5 ms·

Spotify take 70% of their revenue and distribute it split by stream count. I honestly fail to see what's "unfair" about that

addandsubtract 3y ago
I mean, a more fair way would be to split each subscriber's bill by the artists _they_ listened to. That would favor small / local artists more.
- braza 3y ago
  But in terms of unit economics, the bigger artists/labels (or the artists that bring more users) are responsible for funding the entire platform, no? In other words: A small artist can _bring_ users to the platform, fair enough, but the platform that gives access to other artists and enables that needs to take the bigger share.
  - Retric 3y ago
    No, users are funding the platform not artists. If someone doesn’t listen to major artists then revenue from them shouldn’t go to said creators. Spotify however wants to maximize its cut and so has incentives to shift money from less popular artists if it can entice major labels to its platform. This has absolutely nothing to do with what’s fair, it’s simply about profit maximization and reducing the risks of competing platforms.
    - braza 3y ago
      > If someone doesn’t listen to major artists then revenue from them shouldn’t go to said creators. Well I do not have the numbers here, but I would argue that this is definitely not the case in reality. > Spotify however wants to maximize its cut and so has incentives to shift money from less popular artists if it can entice major labels to its platform It’s the other way around, because the platform has competing interests: Spotify wants to have the labels to sell an “optionality” to the users (I.e. get the money from subs) but in terms of reproduction/execution Spotify wants to reproduce the maximum of podcasts and/or long tail artists because in those 2 cases Spotify does not spend a single penny. The labels has a very high bargaining power over Spotify due to its catalog, so as expected this is the biggest expenditure. That’s one of the reasons why Spotify is desperately pushing podcasts like crazy.
      - Retric 3y ago
        > this is definitely not the case in reality. Agreed. Major labels have leverage which they use to get a larger slice of that 70% than they would otherwise make in a ‘fair’ split.
  - mptest 3y ago
    >are responsible for funding the entire platform, no? No, they all are. I wouldn't be a subscriber and I doubt many others would be if they only had the "top" artists that "are responsible for funding the entire platform". Go through your playlist for a minute and find how many artists aren't "the big ones" and ask yourself if you'd use the platform if the small artists weren't included. The whole point of spotify is ALL music, so ALL music is important, surely?
    - braza 3y ago
      Articulating a bit more in depth: Spotify it’s a multi sided marketplace where on the artist side will have a very big power law where the big labels (that has a catalog power) brings most of the users. What sustain the economics on the Spotify is its catalog that is a composition of the labels catalog + long tail artists and their podcasts also. When users goes to the Spotify, they are paying not to support their favourite artist but to be able to access the platform, that occasionally will have their long tail artists. > The whole point of spotify is ALL music, so ALL music is important, surely? Not necessarily. Catalog + Network effects + Marketplace is important. What you’re describing in your argument is that “since you’re in the platform due to the artist, it’s fair that this artist receives the 70% of your money”. The flaw here is that this artist is benefiting of a marketplace and all its infrastructure and distribution without paying and the whole point of the platform is to give access to its catalog. Think on the Spotify price as some kind of “optionality fee”.
- tup4n 3y ago
  This is what happens already, isn't it?
  - Linosaurus 3y ago
    No. If you listen to only a single artist for a month, your payment is still split the same way everyone else’s payment is, by total streamed numbers. It sounds better if they artist got your entire monthly payment (after payment processors and Spotify’s fee), but probably a nightmare for accountants.
- febeling 3y ago
  I don't see how that would be different.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
  A better way would be for streams to interoperate with a copyright clearance mechanism where, when an artist opts out of the regular stream users still can validate they own a copy and get access through the stream. I have a library of saved songs I never hear on Pandora, and often my favorite artists and songs get dropped leaving a rather bland experience over the long haul.
- pmontra 3y ago
  Do artists have a contract with Spotify or with their labels? If it's with the labels, Spotify pays the labels and they give to the artists what they agreed upon, possibly an unfairly low amount of money but contracts are contracts. The Uruguay parliament should regulate the contracts between their local artists and the labels. Some of them will ban Uruguay artists but some of them, maybe local ones, will intercept the money no matter what. Or Spotify makes deals with individual artists, but there is a long and thin tail of them.
  - 542458 3y ago
    Small indie artists will have contracts with Spotify. Larger artists with labels will have contracts with their labels, who will have contracts with Spotify. As you suspected, the labels typically take a ridiculous cut of streaming revenue.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > Small indie artists will have contracts with Spotify. They won't. They will have contracts with distributors: https://artists.spotify.com/providers https://artists.spotify.com/providers
