
Maybe that's what your read, but you could also read that Lady Gaga has more income from iTunes just because more copies were sold there. And ofcourse this has nothing to do with Spotify. They just have a contract with the labels. How labels distribute income is up to the labels.
yesbabyyes 16y ago
Here's the thing with Spotify: The major four all own a share of the company (around 4-6%, if I'm not mistaken). For them to be willing to license their music, they negotiated a sweet deal: They get a lot more per play than indie artists (or artists on labels not on the major four). So, if you're a Spotify customer, paying 100 SEK ($15)/month and listening exclusively to, say, Santigold, most of the loot will still end up in the big four's pockets.
JonnieCache 16y ago
Spotify cannot be compared to iTunes and amazon, or traditional CD sales. It is more equivalent to royalties from FM radio play. Lots of people don't seem to get this. The smart musicians realise they can do things like put their album on there for the month before the release, leave it on there for the month after its release, then yank it away and watch the MP3 sales climb. I see this quite a lot. Planet Mu records in particular seem to have a subset of their extensive back catalogue on there that is constantly in rotation. This practice has basically forced me to buy music from them on more than one occasion. It's like the mythical practice of drug dealers giving kids free samples to get them hooked :)
- adsr 16y ago
  Of course it can! The fact that it is on-demand practically negates the need to buy the music else where. On radio you have to sit around waiting for your song to come on. I've seen royalty reports from Spotify's largest artists, and it was indeed microscopically small.
- unicornporn 16y ago
  > Spotify cannot be compared to iTunes and amazon, or traditional CD sales. It is more equivalent to royalties from FM radio play. Well, that sounds like a strange simile to me. When listening to FM radio you do not chose what tracks you listen to. Spotify isn't Pandora. With Spotify, you can chose whatever track you like (as long they have it and there's no commercial queued). Lady Gaga got $167 for 1 million plays. Imagine what the small artists receives. Spotify is controlled by the four major record companies: Universal, EMI, Sony and Warner. Even if they just own 18% of the shares, Spotify's entire existence rests on the trust that these record companies continue to license "their" music. The four record companies are using the power of Spotify to further strengthen its domination over other record companies and penalize artists outside their own team. To me, listening to Spotify and actually believing you are doing something better for the artist than those who pirate is no less than delusion.
  - mzl 16y ago
    The Lady Gaga figure is not relevant. It was for the first months of public Spotify, before they had any real revenue. Since the payout is revenue based and not fixed (at least as far as I've heard), the level of revenue impacts the payouts a lot. Also, AFAIK, no official figures are released for how much any artist gets from Spotify currently.
  - StrawberryFrog 16y ago
    listening to Spotify and actually believing you are doing something better for the artist than those who pirate is no less than delusion. That’s sad to hear, and I hope it gets fixed, but But I didn't sign up for Spotify in order to "do something for teh starving artists" I, and the people I know who signed up for it, did so because 1) it's legal 2) it's cheap 3) It gives instant access to a wealth of music beyond what I could ever listen to in my whole life. It’s not every song ever (for instance there’s no Frank Zappa, no Coil, and the cusswords in Cake’s songs are blipped out) but it's close. The artists were starving when the major labels were ripping them off, the artists are starving now their songs get copied and torented. It’s sad that Spotify doesn’t solve that problem, and that it doesn’t cure cancer either, but hey, at least Spotify didn’t make things worse. Spotify’s competition is yes, illegal downloads. Illegal downloads have the advantage in price - they’re free, but they lose out to Spotify in not being legal and being less searchable. The "instant music" really is a distinguishing feature. e.g. Gary Moore dies -> Play some of his music on Spotify. Friend says he’s been digging a band called "Aesthetic perfection" -> Listen to them all afternoon on Spotify. As ever, casual listening, if the artist gets paid or not is a gateway to finding new music that you really like, leading to being a fan and buying CDs/MP3s, gig tickets and merchandise.
- dlib 16y ago
  I've seen this happen on occasion and it's the one thing that really pisses me off about Spotify. I expect music that's in my playlists to actually be there when I want to play it. I pay for it, it's legal and it earns the labels more than the thousands of people who use Pirate Bay. When they yank the music I listen to, away from Spotify it makes me want to fire up my BitTorrent-client again.
- seabee 16y ago
  So THAT's why they have 'Buy' buttons on the songs.
- kennywinker 16y ago
  You can do that with your website. Who needs spotify for that?
agaton 16y ago
I think illegal piracy downloading is the real competitor to Spotify, not CD:s or iTunes. This is the problem they're trying to solve http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/anatomy-of-a-pirate.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/anatomy-of-a-pirate.html As you might now The Pirate Bay and piracy have been huge in Sweden. Spotify have changed that when it comes to music. By making it _easier_ to listen to music via their application than via bittorrent/kazaa/napster/dc++ downloading, they're now the most used music player in Sweden. Just a few years ago the Pirate Bay top 100 list was full of music. Now there's two (2!) music albums on it, the rest is tv-series and movies. If you look at it that way, that piracy is the competitor not cd sales, the music industry has a great opportunity in Spotify in the long run.
- furyg3 16y ago
  100% correct, at least as it pertains to me. The concept of "owning" music has been dead to my generation since Napster. I'm not even sure what that concept means, nowadays. Music is like water, you can get it from a million sources, paid or not. Getting it isn't the problem. My real problem is finding what I want to listen to at this very moment, and managing it. I don't want to spend forever finding my music, downloading it, arranging payment, organizing it, backing it up, copying it to my iPod or other computer, etc. Spotify gets this: search -> listen -> add to playlists. At work, home, wherever... just login. Girlfriend's music? Switch user. Throw away my iPod, it was just a shipping container, anyway.
  - seabee 16y ago
    And the nice thing is it picks up your local files (and even syncs them to your mobile just like the other songs!) It solves the organisation problem very neatly. Piracy will find it hard to compete.
  - agaton 16y ago
    Actually, you don't even need to switch users to listen to your girlfriends music. The social layer they've integrated via Facebook makes it possible for you to listen to her playlists as well, from your account ;) #win
jrmg 16y ago
I'd be more interested to see how much an album will make in an artist's lifetime. Traditionally, you buy the album once. With Spotify, money changes hands whenever a track is played, on an ongoing basis.
bartl 16y ago
Uh, that complaint was a quote from a music label executive. "Good for labels"?

