3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoIt makes sense, it's about what's not written: paying users pay for everyone's listening habits, also the non-paying ones.
- vintermann 5y agoNot 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 agoNot true anymore? So what pays for the free listeners' plays?
- candiodari 5y agoWell, 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.