- 542458 3y ago
  Sorry, I’m failing to see the difference between this and what actually happens. They currently take 70% of their revenue and split it across artists by stream, and what I’m reading is that you’re proposing is that we take each subscriber’s revenue (presumably less some profit factor - say, 30%) and split it by the artists they stream. What am I missing? Fwiw, the actual Spotify math is a bit more complicated than just splitting by streams - I.e., https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23971616/spotify-royalties-labels-streaming-fraud-pushkin-malcolm-gladwell https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23971616/spotify-royalti...
  - lucasmerlin 3y ago
    It can be a huge difference. Say this month I only listen to a completely unknown artist. I am the only person listening (to make the calculation easy). I've listened to 10 of his songs and this is everything I've heard this month. Now if my 7$ are distributed to all artists I've listened to this artist will now receive 7$. If my 7$ is thrown in a global pool and split by global stream counts this artist gets almost nothing. Of course this is a extreme example but it should illustrate why this can matter.
    - Denvercoder9 3y ago
      > If my 7$ is thrown in a global pool and split by global stream counts this artist gets almost nothing. Not by definition. If you generate more streams this month than the average user, your streams are a larger fraction of the stream counts than your 7$ is of the revenue pool, and this artist will get paid more than if he only got your 7$. Splitting the revenue per-user instead of per-stream can certainly make a huge difference, but switching to per-user instead of per-stream benefits artists with listeners that generate a below-average amount of streams per month, regardless of their absolute stream numbers.
  - robbie-c 3y ago
    It's different because if you imagine Spotify only had 2 users, Alice and Bob, and Alice listens to Indie Band X 10 times a month, and Bob listens to Megastar Y 10,000 times in a month, Y would receive almost all of the artist revenue in the current model, but in the model that GP is proposing, both artists would make the same. Essentially A's money is going towards Y, even though she never listed to Y. (I'm not expressing an opinion on which of these I prefer)
- cochne 3y ago
  I don’t think that would necessarily favor small artists. That would just favor artists who are listened to by people who don’t use Spotify a lot. Right now someone who only streams a few songs gets a very small “vote” (assuming pay is per stream). That would make it so that everyone had the same “voting” power. But I doubt there’s much correlation between people who use Spotify less and small artists. In fact that’s probably a negative correlation if anything, and this could end up hurting local artists.
  - xiphias2 3y ago
    I'm not sure about spotify, but I have seen this problem with Netflix: I'm an adult paying full for my Netflix subscription and for that price I would love to have a few great and expensive movies every month for my age group. But what I usually see is lots of movies made for teens who are binge watching Netflix even though they are paying the same. Netflix has some public presentations on their algorithm and from the presentations it looks like they are optimizing for watches without weighting by subscription revenue per watch.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- batmanthehorse 3y ago
  There were multiple responses questioning how this was different, so I'll respond here: - 2 users, A and B, each pay $10/month - User A listens to 20 Taylor Swift songs - User B listens to 5 Radiohead songs - Spotify gets a 30% cut Currently: - Spotify gets $6 - Taylor Swift gets $11.20 - Radiohead gets $2.80 If each subscriber's bill was split separately: - Spotify gets $6 - Taylor Swift gets $7 - Radiohead gets $7 So this change would benefit artists that less active Spotify users listen to. Right now the less active users are paying to support the listening of the most active users. Personally this would make me feel like my money is more directly supporting the artists I care about.
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    > - Spotify gets a 30% cut This is where you're wrong..
    - batmanthehorse 3y ago
      1. The article literally says ‘ “Spotify already pays nearly 70% of every dollar it generates from music to the record labels and publishers that own the rights for music, and represent and pay artists and songwriters," it continues.’ 2. It’s a simplified example for explanatory purposes
      - jbverschoor 3y ago
        Sure, that's the general narrative of spotify.. But it's false. It's more like half of that 70%. There's a reason Spotify is ending their service in Uruguay, and it's not because they're enough.
  - matwood 3y ago
    Why is everyone ignoring the user side? It's not that there are equal users and a Taylor Swift person just listens more, there are millions of more users listening to Taylor Swift. Radiohead could actually do better with the much larger user base Swift brings. Without more data, it's hard to know.
  - 3y ago
