4 ms·

Forget the labels, Spotify is dead. The corpse just hasn't hit the ground yet: "I am paid $0.00029 per stream of a song on Spotify, and even this amount depen

Forget the labels, Spotify is dead. The corpse just hasn't hit the ground yet: "I am paid $0.00029 per stream of a song on Spotify, and even this amount depends on whether the song is being streamed by a paid user or someone using the service for free. This means it will take upwards of 3,500 streams of a single song on Spotify to earn $1.00 versus that same revenue for one iTunes song purchase...I’ll go even further to say that I actually prefer illegal downloading over Spotify because when you get music illegally it’s at least implicit in the transaction that what you’re doing is potentially harmful to the artist. But with Spotify, your conscience is clear because you’re either enduring ads or paying to use the service and access the music. But from the blue-collar artist’s perspective...there’s little discernible difference between $0.00029 and $0.00...which is why I will withhold any new releases from Spotify in the future." http://derekwebb.tumblr.com/post/13503899950/giving-it-away-how-free-music-makes-more-than-sense http://derekwebb.tumblr.com/post/13503899950/giving-it-away-... Read the whole blog, it jam packed with more than enough insight to make it worth multiple readings. Even absent the labels, Spotify is a lousy deal for individual music makers. The search for a viable, sustainable online business model for music is still underway, but unlimited streaming for a low monthly fee is not it.

ecaradec 15y ago
Corrolary : if piracy leads to anything above 1 sell for 3500 illegally downloaded songs, it is actually more beneficial to majors that Spotify is.
- krambs 15y ago
  Maybe a good point - but 3500 listens isn't the same as 3500 downloads.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    True, but it's easy to download a lot of music you don't listen to so it may be closer to 1:1 than you might expect.
weazl 15y ago
How much do you make per listener if one of your songs is played on the radio? Honestly, I'm asking because I want to know. In any case, you can not compare Spotify's subscription model to direct sales, it is just not the same thing.
Rusky 15y ago
How much is that affected by the record labels, I wonder?
mseebach 15y ago
> Forget the labels, Spotify is dead. Let me guess, Netcraft confirms it? I'll believe it when I see it. Spotify (and similar services) is transforming the way we can listen to music, and, at least for me, I vastly prefer the Spotify experience over anything else I've tried. Also, with Spotify, I'm spending more money on music than I ever did before, and I'm not even considering bothering with piracy. I'm living the promise that if only accessing music legally is easy enough, the pirate will stop being pirates. So small artists are getting screwed over. Is that in Spotifys interests to sustain that? I would not think so, because the value proposition falls apart if the available collection isn't comprehensive. But right now, they're preoccupied in a land grab, for which they need to focus on the big labels, as the land grab will be possible without small indies, but not without Rihannas full back catalogue. If you're an artist and you don't think Spotify is a good deal, feel free to withdraw your music - that will push them to think about how to adjust their business model to better accommodate indies. Spotify is nowhere near having finalised their business model. Declaring the whole thing dead on the back of a few blog posts is just a little bit premature.
- worldvoyageur 15y ago
  OK, to be less glib and more constructive. A sustainable music distribution model needs to work for: - the distributor (iTunes or Spotify, for example) or it is not sustainable - the users, or they won't use it - the makers of music, or they won't put their music on it - the owners of music, or they won't put their music on it If it works for all four, then things are aligned for a sustainable business model. If any one is missing, then the thing can't stay together. iTunes, check, check, check, check. Four fingers fold in, thumbs up. Spotify. Works for users, at its existing price point. Doesn't work for makers of music, unless the price point changes, at which point it won't work for the users - unless we are all missing that Spotify can charge significantly more and users would still be happy. Can work for large music owners, but as the original article points out the large owners can achieve this for themselves in a way that no longer works for Spotify. Spotify is a valiant attempt at a new business model. If anyone can make it work, they are the ones and I salute them for trying. I just don't see how they can succeed.
  - 15y ago
onemoreact 15y ago
It also takes more than 1 purchase for an artist to make 1$ on iTunes as well. Still, for a lot of people Spotify is a substitute for the Radio and Piracy not just music purchases at which point Spotify is probably a significant net gain for artists.
tomjen3 15y ago
Indeed. But it is properly not the labels that killed it. I have no problem with paying reasonable prices for stuff (I have brought way too many books on kindle, plenty of music on iTunes, etc) but I see no reason to use spotify/last.fm/pandora over grooveshark. It lets me stream what I am interested in (whether a specific song or a particular genre of music) when I want it. That is really all I want in a music service. The irony is that it makes me a pirate (maybe, I am not quite sure if it is still called that when I don't upload) but I am a paying member of grooveshark (and has been for years). If the music guys makes a legal clone of grooveshark, I would properly be a member there instead.
thomaslangston 15y ago
BandCamp.com charges $0 to listen to streaming songs, but charges to download. It seems to have a pretty sustainable business model.