http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-laughable-pathetic-110205/ http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-laugha... Good for labels, not so good for artists

tintin 16y ago

Maybe that's what your read, but you could also read that Lady Gaga has more income from iTunes just because more copies were sold there. And ofcourse this has nothing to do with Spotify. They just have a contract with the labels. How labels distribute income is up to the labels.

yesbabyyes 16y ago

Here's the thing with Spotify: The major four all own a share of the company (around 4-6%, if I'm not mistaken). For them to be willing to license their music, they negotiated a sweet deal: They get a lot more per play than indie artists (or artists on labels not on the major four). So, if you're a Spotify customer, paying 100 SEK ($15)/month and listening exclusively to, say, Santigold, most of the loot will still end up in the big four's pockets.

JonnieCache 16y ago

Spotify cannot be compared to iTunes and amazon, or traditional CD sales. It is more equivalent to royalties from FM radio play. Lots of people don't seem to get this. The smart musicians realise they can do things like put their album on there for the month before the release, leave it on there for the month after its release, then yank it away and watch the MP3 sales climb. I see this quite a lot. Planet Mu records in particular seem to have a subset of their extensive back catalogue on there that is constantly in rotation. This practice has basically forced me to buy music from them on more than one occasion. It's like the mythical practice of drug dealers giving kids free samples to get them hooked :)