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Not sure how this favors small/local artists. Most people I know who listen to small/local artists listen to much more music than those who listen to big pop artists. That means the current system actually favors the local artists since their listeners have an outsize “vote” when all streams are bundled together. Is there any reason to believe big artist listeners on average stream more songs per month?
dagw 3y ago
My subscription money ends up going to subsidise super popular artists I never listen to, rather that the artists I actually do listen to.
GiveOver 3y ago
I suppose the argument wouldn't be about how their revenue is distributed, rather that they should be charging more for their subscription (which is, in my opinion, insanely cheap). They're able to keep it that cheap because they're underpaying artists.
danpalmer 3y ago
They put all the streams in one pool and then split from there. Popular artists get almost all of it. When you spend $10 or whatever on streaming, you'd expect $7 to be split between the artists you listen to, but it's not. Instead almost all of it goes to the big artists anyway because in the big streams pool the small artists you listen to have a tiny proportion of listens, even if you exclusively listened to them. This gets worse when you consider all those shops/cafes/etc with Spotify's top charts playing on repeat. They may be a small percentage of users, but they're an outsized proportion of streams, and almost exclusively big artists. This is the way it is because big artists have big name labels, and those labels are the only ones who can negotiate, so the deal ends up favoring the big artists/labels. This is definitely not how most consumers would expect it to all work, and therefore "unfair" seems like a reasonable term to use.
- cwillu 3y ago
  This is something twitch-style subscriptions get largely right.
- hackideiomat 3y ago
  Tidal (spotify competitor) takes 2 euro and gives 'em to the artist you've listened to the most. But the rest of the money is probably all going to the big ones as you explained. Just saying this because it is so weird. Like, hell yeah I sure hope my money goes to the people that I listen to why is this a thing??
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    > and gives 'em to the artist you've listened to the most This seems like a way to sound popular without actually solving the problem. IT sounds like it would help "yay my favourite artist gets lots of money!" but when you model it out I'd expect quite similar outcomes – most of your money is still distributed in the way Spotify do, and often your top artist might still be one of the popular ones, and small artists aren't going to be the top of many people's listening.
- oneplane 3y ago
  > you'd expect I don't. I expect that when I pay for a streaming service, as soon as the money is in their account all bets are off and no insight is given. So such a generalisation of what people expect doesn't hold up for consumer products I'd say. I wouldn't be surprised if most customers don't even think about it at all.
jbverschoor 3y ago
That's false information.. Spotify does NOT distribute 70% of their revenue. As per their latest financial statement ( https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3/787b611a-8789-4a1a-86de-055ba2ade19a.pdf https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3... ): Revenue: 3357 Cost of revenue: 2472 > Cost of revenue consists predominantly of royalty and distribution costs related to content streaming. > Cost of revenue also includes the cost of podcast content assets (both produced and licensed) > Cost of revenue also includes credit card and payment processing fees for subscription revenue, customer service, certain employee compensation and benefits, cloud computing, streaming, facility, and equipment costs. So all operational costs is included in that "70%", including: infrastructure, payment fees, etc. etc. A breakdown: 217 committed Google Cloud Platform per quarter (based on 4344 in 5 years) 105 for amortization of content assets (podcasts they bought) 30 for some content write-off 102 "minimum royalty" for licensed content (not the regular artists), (based on (2124-83) in 5 years) 100 my estimate for app store fees, assuming 15% fees for 20% of the users 67 my estimate for ca. 2% creditcard fees ? streaming ? facility ? support software + employees ? equipment, software, etc ? refunds etc ? free spotify for employees So a total of AT LEAST 723 is not related to paying out royalties. (2472-723)/3357 They're paying less than 52%. My estimate would be between 35% and 40%
- satyrnein 3y ago
  Those revenue and cost of revenue figures blend together different things. Their contracts with music distributors (recordings) + statutory rates for music publishers (compositions) = ~70% of the revenue pool from advertisers and subscribers. However, podcasts work differently, both on the revenue and cost side, and appears to be mixed in. Additionally, Spotify sells optional marketing programs (ads within Spotify, for example) which I assume are included in revenue. So it's hard to draw the right conclusion just from the summary numbers.
wodenokoto 3y ago
Yep, the unfairness of streaming starts when the money has left Spotify.
Mistletoe 3y ago
They need to at least split it by stream time. It’s non-sensical to have a 2 minute pop song be paid the same as a 14 minute classical song. This has weird off effects like pop stars making shorter and shorter songs so they get played more often, which causes less ability to concentrate for extended periods of time in the young people that listen to it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