ecaradec 15y ago

Corrolary : if piracy leads to anything above 1 sell for 3500 illegally downloaded songs, it is actually more beneficial to majors that Spotify is.

krambs 15y ago
Maybe a good point - but 3500 listens isn't the same as 3500 downloads.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  True, but it's easy to download a lot of music you don't listen to so it may be closer to 1:1 than you might expect.

weazl 15y ago

How much do you make per listener if one of your songs is played on the radio? Honestly, I'm asking because I want to know. In any case, you can not compare Spotify's subscription model to direct sales, it is just not the same thing.

Rusky 15y ago

How much is that affected by the record labels, I wonder?

mseebach 15y ago

> Forget the labels, Spotify is dead. Let me guess, Netcraft confirms it? I'll believe it when I see it. Spotify (and similar services) is transforming the way we can listen to music, and, at least for me, I vastly prefer the Spotify experience over anything else I've tried. Also, with Spotify, I'm spending more money on music than I ever did before, and I'm not even considering bothering with piracy. I'm living the promise that if only accessing music legally is easy enough, the pirate will stop being pirates. So small artists are getting screwed over. Is that in Spotifys interests to sustain that? I would not think so, because the value proposition falls apart if the available collection isn't comprehensive. But right now, they're preoccupied in a land grab, for which they need to focus on the big labels, as the land grab will be possible without small indies, but not without Rihannas full back catalogue. If you're an artist and you don't think Spotify is a good deal, feel free to withdraw your music - that will push them to think about how to adjust their business model to better accommodate indies. Spotify is nowhere near having finalised their business model. Declaring the whole thing dead on the back of a few blog posts is just a little bit premature.

worldvoyageur 15y ago
OK, to be less glib and more constructive. A sustainable music distribution model needs to work for: - the distributor (iTunes or Spotify, for example) or it is not sustainable - the users, or they won't use it - the makers of music, or they won't put their music on it - the owners of music, or they won't put their music on it If it works for all four, then things are aligned for a sustainable business model. If any one is missing, then the thing can't stay together. iTunes, check, check, check, check. Four fingers fold in, thumbs up. Spotify. Works for users, at its existing price point. Doesn't work for makers of music, unless the price point changes, at which point it won't work for the users - unless we are all missing that Spotify can charge significantly more and users would still be happy. Can work for large music owners, but as the original article points out the large owners can achieve this for themselves in a way that no longer works for Spotify. Spotify is a valiant attempt at a new business model. If anyone can make it work, they are the ones and I salute them for trying. I just don't see how they can succeed.
- 15y ago

onemoreact 15y ago

It also takes more than 1 purchase for an artist to make 1$ on iTunes as well. Still, for a lot of people Spotify is a substitute for the Radio and Piracy not just music purchases at which point Spotify is probably a significant net gain for artists.

tomjen3 15y ago

Indeed. But it is properly not the labels that killed it. I have no problem with paying reasonable prices for stuff (I have brought way too many books on kindle, plenty of music on iTunes, etc) but I see no reason to use spotify/last.fm/pandora over grooveshark. It lets me stream what I am interested in (whether a specific song or a particular genre of music) when I want it. That is really all I want in a music service. The irony is that it makes me a pirate (maybe, I am not quite sure if it is still called that when I don't upload) but I am a paying member of grooveshark (and has been for years). If the music guys makes a legal clone of grooveshark, I would properly be a member there instead.

thomaslangston 15y ago

BandCamp.com charges $0 to listen to streaming songs, but charges to download. It seems to have a pretty sustainable business model.