2 ms·

But not 9.9% of the revenue. Bob streams track 11,12,13,14 1,000 times a month each for their €10 Jamie streams track 21,22,23,24 100 times each for their €10

• rckoepke 6y ago
  Stealing and rephrasing this for clarity: Alice pays $10/month fee. Alice only listens to track A 990 times. Bob pays $10/month fee. Bob only listens to track B 10 times. Total revenue $20, Total streams 1000. $0.02 per stream. Track A gets $19.80, track B gets $0.20 If Bob got his twin brother to subscribe, and they had the exact same listening pattern next month: Alice pays $10/month fee. Alice only listens to track A 980 times. (Alice listens to the song less this month than last month) The Bobs are now paying $20/month. The Bobs only listen to track B 20 times total (Each Bob listens to the track 10 times). Total revenue $30, Total streams still 1000. $0.03 per stream. Track A gets $29.40. Track B gets $0.60. Track A just increased its revenue 48% despite being listened to less the second month. Track B was responsible for Spotify earning $10 more, but only saw $0.40 of what it brought into Spotify. However, I'm not sure what the downstream ramifications of the new incentives would be after hypothetically switching from pro-rata payment structure to a per-user structure. Would artists' / music labels' strategies change? I also wonder what would happen to the revenue from users who pay subscriptions for a month, but neglect to use the service at all. It seems it would make sense to either pay the artists that user has listened to over their lifetime/past year, or distribute pro-rata across all of Spotify.