addandsubtract 3y ago

I mean, a more fair way would be to split each subscriber's bill by the artists _they_ listened to. That would favor small / local artists more.

braza 3y ago
But in terms of unit economics, the bigger artists/labels (or the artists that bring more users) are responsible for funding the entire platform, no? In other words: A small artist can _bring_ users to the platform, fair enough, but the platform that gives access to other artists and enables that needs to take the bigger share.
- Retric 3y ago
  No, users are funding the platform not artists. If someone doesn’t listen to major artists then revenue from them shouldn’t go to said creators. Spotify however wants to maximize its cut and so has incentives to shift money from less popular artists if it can entice major labels to its platform. This has absolutely nothing to do with what’s fair, it’s simply about profit maximization and reducing the risks of competing platforms.
  - braza 3y ago
    > If someone doesn’t listen to major artists then revenue from them shouldn’t go to said creators. Well I do not have the numbers here, but I would argue that this is definitely not the case in reality. > Spotify however wants to maximize its cut and so has incentives to shift money from less popular artists if it can entice major labels to its platform It’s the other way around, because the platform has competing interests: Spotify wants to have the labels to sell an “optionality” to the users (I.e. get the money from subs) but in terms of reproduction/execution Spotify wants to reproduce the maximum of podcasts and/or long tail artists because in those 2 cases Spotify does not spend a single penny. The labels has a very high bargaining power over Spotify due to its catalog, so as expected this is the biggest expenditure. That’s one of the reasons why Spotify is desperately pushing podcasts like crazy.
    - Retric 3y ago
      > this is definitely not the case in reality. Agreed. Major labels have leverage which they use to get a larger slice of that 70% than they would otherwise make in a ‘fair’ split.
- mptest 3y ago
  >are responsible for funding the entire platform, no? No, they all are. I wouldn't be a subscriber and I doubt many others would be if they only had the "top" artists that "are responsible for funding the entire platform". Go through your playlist for a minute and find how many artists aren't "the big ones" and ask yourself if you'd use the platform if the small artists weren't included. The whole point of spotify is ALL music, so ALL music is important, surely?
  - braza 3y ago
    Articulating a bit more in depth: Spotify it’s a multi sided marketplace where on the artist side will have a very big power law where the big labels (that has a catalog power) brings most of the users. What sustain the economics on the Spotify is its catalog that is a composition of the labels catalog + long tail artists and their podcasts also. When users goes to the Spotify, they are paying not to support their favourite artist but to be able to access the platform, that occasionally will have their long tail artists. > The whole point of spotify is ALL music, so ALL music is important, surely? Not necessarily. Catalog + Network effects + Marketplace is important. What you’re describing in your argument is that “since you’re in the platform due to the artist, it’s fair that this artist receives the 70% of your money”. The flaw here is that this artist is benefiting of a marketplace and all its infrastructure and distribution without paying and the whole point of the platform is to give access to its catalog. Think on the Spotify price as some kind of “optionality fee”.
tup4n 3y ago
This is what happens already, isn't it?
- Linosaurus 3y ago
  No. If you listen to only a single artist for a month, your payment is still split the same way everyone else’s payment is, by total streamed numbers. It sounds better if they artist got your entire monthly payment (after payment processors and Spotify’s fee), but probably a nightmare for accountants.
febeling 3y ago
I don't see how that would be different.
unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
A better way would be for streams to interoperate with a copyright clearance mechanism where, when an artist opts out of the regular stream users still can validate they own a copy and get access through the stream. I have a library of saved songs I never hear on Pandora, and often my favorite artists and songs get dropped leaving a rather bland experience over the long haul.
pmontra 3y ago
Do artists have a contract with Spotify or with their labels? If it's with the labels, Spotify pays the labels and they give to the artists what they agreed upon, possibly an unfairly low amount of money but contracts are contracts. The Uruguay parliament should regulate the contracts between their local artists and the labels. Some of them will ban Uruguay artists but some of them, maybe local ones, will intercept the money no matter what. Or Spotify makes deals with individual artists, but there is a long and thin tail of them.
- 542458 3y ago
  Small indie artists will have contracts with Spotify. Larger artists with labels will have contracts with their labels, who will have contracts with Spotify. As you suspected, the labels typically take a ridiculous cut of streaming revenue.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > Small indie artists will have contracts with Spotify. They won't. They will have contracts with distributors: https://artists.spotify.com/providers https://artists.spotify.com/providers
542458 3y ago
