4 ms·

I can’t see why a Spotify like model wouldn’t work for text. Buy a monthly subscription, read as much as you want, and have the monthly fee distributed pro rat

I can’t see why a Spotify like model wouldn’t work for text. Buy a monthly subscription, read as much as you want, and have the monthly fee distributed pro rata.

candiddevmike 3y ago
The Spotify model doesn't really work for music though, unless you're a mega star who probably doesn't need the money. While something is better than nothing, but I don't think Spotify pays the bills for most artists, especially when the pot is not evenly distributed.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Who are we talking about here? More total money is spent on music now due to spotify. And the money has never been that widely distributed. What small artists did better before Spotify?
  - llbeansandrice 3y ago
    It’s not viable for journalism bc music artists have other avenues of revenue like touring and merch. The point is that even Taylor Swift doesn’t make very much money from Spotify. What other sources of revenue does journalism have? It’s not like the NYT is going to make a few million going on tour.
    - osigurdson 3y ago
      Spotify has a lot of revenues with millions of users at $10 - $20 per month. Perhaps they give very little to artists but I’m not sure it is necessary to operate. If artists had no other ways to make money, I suspect they would pay more as otherwise the system wouldn’t work.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    I agree. I spend far more that I used to because of the option to listen to anything I want.
- valleyer 3y ago
  Isn't that mostly because of the power imbalance between the record label and the musician? That is, the analogy you're really looking for is whether Spotify works for the record label.
- lifeonlars 3y ago
  It's not the Spotify model that is responsible for this, but the scammy way which record companies have approached the Spotify model. They offer artists a similar 'royalty' on Spotify revenue as they did on record sales. In other words, where they used to give artists 10-20% of a CD sticker price, with much of the rest going to retailer markup, manufacturing costs, etc. they now keep 80-90% of the Spotify money, when they have zero per-unit costs and are simply passing the money through to the artist. Artists who are working with Spotify outside of this system are able to make money from streaming, just as YouTubers who own their own content are able to make money while musicians typically see tiny amounts from YT. However, the record company are essentially a bank who fund firstly recording and development costs, and second (both important and very expensive) marketing costs. So to be able to license directly with Spotify you have to already have a bunch of funds.
noizejoy 3y ago
The Spotify, Apple Music, etc model simply does not work for music content creators.[0] [0] https://youtu.be/gDfNRWsMRsU https://youtu.be/gDfNRWsMRsU
- Solvency 3y ago
  So why does so much amazing music continue to get made, daily, as opposed to amazing journalistic content? Writing and producing music is no less challenging and time-consuming.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    While not universal (e.g. newsletters on certain specialized topics), journalism has historically been associated with news organizations whereas music/art/etc. has been more associated with individuals or small groups. (Though certainly producers have played roles.)
  - noizejoy 3y ago
    I’m not sure if it’s true that there’s less amazing written content than music content - I wouldn’t even know how to measure that.
- vuln 3y ago
  We’re not taking about paying the journalists directly. We’re taking about paying the company that employs said journalists. The Spotify, Apple, etc model pays the Record Label directly and the Musician is paid by the Record Label according to the agreed upon contract.

I can’t see why a Spotify like model wouldn’t work for text. Buy a monthly subscription, read as much as you want, and have the monthly fee distributed pro rata.

candiddevmike 3y ago

The Spotify model doesn't really work for music though, unless you're a mega star who probably doesn't need the money. While something is better than nothing, but I don't think Spotify pays the bills for most artists, especially when the pot is not evenly distributed.

nonethewiser 3y ago
Who are we talking about here? More total money is spent on music now due to spotify. And the money has never been that widely distributed. What small artists did better before Spotify?
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  It’s not viable for journalism bc music artists have other avenues of revenue like touring and merch. The point is that even Taylor Swift doesn’t make very much money from Spotify. What other sources of revenue does journalism have? It’s not like the NYT is going to make a few million going on tour.
  - osigurdson 3y ago
    Spotify has a lot of revenues with millions of users at $10 - $20 per month. Perhaps they give very little to artists but I’m not sure it is necessary to operate. If artists had no other ways to make money, I suspect they would pay more as otherwise the system wouldn’t work.
- osigurdson 3y ago
  I agree. I spend far more that I used to because of the option to listen to anything I want.
valleyer 3y ago
Isn't that mostly because of the power imbalance between the record label and the musician? That is, the analogy you're really looking for is whether Spotify works for the record label.
lifeonlars 3y ago
It's not the Spotify model that is responsible for this, but the scammy way which record companies have approached the Spotify model. They offer artists a similar 'royalty' on Spotify revenue as they did on record sales. In other words, where they used to give artists 10-20% of a CD sticker price, with much of the rest going to retailer markup, manufacturing costs, etc. they now keep 80-90% of the Spotify money, when they have zero per-unit costs and are simply passing the money through to the artist. Artists who are working with Spotify outside of this system are able to make money from streaming, just as YouTubers who own their own content are able to make money while musicians typically see tiny amounts from YT. However, the record company are essentially a bank who fund firstly recording and development costs, and second (both important and very expensive) marketing costs. So to be able to license directly with Spotify you have to already have a bunch of funds.

noizejoy 3y ago

The Spotify, Apple Music, etc model simply does not work for music content creators.[0] [0] https://youtu.be/gDfNRWsMRsU https://youtu.be/gDfNRWsMRsU

Solvency 3y ago
So why does so much amazing music continue to get made, daily, as opposed to amazing journalistic content? Writing and producing music is no less challenging and time-consuming.
- ghaff 3y ago
  While not universal (e.g. newsletters on certain specialized topics), journalism has historically been associated with news organizations whereas music/art/etc. has been more associated with individuals or small groups. (Though certainly producers have played roles.)
- noizejoy 3y ago
  I’m not sure if it’s true that there’s less amazing written content than music content - I wouldn’t even know how to measure that.
vuln 3y ago
We’re not taking about paying the journalists directly. We’re taking about paying the company that employs said journalists. The Spotify, Apple, etc model pays the Record Label directly and the Musician is paid by the Record Label according to the agreed upon contract.