3 ms·

This seems like a problem associated with how money is apportioned out by the streaming services. As I understand it, they basically throw all the user money in

This seems like a problem associated with how money is apportioned out by the streaming services. As I understand it, they basically throw all the user money into a big pot, and throw all the streams into a big pot, and then apportion it out that way. However, the problem with that is, if I don't listen to Taylor Swift at all, why is a portion of my subscription fee going to her? If, say, $10 per month of the money I give to Spotify goes to artists, it should just go to who I listen to. If I listen exclusively to Obscure Band X, then all of my money should go to them. If half my streams are Taylor Swift and half OBX, then they should both get $5.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw_m239339 5y ago
> However, the problem with that is, if I don't listen to Taylor Swift at all, why is a portion of my subscription fee going to her? Because Spotify needs to pay extra to have the right to stream Taylor Swift, or Dua Lipa, not OBX. > If I listen exclusively to Obscure Band X, then all of my money should go to them Well, that's the thing, some of your money will always go to Taylor Swift or whatever label she is on, regardless of whether you're listening Taylor Swift or not. As an musician myself I'm NOT on Spotify and actively prevent my music to be on that platform. "Exposure" is meaningless. I make 1000 times more money slapping ads on my music on Youtube than these streaming services.
zuminator 5y ago
Money is fungible. If you do $5 worth of streaming OBX's music, they'll get $5. Whether that gets transferred directly from your personal Spotify account into theirs, or initially put into a "big pot" and then the same amount is given to them, what does it matter? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your issue?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Here's the problem. I've got a family spotify subscription. For $15 a month we get 4 accounts. Each of us listen to around 100,000 minutes of music a year. Lets call that 100,000 songs for $180. If every song has the same payout then my family is being subsidized by the people who spend $10 a month to listen to 30,000 minutes of music a year. We're effectively taking other people's subscription money to pay the artists we listen to.
- snthd 5y ago
  https://www.deezer.com/us/ucps https://www.deezer.com/us/ucps explains it.
- lmm 5y ago
  The argument as I understand it is: Basic Alice streams the top 40 for 9 hours and pays $5, and Hipster Bob streams a band you haven't heard of for 1 hour and pays $5. Band you haven't heard of was responsible for $5 of revenue, but they only get $1 because they were only responsible for 1/10th of the streaming time.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throw_m239339 5y ago

> However, the problem with that is, if I don't listen to Taylor Swift at all, why is a portion of my subscription fee going to her? Because Spotify needs to pay extra to have the right to stream Taylor Swift, or Dua Lipa, not OBX. > If I listen exclusively to Obscure Band X, then all of my money should go to them Well, that's the thing, some of your money will always go to Taylor Swift or whatever label she is on, regardless of whether you're listening Taylor Swift or not. As an musician myself I'm NOT on Spotify and actively prevent my music to be on that platform. "Exposure" is meaningless. I make 1000 times more money slapping ads on my music on Youtube than these streaming services.

zuminator 5y ago

Money is fungible. If you do $5 worth of streaming OBX's music, they'll get $5. Whether that gets transferred directly from your personal Spotify account into theirs, or initially put into a "big pot" and then the same amount is given to them, what does it matter? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your issue?

colinmhayes 5y ago
Here's the problem. I've got a family spotify subscription. For $15 a month we get 4 accounts. Each of us listen to around 100,000 minutes of music a year. Lets call that 100,000 songs for $180. If every song has the same payout then my family is being subsidized by the people who spend $10 a month to listen to 30,000 minutes of music a year. We're effectively taking other people's subscription money to pay the artists we listen to.
snthd 5y ago
https://www.deezer.com/us/ucps https://www.deezer.com/us/ucps explains it.
lmm 5y ago
The argument as I understand it is: Basic Alice streams the top 40 for 9 hours and pays $5, and Hipster Bob streams a band you haven't heard of for 1 hour and pays $5. Band you haven't heard of was responsible for $5 of revenue, but they only get $1 because they were only responsible for 1/10th of the streaming time.