4 ms·

Thought experiment. Imagine I only listen to one song in one month by one band who currently make ~0 on Spotify. In my new system, they now make £10.

fireflies_ 6y ago
Sounds like this only works if people who listen to smaller bands/indie music listen to fewer songs on average. I'm not sure if this is true. People who find themselves exploring niche tastes are probably "enthusiasts" who do more listening and listen more broadly.
- mortenjorck 6y ago
  It's all hypotheticals until there's some data. You could just as easily have an enthusiast who finds a few new indie albums per month and listens to them all the way through, or someone who leaves a top-40 playlist on in the background.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    From the article: 82 per cent of respondents earned less than £200 from streaming in 2019, including some with “millions” of streams. This just could not happen with what I’m suggesting. Example: The band above, which earned < £200 must have at least 2 million streams a year = 166,666 a month For simplicity let’s assume each of those 166,666 streams is a unique user. Each also listens to 1999 other songs that month (about 5 hours a day of music seems average?) So each owes the artist 1/2000 of their £10 subscription = $0.005 166,666 streamers * $0.005 = £833.33 a month = £10,000 a year.
ebg13 6y ago
If we assume that they'd make more from your (plural) personal 10 than they'd make from their tiny fraction of total revenue, then yes.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  The whole point of the article is saying 80% of bands only make £200 a year. A band only needs a few hundred fans to easily get above that. Let’s do some math: 100 fans listen to their music only 5% of the time. 100 fans x £10 x 12 months = £12000. Your 5% of their listening gives you £600. 3 X higher than 80% of bands. And with only 100 fans. And only listening to your music 5% of the time!
  - ebg13 6y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was disagreeing. Yes, I agree with you.
    - jonplackett 6y ago
      Haha. Sorry! I though it was a sarcastic yes! It was good to actually work it out anyway for my own peace of mind :)
rrobukef 6y ago
Next somebody will say they need to be weighted according to song-length because the concertos of Vivaldi are much longer than a pop-song. Of course, ultimately, every playthrough must be tracked down to the second. Let the law of large numbers do its work.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  I know you’re joking, but I believe bands are already gaming it by having loads of short songs. So maybe that is actually fairer!
HeyZuess 6y ago
> In my new system, they now make £10. I am not sure how this works in regards to economies of scale. However all artists are free (except for contractual agreements) to release their art independently and keep the whole pie. Let's take your £10. Now spotify has operational costs, staff salaries, operational costs. How much is your £10 worth now? Well its not actually too hard to work out you could take a look at the balance sheet. But I gather your £10 is worth quite substantially less. This does not include any further cuts like for the record label, song writers, produces, marketing etc. TL;DR; your £10 is not worth £10 if you factor in other overheads.

fireflies_ 6y ago

Sounds like this only works if people who listen to smaller bands/indie music listen to fewer songs on average. I'm not sure if this is true. People who find themselves exploring niche tastes are probably "enthusiasts" who do more listening and listen more broadly.

mortenjorck 6y ago
It's all hypotheticals until there's some data. You could just as easily have an enthusiast who finds a few new indie albums per month and listens to them all the way through, or someone who leaves a top-40 playlist on in the background.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  From the article: 82 per cent of respondents earned less than £200 from streaming in 2019, including some with “millions” of streams. This just could not happen with what I’m suggesting. Example: The band above, which earned < £200 must have at least 2 million streams a year = 166,666 a month For simplicity let’s assume each of those 166,666 streams is a unique user. Each also listens to 1999 other songs that month (about 5 hours a day of music seems average?) So each owes the artist 1/2000 of their £10 subscription = $0.005 166,666 streamers * $0.005 = £833.33 a month = £10,000 a year.

ebg13 6y ago

If we assume that they'd make more from your (plural) personal 10 than they'd make from their tiny fraction of total revenue, then yes.

jonplackett 6y ago
The whole point of the article is saying 80% of bands only make £200 a year. A band only needs a few hundred fans to easily get above that. Let’s do some math: 100 fans listen to their music only 5% of the time. 100 fans x £10 x 12 months = £12000. Your 5% of their listening gives you £600. 3 X higher than 80% of bands. And with only 100 fans. And only listening to your music 5% of the time!
- ebg13 6y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was disagreeing. Yes, I agree with you.
  - jonplackett 6y ago
    Haha. Sorry! I though it was a sarcastic yes! It was good to actually work it out anyway for my own peace of mind :)

rrobukef 6y ago

Next somebody will say they need to be weighted according to song-length because the concertos of Vivaldi are much longer than a pop-song. Of course, ultimately, every playthrough must be tracked down to the second. Let the law of large numbers do its work.

jonplackett 6y ago
I know you’re joking, but I believe bands are already gaming it by having loads of short songs. So maybe that is actually fairer!

HeyZuess 6y ago

> In my new system, they now make £10. I am not sure how this works in regards to economies of scale. However all artists are free (except for contractual agreements) to release their art independently and keep the whole pie. Let's take your £10. Now spotify has operational costs, staff salaries, operational costs. How much is your £10 worth now? Well its not actually too hard to work out you could take a look at the balance sheet. But I gather your £10 is worth quite substantially less. This does not include any further cuts like for the record label, song writers, produces, marketing etc. TL;DR; your £10 is not worth £10 if you factor in other overheads.