Sorry, I’m failing to see the difference between this and what actually happens. They currently take 70% of their revenue and split it across artists by stream, and what I’m reading is that you’re proposing is that we take each subscriber’s revenue (presumably less some profit factor - say, 30%) and split it by the artists they stream. What am I missing? Fwiw, the actual Spotify math is a bit more complicated than just splitting by streams - I.e., https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23971616/spotify-royalties-labels-streaming-fraud-pushkin-malcolm-gladwell https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23971616/spotify-royalti...
- lucasmerlin 3y ago
  It can be a huge difference. Say this month I only listen to a completely unknown artist. I am the only person listening (to make the calculation easy). I've listened to 10 of his songs and this is everything I've heard this month. Now if my 7$ are distributed to all artists I've listened to this artist will now receive 7$. If my 7$ is thrown in a global pool and split by global stream counts this artist gets almost nothing. Of course this is a extreme example but it should illustrate why this can matter.
  - Denvercoder9 3y ago
    > If my 7$ is thrown in a global pool and split by global stream counts this artist gets almost nothing. Not by definition. If you generate more streams this month than the average user, your streams are a larger fraction of the stream counts than your 7$ is of the revenue pool, and this artist will get paid more than if he only got your 7$. Splitting the revenue per-user instead of per-stream can certainly make a huge difference, but switching to per-user instead of per-stream benefits artists with listeners that generate a below-average amount of streams per month, regardless of their absolute stream numbers.
- robbie-c 3y ago
  It's different because if you imagine Spotify only had 2 users, Alice and Bob, and Alice listens to Indie Band X 10 times a month, and Bob listens to Megastar Y 10,000 times in a month, Y would receive almost all of the artist revenue in the current model, but in the model that GP is proposing, both artists would make the same. Essentially A's money is going towards Y, even though she never listed to Y. (I'm not expressing an opinion on which of these I prefer)
cochne 3y ago
I don’t think that would necessarily favor small artists. That would just favor artists who are listened to by people who don’t use Spotify a lot. Right now someone who only streams a few songs gets a very small “vote” (assuming pay is per stream). That would make it so that everyone had the same “voting” power. But I doubt there’s much correlation between people who use Spotify less and small artists. In fact that’s probably a negative correlation if anything, and this could end up hurting local artists.
- xiphias2 3y ago
  I'm not sure about spotify, but I have seen this problem with Netflix: I'm an adult paying full for my Netflix subscription and for that price I would love to have a few great and expensive movies every month for my age group. But what I usually see is lots of movies made for teens who are binge watching Netflix even though they are paying the same. Netflix has some public presentations on their algorithm and from the presentations it looks like they are optimizing for watches without weighting by subscription revenue per watch.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
batmanthehorse 3y ago
There were multiple responses questioning how this was different, so I'll respond here: - 2 users, A and B, each pay $10/month - User A listens to 20 Taylor Swift songs - User B listens to 5 Radiohead songs - Spotify gets a 30% cut Currently: - Spotify gets $6 - Taylor Swift gets $11.20 - Radiohead gets $2.80 If each subscriber's bill was split separately: - Spotify gets $6 - Taylor Swift gets $7 - Radiohead gets $7 So this change would benefit artists that less active Spotify users listen to. Right now the less active users are paying to support the listening of the most active users. Personally this would make me feel like my money is more directly supporting the artists I care about.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  > - Spotify gets a 30% cut This is where you're wrong..
  - batmanthehorse 3y ago
    1. The article literally says ‘ “Spotify already pays nearly 70% of every dollar it generates from music to the record labels and publishers that own the rights for music, and represent and pay artists and songwriters," it continues.’ 2. It’s a simplified example for explanatory purposes
    - jbverschoor 3y ago
      Sure, that's the general narrative of spotify.. But it's false. It's more like half of that 70%. There's a reason Spotify is ending their service in Uruguay, and it's not because they're enough.
- matwood 3y ago
  Why is everyone ignoring the user side? It's not that there are equal users and a Taylor Swift person just listens more, there are millions of more users listening to Taylor Swift. Radiohead could actually do better with the much larger user base Swift brings. Without more data, it's hard to know.
- 3y ago
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Not sure how this favors small/local artists. Most people I know who listen to small/local artists listen to much more music than those who listen to big pop artists. That means the current system actually favors the local artists since their listeners have an outsize “vote” when all streams are bundled together. Is there any reason to believe big artist listeners on average stream more songs per month?

