3 ms·

>Of all the money Spotify receives, 70 percent goes to the right holders. So Spotify only takes a 30% cut, that seems reasonable. Could be lower with more comp

>Of all the money Spotify receives, 70 percent goes to the right holders. So Spotify only takes a 30% cut, that seems reasonable. Could be lower with more competition but it seems they have a lead over other services. >How does that work? All the money is split across all streams. But the system also concerns the share of one artist within all those streams. So let's say Drake is responsible for five percent of all streams, then five percent of all money has to go to Drake. And it seems like it's proportional to the usage. >Is it unfair? >Of course, that's okay if you enjoy listening to Drake. But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. That's why some artists think that you should only pay for the artists you actually stream. And not that everything is lumped together and then distributed. And then this seems to try and contradict that? What's unfair here? Are they giving a bigger share to artists that are played across more users and not more streams?

namdnay 5y ago
> But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. Do they realise that someone who only listens to Drake is also going to be sending money to your artist? I agree with you, their complaint really doesn't make sense.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  It makes sense, it's about what's not written: paying users pay for everyone's listening habits, also the non-paying ones.
  - vintermann 5y ago
    Not true. The free tier has its own pool, thankfully, so millions of listens on free accounts won't affect what paid listeners' payments go to.
    - kzrdude 5y ago
      Not true anymore? So what pays for the free listeners' plays?
- candiodari 5y ago
  Well, let's find an extreme case to point out the difference. I think it's number of streams (which for songs is going to be effectively listening time). Let's say you have 2 artists who in one month: 1) gets 1000 fans who listen 11-hours-per-day to his and only his music. Let's call them "Drake". 2) gets 10,000,000 users to play a 2 minute catchy song, then promptly leave the platform. Let's call them "OneHitWonder" Both have resulted in 20 million "listening minutes". However, there's a imho pretty strong case to be made that user 2) did far more to earn it than 1) did. So effectively Spotify rewards artists that bring long term listener loyalty to specific artists rather than innovative new music makers. Not much money for attention grabbers. So the first "1h waterfall sounds" will earn far more than "OMG NEW FUN TUNE YOU GOT TO HEAR" ... even if the second gets far more listeners.
MattGaiser 5y ago
As things currently are, it seems that they aggregate all streams and all revenues and divide accordingly. Say that someone listens to one song from one artist once a month. As things stand, that would lead to just pennies going to that artist. What OP seems to want is for 70% of that person's subscription to go to that artist. Basically reward artists for having dedicated superfans rather than broad appeal.
- Normal_gaussian 5y ago
  Broad appeal would still result in high net earnings, possibly higher. A large number of users listen to top x / happy / study / winter playlists exclusively
Normal_gaussian 5y ago
Alice and Bob both pay $10/mo Alice listens exclusively to Drake and Bob listens exclusively to Queen. But Queen gets $5 and Drake gets $15! Why? Alice listened to twice as many tracks as Bob. This really doesn't seem fair, I'm a very selective listener, and my gf isn't - she just wants lots of background music. She doesn't care what the song is and I'm subsidising artists that produce music that lands in the playlists she plays ("alexa, play happy music") more than I'm contributing to artists that produce music for my tastes. This is a very different to pre-streaming.
- hexa22 5y ago
  It doesn’t matter because it would average out because you will have queen fans who listen at a high amount as well. Unless for some reason an artist has a fan base which majority listen to less music than the average person for some reason.
  - vintermann 5y ago
    It absolutely does matter, and it absolutely does not even out. Background music is extremely profitable on streaming services. The more amenable to being played in the background your music is (whether at a party or around the clock at a hair salon or other business), the more you will make, at the expense of artists that are more suited for deliberate listening - even though those artists are probably why people subscribe to the streaming service in the first place.
    - PennRobotics 5y ago
      How exactly is it bad to reward musicians for having more airtime? It seems the market is working as intended. Although, you seem to make a good point. BMI differentiates radio royalties by number of performances[1]. Except---and I haven't researched this very well---they seem to pay more if a song is more popular. [1] https://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royalties https://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royalties
    - jbjohns 5y ago
pushkine 5y ago
It's an unexplained and unfair bias for a certain type of song that coincidentally favors the top 0.1% of artists. Imagine a teenager girl playing an international pop star 2m31s song on loop for the entire evening after school, then think about her father listening to ~4m20s songs of a local rock band on his way to work If both of them pay for an individual subscription and those were the only things they listened to that month, the Spotify pay cut would pay the pop star 100x more for the same service.

