3 ms·
The source of those stats is not clear enough in my opinion. Is the "per-stream" measure a result to try and have a comparable basis between the various actors
by rapht 5y ago
The source of those stats is not clear enough in my opinion.
Is the "per-stream" measure a result to try and have a comparable basis between the various actors, or is it really the only underlying factor in the calculation (beside the country which is mentionned as another factor)?
My guess would be that services would pay per minute-stream, not per stream. Otherwise, artists that tend to have longer form would not be willing to participate (I'm a big fan of Keith Jarrett, for instance, whose solo concerts mostly consist of tracks of around 40 minutes). You could also imagine hybrid models with bounds that de-linearize certain factors.
Looking at a very aggregate average is a recipe for erroneous conclusions...
- vintermann 5y agoPayment is indeed per stream, not per minute (last time I checked). Tracks below 30 seconds make no money for the artist, so the optimal length for a track is a little more than that. Yes, Keith Jarrett (and many others) get screwed by this system.
- srg0 5y agoPayout proportional to the track count favors short tracks. The payout proportional to the air time favors longer tracks. As long as payouts are calculated on an account per account basis, any approach is fair. A TOOL fan will probably listen 5 times fewer tracks than a Ramones fan, but it is OK because every their stream is worth 5 times as much. Though if they pool track counts (or minutes played) across multiple accounts, then different listening patterns of different accounts will always skew payouts one way or the other. And it is always unfair.