dagw 3y ago

My subscription money ends up going to subsidise super popular artists I never listen to, rather that the artists I actually do listen to.

GiveOver 3y ago

I suppose the argument wouldn't be about how their revenue is distributed, rather that they should be charging more for their subscription (which is, in my opinion, insanely cheap). They're able to keep it that cheap because they're underpaying artists.

danpalmer 3y ago

They put all the streams in one pool and then split from there. Popular artists get almost all of it. When you spend $10 or whatever on streaming, you'd expect $7 to be split between the artists you listen to, but it's not. Instead almost all of it goes to the big artists anyway because in the big streams pool the small artists you listen to have a tiny proportion of listens, even if you exclusively listened to them. This gets worse when you consider all those shops/cafes/etc with Spotify's top charts playing on repeat. They may be a small percentage of users, but they're an outsized proportion of streams, and almost exclusively big artists. This is the way it is because big artists have big name labels, and those labels are the only ones who can negotiate, so the deal ends up favoring the big artists/labels. This is definitely not how most consumers would expect it to all work, and therefore "unfair" seems like a reasonable term to use.

cwillu 3y ago
This is something twitch-style subscriptions get largely right.
hackideiomat 3y ago
Tidal (spotify competitor) takes 2 euro and gives 'em to the artist you've listened to the most. But the rest of the money is probably all going to the big ones as you explained. Just saying this because it is so weird. Like, hell yeah I sure hope my money goes to the people that I listen to why is this a thing??
- danpalmer 3y ago
  > and gives 'em to the artist you've listened to the most This seems like a way to sound popular without actually solving the problem. IT sounds like it would help "yay my favourite artist gets lots of money!" but when you model it out I'd expect quite similar outcomes – most of your money is still distributed in the way Spotify do, and often your top artist might still be one of the popular ones, and small artists aren't going to be the top of many people's listening.
oneplane 3y ago
> you'd expect I don't. I expect that when I pay for a streaming service, as soon as the money is in their account all bets are off and no insight is given. So such a generalisation of what people expect doesn't hold up for consumer products I'd say. I wouldn't be surprised if most customers don't even think about it at all.

jbverschoor 3y ago

That's false information.. Spotify does NOT distribute 70% of their revenue. As per their latest financial statement ( https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3/787b611a-8789-4a1a-86de-055ba2ade19a.pdf https://s29.q4cdn.com/175625835/files/doc_financials/2023/q3... ): Revenue: 3357 Cost of revenue: 2472 > Cost of revenue consists predominantly of royalty and distribution costs related to content streaming. > Cost of revenue also includes the cost of podcast content assets (both produced and licensed) > Cost of revenue also includes credit card and payment processing fees for subscription revenue, customer service, certain employee compensation and benefits, cloud computing, streaming, facility, and equipment costs. So all operational costs is included in that "70%", including: infrastructure, payment fees, etc. etc. A breakdown: 217 committed Google Cloud Platform per quarter (based on 4344 in 5 years) 105 for amortization of content assets (podcasts they bought) 30 for some content write-off 102 "minimum royalty" for licensed content (not the regular artists), (based on (2124-83) in 5 years) 100 my estimate for app store fees, assuming 15% fees for 20% of the users 67 my estimate for ca. 2% creditcard fees ? streaming ? facility ? support software + employees ? equipment, software, etc ? refunds etc ? free spotify for employees So a total of AT LEAST 723 is not related to paying out royalties. (2472-723)/3357 They're paying less than 52%. My estimate would be between 35% and 40%

satyrnein 3y ago
Those revenue and cost of revenue figures blend together different things. Their contracts with music distributors (recordings) + statutory rates for music publishers (compositions) = ~70% of the revenue pool from advertisers and subscribers. However, podcasts work differently, both on the revenue and cost side, and appears to be mixed in. Additionally, Spotify sells optional marketing programs (ads within Spotify, for example) which I assume are included in revenue. So it's hard to draw the right conclusion just from the summary numbers.

wodenokoto 3y ago

Yep, the unfairness of streaming starts when the money has left Spotify.

Mistletoe 3y ago

They need to at least split it by stream time. It’s non-sensical to have a 2 minute pop song be paid the same as a 14 minute classical song. This has weird off effects like pop stars making shorter and shorter songs so they get played more often, which causes less ability to concentrate for extended periods of time in the young people that listen to it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]