3 ms·

Spotify is such a rip-off for musicians; I love the way these guys highlighted that in a light-hearted way. But the economics of the alternatives are not going

by ivancdg 15y ago

Spotify is such a rip-off for musicians; I love the way these guys highlighted that in a light-hearted way. But the economics of the alternatives are not going to make anyone rich, either. For future reference: if you sign-up via CDBaby, there is a one-time fee of $35 (or $55 if they create your bar-code) and you are set-up with iTunes, Amazon, etc, without a yearly fee. Even though Derek's gone it's still a good deal. Also, you should seriously consider contacting Magnatune. If they like your music you can be on all of those platforms for free. And John Buckman is a very nice guy. Et en plus il parle le français comme toi et moi.

iand 15y ago
Even though they look like ripoffs with their tiny payments Spotify and other subscription models have a few advantages for the artist over download models. For a start the artist gets paid even if the listener is just trying the track, hates it and never listens again. The main advantage though is the open ended payment model. The OP should compare the 20 year revenue for each track. I listen to some tracks from 1996 every week and spent the period 1996-2001 listening to them multiple times a day. I'm not unusual (just getting old! :)
- earbitscom 15y ago
  There are definitely albums I have listened to so many times that the streaming payments would outperform the purchases, but I've also bought some albums more than once, too! Most people, and most albums, though, are not going to outperform those economics. Simply put, $5-10 a month for access to 15M tracks is a joke and a big loss for the industry. I look forward to the labels realizing it and walking away.
  - iand 15y ago
    Fair enough, I've bought albums several times (vinyl to cassette to CD to MP3). Don't think I've ever bought an album on the same format twice unless it was by accident. But haven't we all had it with those format switch games? I bought some MP3s, I don't expect ever to buy them again. BTW, most of those 15M tracks are deep in the long tail of obscurity that would never see the light of day without an all you can eat subscription model.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      I have re-bought CDs I lost, or albums that got scratched that I loved, or given my copy to people who I wanted to become fans, and then re-bought my own copy. As for those buried tracks, keep in mind that it's unlikely that Spotify will cut anybody a check for $0.029, or even 10 times that amount. So unless those albums get listened to a lot, they're not any better off in Spotify.
  - danielsoneg 15y ago
    Yeah, but nobody listens to 15M tracks. They listen to a small subset of those tracks, and that subset differs from person to person. Heck, for fun, let's say you were to listen to music 8 hours a day every day for a month (~30 days) - 8hrs * 30 days = 240hrs (240hrs * 60min/hr) / 3min/song = 4800 songs. Basically, you're paying $5-10 for a maximum of 4800 songs - or, between $.001 and $.002 per track, if you listen constantly. Or, from the other side: Spotify's premium is $10/mo, which comes with no ads. They pay $.003 out to each band - let's just pretend they follow Amazon's 'agency' policy of a 70/30 split, so Spotify's making roughly $.001 on each song, and it's costing them $.004 total for that song (hypothetical - just stick with me). If we assume they're not losing money, then an average $10/mo user must listen to at most 2500 songs per month, and if Spotify's costs are higher than $.001 per track, the number goes down. Point is, the industry's providing _ACCESS_ to 15M tracks, but they're only having to deliver ~2500/mo - but that's a different bundle of 2500 songs for each user. It MAY make sense from their end just to call it 'unlimited' and rely on the fact that the user can't consume music fast enough to really upset the economics for them. (Incidentally, if you were to decide to listen to each of those 15M songs once, you'd wind up paying: 15,000,000 Songs * 3min/song = 45,000,000 min 45,000,000 min = 750000 hrs = 31250 days ~= 1027 months 1027 months * 10/mo = $10,270 The record labels, then, value their entire collection of music at $10,270 - if you only listen once!)
    - seabee 15y ago
      That is per person, of course. Multiply by Spotify's million subscribers and you get $10bn of music. Not too shabby.
      - earbitscom 15y ago
        That math is very inaccurate. Most of their users don't pay, and none of them listens to every track once.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      I think the access to 15M tracks for free, $5, or $10, makes them seem pretty worthless. That's my issue.

by ivancdg 15y ago

iand 15y ago

Even though they look like ripoffs with their tiny payments Spotify and other subscription models have a few advantages for the artist over download models. For a start the artist gets paid even if the listener is just trying the track, hates it and never listens again. The main advantage though is the open ended payment model. The OP should compare the 20 year revenue for each track. I listen to some tracks from 1996 every week and spent the period 1996-2001 listening to them multiple times a day. I'm not unusual (just getting old! :)

earbitscom 15y ago
There are definitely albums I have listened to so many times that the streaming payments would outperform the purchases, but I've also bought some albums more than once, too! Most people, and most albums, though, are not going to outperform those economics. Simply put, $5-10 a month for access to 15M tracks is a joke and a big loss for the industry. I look forward to the labels realizing it and walking away.
- iand 15y ago
  Fair enough, I've bought albums several times (vinyl to cassette to CD to MP3). Don't think I've ever bought an album on the same format twice unless it was by accident. But haven't we all had it with those format switch games? I bought some MP3s, I don't expect ever to buy them again. BTW, most of those 15M tracks are deep in the long tail of obscurity that would never see the light of day without an all you can eat subscription model.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    I have re-bought CDs I lost, or albums that got scratched that I loved, or given my copy to people who I wanted to become fans, and then re-bought my own copy. As for those buried tracks, keep in mind that it's unlikely that Spotify will cut anybody a check for $0.029, or even 10 times that amount. So unless those albums get listened to a lot, they're not any better off in Spotify.
- danielsoneg 15y ago
  Yeah, but nobody listens to 15M tracks. They listen to a small subset of those tracks, and that subset differs from person to person. Heck, for fun, let's say you were to listen to music 8 hours a day every day for a month (~30 days) - 8hrs * 30 days = 240hrs (240hrs * 60min/hr) / 3min/song = 4800 songs. Basically, you're paying $5-10 for a maximum of 4800 songs - or, between $.001 and $.002 per track, if you listen constantly. Or, from the other side: Spotify's premium is $10/mo, which comes with no ads. They pay $.003 out to each band - let's just pretend they follow Amazon's 'agency' policy of a 70/30 split, so Spotify's making roughly $.001 on each song, and it's costing them $.004 total for that song (hypothetical - just stick with me). If we assume they're not losing money, then an average $10/mo user must listen to at most 2500 songs per month, and if Spotify's costs are higher than $.001 per track, the number goes down. Point is, the industry's providing _ACCESS_ to 15M tracks, but they're only having to deliver ~2500/mo - but that's a different bundle of 2500 songs for each user. It MAY make sense from their end just to call it 'unlimited' and rely on the fact that the user can't consume music fast enough to really upset the economics for them. (Incidentally, if you were to decide to listen to each of those 15M songs once, you'd wind up paying: 15,000,000 Songs * 3min/song = 45,000,000 min 45,000,000 min = 750000 hrs = 31250 days ~= 1027 months 1027 months * 10/mo = $10,270 The record labels, then, value their entire collection of music at $10,270 - if you only listen once!)
  - seabee 15y ago
    That is per person, of course. Multiply by Spotify's million subscribers and you get $10bn of music. Not too shabby.
    - earbitscom 15y ago
      That math is very inaccurate. Most of their users don't pay, and none of them listens to every track once.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    I think the access to 15M tracks for free, $5, or $10, makes them seem pretty worthless. That's my issue.