adsr 16y ago
Of course it can! The fact that it is on-demand practically negates the need to buy the music else where. On radio you have to sit around waiting for your song to come on. I've seen royalty reports from Spotify's largest artists, and it was indeed microscopically small.
unicornporn 16y ago
> Spotify cannot be compared to iTunes and amazon, or traditional CD sales. It is more equivalent to royalties from FM radio play. Well, that sounds like a strange simile to me. When listening to FM radio you do not chose what tracks you listen to. Spotify isn't Pandora. With Spotify, you can chose whatever track you like (as long they have it and there's no commercial queued). Lady Gaga got $167 for 1 million plays. Imagine what the small artists receives. Spotify is controlled by the four major record companies: Universal, EMI, Sony and Warner. Even if they just own 18% of the shares, Spotify's entire existence rests on the trust that these record companies continue to license "their" music. The four record companies are using the power of Spotify to further strengthen its domination over other record companies and penalize artists outside their own team. To me, listening to Spotify and actually believing you are doing something better for the artist than those who pirate is no less than delusion.
- mzl 16y ago
  The Lady Gaga figure is not relevant. It was for the first months of public Spotify, before they had any real revenue. Since the payout is revenue based and not fixed (at least as far as I've heard), the level of revenue impacts the payouts a lot. Also, AFAIK, no official figures are released for how much any artist gets from Spotify currently.
- StrawberryFrog 16y ago
  listening to Spotify and actually believing you are doing something better for the artist than those who pirate is no less than delusion. That’s sad to hear, and I hope it gets fixed, but But I didn't sign up for Spotify in order to "do something for teh starving artists" I, and the people I know who signed up for it, did so because 1) it's legal 2) it's cheap 3) It gives instant access to a wealth of music beyond what I could ever listen to in my whole life. It’s not every song ever (for instance there’s no Frank Zappa, no Coil, and the cusswords in Cake’s songs are blipped out) but it's close. The artists were starving when the major labels were ripping them off, the artists are starving now their songs get copied and torented. It’s sad that Spotify doesn’t solve that problem, and that it doesn’t cure cancer either, but hey, at least Spotify didn’t make things worse. Spotify’s competition is yes, illegal downloads. Illegal downloads have the advantage in price - they’re free, but they lose out to Spotify in not being legal and being less searchable. The "instant music" really is a distinguishing feature. e.g. Gary Moore dies -> Play some of his music on Spotify. Friend says he’s been digging a band called "Aesthetic perfection" -> Listen to them all afternoon on Spotify. As ever, casual listening, if the artist gets paid or not is a gateway to finding new music that you really like, leading to being a fan and buying CDs/MP3s, gig tickets and merchandise.
dlib 16y ago
I've seen this happen on occasion and it's the one thing that really pisses me off about Spotify. I expect music that's in my playlists to actually be there when I want to play it. I pay for it, it's legal and it earns the labels more than the thousands of people who use Pirate Bay. When they yank the music I listen to, away from Spotify it makes me want to fire up my BitTorrent-client again.
seabee 16y ago
So THAT's why they have 'Buy' buttons on the songs.
kennywinker 16y ago
You can do that with your website. Who needs spotify for that?

agaton 16y ago

I think illegal piracy downloading is the real competitor to Spotify, not CD:s or iTunes. This is the problem they're trying to solve http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/anatomy-of-a-pirate.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/02/anatomy-of-a-pirate.html As you might now The Pirate Bay and piracy have been huge in Sweden. Spotify have changed that when it comes to music. By making it _easier_ to listen to music via their application than via bittorrent/kazaa/napster/dc++ downloading, they're now the most used music player in Sweden. Just a few years ago the Pirate Bay top 100 list was full of music. Now there's two (2!) music albums on it, the rest is tv-series and movies. If you look at it that way, that piracy is the competitor not cd sales, the music industry has a great opportunity in Spotify in the long run.

furyg3 16y ago
100% correct, at least as it pertains to me. The concept of "owning" music has been dead to my generation since Napster. I'm not even sure what that concept means, nowadays. Music is like water, you can get it from a million sources, paid or not. Getting it isn't the problem. My real problem is finding what I want to listen to at this very moment, and managing it. I don't want to spend forever finding my music, downloading it, arranging payment, organizing it, backing it up, copying it to my iPod or other computer, etc. Spotify gets this: search -> listen -> add to playlists. At work, home, wherever... just login. Girlfriend's music? Switch user. Throw away my iPod, it was just a shipping container, anyway.
- seabee 16y ago
  And the nice thing is it picks up your local files (and even syncs them to your mobile just like the other songs!) It solves the organisation problem very neatly. Piracy will find it hard to compete.
- agaton 16y ago
  Actually, you don't even need to switch users to listen to your girlfriends music. The social layer they've integrated via Facebook makes it possible for you to listen to her playlists as well, from your account ;) #win

jrmg 16y ago

I'd be more interested to see how much an album will make in an artist's lifetime. Traditionally, you buy the album once. With Spotify, money changes hands whenever a track is played, on an ongoing basis.

bartl 16y ago

Uh, that complaint was a quote from a music label executive. "Good for labels"?