3 ms·

> No matter how unknown they are, if you listen to an average number of streams per month then they'll get at least 70% of your 10€/mo From what I understand t

> No matter how unknown they are, if you listen to an average number of streams per month then they'll get at least 70% of your 10€/mo From what I understand the number of listens that month is pooled globally/in buckets for the purpose of distribution. So if you listen to your friend's band once and nothing else, and someone plays a 31 second song on repeat 83612x over 30 days nonstop, your friend's band gets {{payout rate}}*1. And the other artist gets {{payout rate}}*83612. Rather than both artists getting ~70% of their listener's $10 subscription. And then the payout rate is a bit complicated because it comes from a variety of buckets. Some regions earn more/less than others, some account types (free trial, free with ads, family plan) earn less than others. Some specific labels or artists even get their own special buckets. 30% take overall is still correct. If you check their 2020 Q4 "Cost of Revenue" was about 73.5%, which is almost entirely royalties. In practice though, I don't think it matters too much. I don't think many people listen to one artist exclusively. Or if they do, it's probably a pop or children's music artist getting many streams already. But in the rare case of some person listen to one specific relatively unknown artist as most of their streaming, I'm pretty certain that artist does not receive an equal majority of that subscriber's money.

hansvm 6y ago
> From what I understand the number of listens that month is pooled globally/in buckets for the purpose of distribution. Yep, exactly. Views are pooled per stream rather than per artist, which is its own can of worms (I mentioned that somewhere in this thread), but if you watch an "average" amount that already accounts for such an artifact. At least 70% of your contributions go to the artists you listen to in such a scenario (that money has to come from somewhere; many artists _don't_ get paid much). > And then the payout rate is a bit complicated because it comes from a variety of buckets. Yep, that's why I simplified it as much as possible in the context of the net effect of your personal actions. Your paid listens will impact one bucket and not the others, and that allows them to be safely ignored when evaluating the difference in an artist's pay with you watching them on Spotify or just giving them cash. > In practice though, I don't think it matters too much. I don't think many people listen to one artist exclusively. This is a point I'm seeing crop up a lot, not just from you. I think we might be talking past each other; I'll lay out why I don't think that matters, and I'm curious to know what you think. In particular, if you're comparing spending X per month on Spotify or spending X per month on other forms of music, in both scenarios you would be splitting that between the artists you actually care about. I'm pretty sure people spend more per month on music than they used to (still haven't found the original source, so maybe that idea is wrong), so IMO it doesn't make sense when comparing Spotify to alternatives to point out that in _both_ instances your money doesn't all go to one artist. There is a point to be made that you'll probably listen to a broader variety of artists through Spotify than otherwise (why not? that's one of their core value propositions), so your individual X payment is split further than it would have been. However, everyone else is listening to more people too, and on average assuming everyone listens to the same distribution of music as in a pre-Spotify world those effects actually cancel out. There is still an open question of whether that distribution is the same -- does there exist a pool of artists being listened to via Spotify who would rarely have their music purchased otherwise? My gut says "yes," but I don't actually know. Is it a bad thing for those artists to be paid?

hansvm 6y ago

> From what I understand the number of listens that month is pooled globally/in buckets for the purpose of distribution. Yep, exactly. Views are pooled per stream rather than per artist, which is its own can of worms (I mentioned that somewhere in this thread), but if you watch an "average" amount that already accounts for such an artifact. At least 70% of your contributions go to the artists you listen to in such a scenario (that money has to come from somewhere; many artists _don't_ get paid much). > And then the payout rate is a bit complicated because it comes from a variety of buckets. Yep, that's why I simplified it as much as possible in the context of the net effect of your personal actions. Your paid listens will impact one bucket and not the others, and that allows them to be safely ignored when evaluating the difference in an artist's pay with you watching them on Spotify or just giving them cash. > In practice though, I don't think it matters too much. I don't think many people listen to one artist exclusively. This is a point I'm seeing crop up a lot, not just from you. I think we might be talking past each other; I'll lay out why I don't think that matters, and I'm curious to know what you think. In particular, if you're comparing spending X per month on Spotify or spending X per month on other forms of music, in both scenarios you would be splitting that between the artists you actually care about. I'm pretty sure people spend more per month on music than they used to (still haven't found the original source, so maybe that idea is wrong), so IMO it doesn't make sense when comparing Spotify to alternatives to point out that in _both_ instances your money doesn't all go to one artist. There is a point to be made that you'll probably listen to a broader variety of artists through Spotify than otherwise (why not? that's one of their core value propositions), so your individual X payment is split further than it would have been. However, everyone else is listening to more people too, and on average assuming everyone listens to the same distribution of music as in a pre-Spotify world those effects actually cancel out. There is still an open question of whether that distribution is the same -- does there exist a pool of artists being listened to via Spotify who would rarely have their music purchased otherwise? My gut says "yes," but I don't actually know. Is it a bad thing for those artists to be paid?