namdnay 5y ago

> But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. Do they realise that someone who only listens to Drake is also going to be sending money to your artist? I agree with you, their complaint really doesn't make sense.

kzrdude 5y ago
It makes sense, it's about what's not written: paying users pay for everyone's listening habits, also the non-paying ones.
- vintermann 5y ago
  Not true. The free tier has its own pool, thankfully, so millions of listens on free accounts won't affect what paid listeners' payments go to.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    Not true anymore? So what pays for the free listeners' plays?
candiodari 5y ago
Well, let's find an extreme case to point out the difference. I think it's number of streams (which for songs is going to be effectively listening time). Let's say you have 2 artists who in one month: 1) gets 1000 fans who listen 11-hours-per-day to his and only his music. Let's call them "Drake". 2) gets 10,000,000 users to play a 2 minute catchy song, then promptly leave the platform. Let's call them "OneHitWonder" Both have resulted in 20 million "listening minutes". However, there's a imho pretty strong case to be made that user 2) did far more to earn it than 1) did. So effectively Spotify rewards artists that bring long term listener loyalty to specific artists rather than innovative new music makers. Not much money for attention grabbers. So the first "1h waterfall sounds" will earn far more than "OMG NEW FUN TUNE YOU GOT TO HEAR" ... even if the second gets far more listeners.

MattGaiser 5y ago

As things currently are, it seems that they aggregate all streams and all revenues and divide accordingly. Say that someone listens to one song from one artist once a month. As things stand, that would lead to just pennies going to that artist. What OP seems to want is for 70% of that person's subscription to go to that artist. Basically reward artists for having dedicated superfans rather than broad appeal.

Normal_gaussian 5y ago
Broad appeal would still result in high net earnings, possibly higher. A large number of users listen to top x / happy / study / winter playlists exclusively

Normal_gaussian 5y ago

Alice and Bob both pay $10/mo Alice listens exclusively to Drake and Bob listens exclusively to Queen. But Queen gets $5 and Drake gets $15! Why? Alice listened to twice as many tracks as Bob. This really doesn't seem fair, I'm a very selective listener, and my gf isn't - she just wants lots of background music. She doesn't care what the song is and I'm subsidising artists that produce music that lands in the playlists she plays ("alexa, play happy music") more than I'm contributing to artists that produce music for my tastes. This is a very different to pre-streaming.

hexa22 5y ago
It doesn’t matter because it would average out because you will have queen fans who listen at a high amount as well. Unless for some reason an artist has a fan base which majority listen to less music than the average person for some reason.
- vintermann 5y ago
  It absolutely does matter, and it absolutely does not even out. Background music is extremely profitable on streaming services. The more amenable to being played in the background your music is (whether at a party or around the clock at a hair salon or other business), the more you will make, at the expense of artists that are more suited for deliberate listening - even though those artists are probably why people subscribe to the streaming service in the first place.
  - PennRobotics 5y ago
    How exactly is it bad to reward musicians for having more airtime? It seems the market is working as intended. Although, you seem to make a good point. BMI differentiates radio royalties by number of performances[1]. Except---and I haven't researched this very well---they seem to pay more if a song is more popular. [1] https://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royalties https://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/us_radio_royalties
  - jbjohns 5y ago

pushkine 5y ago

It's an unexplained and unfair bias for a certain type of song that coincidentally favors the top 0.1% of artists. Imagine a teenager girl playing an international pop star 2m31s song on loop for the entire evening after school, then think about her father listening to ~4m20s songs of a local rock band on his way to work If both of them pay for an individual subscription and those were the only things they listened to that month, the Spotify pay cut would pay the pop star 100x more for the same service.