3 ms·

Just curious, if 10% of people holding 70% of wealth is unreasonable, how do you reconcile 1% of Spotify artists getting 90% of all "streams"? Basically, you'r

Just curious, if 10% of people holding 70% of wealth is unreasonable, how do you reconcile 1% of Spotify artists getting 90% of all "streams"? Basically, you're saying that the current distribution is crazy/unsustainable (and maybe it is) but the distribution is actually not totally out of whack with the 80/20 rule (or Pareto principle). Just wondering where your confidence comes from that a functioning society doesn't actually depend somewhat on that distribution? i.e. that the general populace's sense of "fair" isn't actually correctly calibrated at this distribution?

wwarner 4y ago
Actually, it's not simply the proportion, but the fact that over time the proportion of wealth held by the richest has been growing really fast. So, to use your analogy, I agree that a small number artists commanding the lion's share of attention can be fair, but if over time, an ever smaller number commanded an ever greater share, very soon every one would be listening to one artist and one song, and fair or not I don't think that would be good for Spotify, audiences, artists or anyone else.
- its_ethan 4y ago
  I think there's a valid point here, but I also think (at least anecdotally) that we are trending in the direction of more people listening to fewer songs. (Would love to see some Spotify data on that front lol) I would argue that it's not going to collapse to 1 artist or 1 song for a similar reason that all wealth will never be in the hands of 1 person. If the rate of change (or just raw distribution) in wealth is unhealthy, that will present itself in the form of a less healthy economy. That will likely cause a bit of a churn and redistribution to sort of self correct. There's also the fact that wealth typically doesn't survive through generations all that well. If this didn't happen, the Rockafeller's/ Vanderbilt's/ Carnagie's from the past would still have the top wealth holdings - sure they are still incredibly well off and have a huge advantage from family name, but per a Forbes list none of them are in the top 2500 wealthiest.
- dh2022 4y ago
  90% of the customers voted with their "ears" to listen to 1% of music producers. Nothing wrong with that.

wwarner 4y ago

Actually, it's not simply the proportion, but the fact that over time the proportion of wealth held by the richest has been growing really fast. So, to use your analogy, I agree that a small number artists commanding the lion's share of attention can be fair, but if over time, an ever smaller number commanded an ever greater share, very soon every one would be listening to one artist and one song, and fair or not I don't think that would be good for Spotify, audiences, artists or anyone else.

its_ethan 4y ago
I think there's a valid point here, but I also think (at least anecdotally) that we are trending in the direction of more people listening to fewer songs. (Would love to see some Spotify data on that front lol) I would argue that it's not going to collapse to 1 artist or 1 song for a similar reason that all wealth will never be in the hands of 1 person. If the rate of change (or just raw distribution) in wealth is unhealthy, that will present itself in the form of a less healthy economy. That will likely cause a bit of a churn and redistribution to sort of self correct. There's also the fact that wealth typically doesn't survive through generations all that well. If this didn't happen, the Rockafeller's/ Vanderbilt's/ Carnagie's from the past would still have the top wealth holdings - sure they are still incredibly well off and have a huge advantage from family name, but per a Forbes list none of them are in the top 2500 wealthiest.
dh2022 4y ago
90% of the customers voted with their "ears" to listen to 1% of music producers. Nothing wrong with that.