4 ms·

Try reading your first paragraph again. You’re contradicting yourself and are completely missing the point. You say that you “know” that terrestrial broadcast

by rewgs 6y ago

Try reading your first paragraph again. You’re contradicting yourself and are completely missing the point. You say that you “know” that terrestrial broadcast isn’t based on the number of listeners, and then go and make the same argument that Spotify pays better than radio based on “radio plays with n listeners.” > You are acting like a terrestrial broadcast to n listeners is equivalent to a Spotify non-broadcast to one listener. Yes, I am, exactly! Please tell me you understand the difference between 10,000 people individually seeking out a song on Spotify vs a radio broadcasting a song one time to n people (and sure, n can equal 10,000). I like how you say “$0.12 per stream is not a viable model for music” while somehow pushing that $0.00318 per stream is. You’re right, though —- $0.12 per stream isn’t a viable model for music without the album sales those streams used to lead to. Spotify, if it’s to replace both radio and CD sales, needs to pay at least comparably to both. I’d say $1 per stream with a small bonus on top if someone listens to an album from start to finish all the way through would be a decent model. Your last paragraph betrays your ignorance of the subject. The situation in which an artist voluntarily choose to not put their music on Spotify is so rare I’m not sure it’s even statistically significant. A more common reason is due to the publisher refusing for some sort of money reason, but those situations are eroding all the time. Spotify is the de facto king. And it’s not like “some artists sell directly.” Everyone does! They do so because they have to recoup the utterly disastrous rates paid by Spotify somehow. So yes, by all means pay for music directly. But it’s not a better product than Spotify, because both allow the listener the same experiencing of “owning the album” (due to the benefit of “on-demand access”), so direct music purchases are just a “nice to have,” nothing a musician can actually depend upon. In other words: who cares about the edge cases when the majority use case is so shit and is actively pushing edge cases even closer and closer to the edge. Direct music sales are not a remedy to Spotify’s abhorrent per-stream rate and overall effect on the music selling landscape. Only one thing is: negotiating better per-stream rates. Period.

mattmcknight 6y ago
> You say that you “know” that terrestrial broadcast isn’t based on the number of listeners, and then go and make the same argument that Spotify pays better than radio based on “radio plays with n listeners.” What I am saying is that even though the $0.12 isn't based on the number of listeners, there is a number of listeners (n). So that $0.12 should be divided by that n in order to calculate how much money is paid per listen. If that n > 265, then Spotify is paying more per listen. I agree that the on-demand nature means Spotify should cost more than radio. Still, the argument that Spotify does pay less than radio per listen is wrong, and it makes your case a lot weaker if insist on that, because it's contrary. When I said $0.12 a stream isn't a viable model for music, I didn't mean because it paid the artists too little, I meant it cost too much! Paying the artist and songwriter $0.12 per stream means charging the user about $0.15 each time they listen to the song. (Which doesn't seem right when compared to the purchase price of a song, unless people listen to music they purchase fewer than 8 times on average.) If they stream 25 hours per month, at average song length of 4 minutes, that's about 375 songs per month, or about $56/month. For heavy listeners, it would be a lot more. I don't think many people would sign up at that level. It definitely couldn't be covered by advertising. That said, you could probably get a lot more than Spotify is paying. Still, it does indicate some room there to get more than the $0.00318. It is surprising to me that we don't see more exclusivity with music like we do with video content, where subscriptions to various services end up being necessary if you want to watch a particular show. The consumption patterns are quite different. However, given the number of competing platforms out there and the low switching costs associated associated, probably the best strategy is for a whole company with a lot of publishing rights to pull their content from the lowest paying services. Something like what Disney did to Netflix.
- rewgs 6y ago
  You are still completely missing my point w/r/t the number of listeners with radio, but I’m not sure how else to get you to see it, so I’m gonna duck out. Best of luck to you.

by rewgs 6y ago

mattmcknight 6y ago

> You say that you “know” that terrestrial broadcast isn’t based on the number of listeners, and then go and make the same argument that Spotify pays better than radio based on “radio plays with n listeners.” What I am saying is that even though the $0.12 isn't based on the number of listeners, there is a number of listeners (n). So that $0.12 should be divided by that n in order to calculate how much money is paid per listen. If that n > 265, then Spotify is paying more per listen. I agree that the on-demand nature means Spotify should cost more than radio. Still, the argument that Spotify does pay less than radio per listen is wrong, and it makes your case a lot weaker if insist on that, because it's contrary. When I said $0.12 a stream isn't a viable model for music, I didn't mean because it paid the artists too little, I meant it cost too much! Paying the artist and songwriter $0.12 per stream means charging the user about $0.15 each time they listen to the song. (Which doesn't seem right when compared to the purchase price of a song, unless people listen to music they purchase fewer than 8 times on average.) If they stream 25 hours per month, at average song length of 4 minutes, that's about 375 songs per month, or about $56/month. For heavy listeners, it would be a lot more. I don't think many people would sign up at that level. It definitely couldn't be covered by advertising. That said, you could probably get a lot more than Spotify is paying. Still, it does indicate some room there to get more than the $0.00318. It is surprising to me that we don't see more exclusivity with music like we do with video content, where subscriptions to various services end up being necessary if you want to watch a particular show. The consumption patterns are quite different. However, given the number of competing platforms out there and the low switching costs associated associated, probably the best strategy is for a whole company with a lot of publishing rights to pull their content from the lowest paying services. Something like what Disney did to Netflix.

rewgs 6y ago
You are still completely missing my point w/r/t the number of listeners with radio, but I’m not sure how else to get you to see it, so I’m gonna duck out. Best of luck to you.