13 ms·
This may be an unpopular opinion but streaming music prices have to rise for artists to get a fair deal. Current prices are an incredible bargain and only so b
by klelatti 3y ago
This may be an unpopular opinion but streaming music prices have to rise for artists to get a fair deal.
Current prices are an incredible bargain and only so because they don’t reflect the true value of the product.
Anything else is just trying to square the circle.
- School-Cotton 3y agoThey can’t demand higher prices because their main competitor, piracy, is free. I’ve long been opposed to piracy and thought copyright laws should be more strictly enforced, for exactly this reason. Yet most people seem to balk at that idea and think they have an absolute moral right to free content. I’m not sure why.
- klelatti 3y agoPiracy did well for a while in the CD era. There is no evidence that current prices represent a ceiling for what would work in 2023 before people would turn again to piracy.
- PodgieTar 3y agoI'll add to this as well, since it's a comment I see a lot. I'm not convinced that people would be willing to go back to Piracy. I think the convenience of being able to listen to any song at any time immediately without having to connect your iPhone to your PC, drag the file over, get them recognised, maybe add some metadata. (I know there'll be more modern approaches to this. I don't think they'll be quite as easy as Spotify) That's not even mentioning music discovery. Most of my music is now from Discover Weekly.
- ghaff 3y agoThe power of convenience is definitely more a thing than I really appreciated in the Napster era. But I also don’t think people would generally subscribe to $50 per month streaming music.
- morsch 3y agoWhy wouldn't a modern Napster replacement a) run on your phone and b) have music discovery? Doing both P2P is only a legal challenge (as in, it is illegal), not a technical one.
- PodgieTar 3y agoIn what world would Apple allow a piracy app on their AppStore? This may change with the EU demanding other AppStores - but as of right now it would be unworkable.
- jl6 3y agoIllegal things are harder to do on phones because the app stores act as enforcers in a way that desktop OS vendors don’t. Most people don’t sideload or jailbreak.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- boxed 3y agoLots of people make quite good music for free, or are dead and no longer care if they get any money (even though in the latter case companies are fleecing listeners long after the artist has died)>
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 3y agoMuch cheaper content has pretty much been normalized and it’s much easier to make free copies of stuff than it used to be. And the money ends up taken from someone which, in music, mostly ends up being the artists.
- beeboobaa 3y agoNonsense, if they divided my monthly payment by hours listened they'd get about 1-2 CDs out of that every month, more than I have ever bought in my life. And they don't even have to spend any money to burn and distribute them. So they're already making more money than they would otherwise. The only issue is that the money isn't going to those who actually deserve it. Don't encourage these greedy jackals to charge even more.
- robert_dipaolo 3y agoThey do have to spend money to distribute them, servers, bandwidth, software dev, etc, aren't free. However I agree that they shouldn't raise prices.
- beeboobaa 3y agoThey're not free, but they're a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost to distribute tons of CDs all over the world taking up loads of shelf space world-wide.
- klelatti 3y agoAnd the value being delivered to you is a huge amount more than you got with 1-2 CDs a month. But you’re not prepared to pay more for that value?
- beeboobaa 3y agoNope. My value to my employer has also gone up tremendously thanks to technology but I'm not seeing an exponentially increased paycheck, nor are most people. Technology exists to make everyone's life's better, not to make you richer.
- sokoloff 3y agoIt’s worth remembering that it was different greedy jackals getting the lions’ share of money in the CD era, not the artists. Artists rarely got more than 10%.
- imgabe 3y agoPeople aren’t going to pay more so it is in fact not worth more. I know every artist thinks their unique vision is infinitely priceless but things are actually worth what people are willing to pay for them. If you can’t convince people to hand over money for it, then it’s not worth that much.
- PUSH_AX 3y ago> People aren’t going to pay more so it is in fact not worth more. Source?
- ianis-h 3y agoWell... before Spotify people learnt to get digital music outside of platforms, they can learn it again Same with Disney, Netflix, etc.
- imgabe 3y agoSpotify is a for-profit company and if they could raise prices without losing customers they would.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoCircular reasoning. You are basically arguing that for-profit companies never make mistakes, know everything,etc. Is that were true, disruption and startups wouldn't exist
- halJordan 3y agoIt only seems circular because you're being pointed back to the beginning of the argument, instead of the person breaking it down barney style for you to shift the goalposts.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoTo me your post comes across as trying to draw a distinction between two different types of tautologies. Neither is a valid argument to begin with. The goalpost is formal logic, they do not shift, I am not shifting anything; Argument of a form ‘data X,Y,Z shows Spotify is priced correctly’ would be valid. ‘Spotify have priced correctly because they are <insert definition of Spotify>’ is not logically valid. Like in formal logic, it cannot be valid.
- morsch 3y agoRevenue is broadly in line with what it's been: https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ I grew up during the age of peak CD sales, and I still only bought like ten audio CDs in my life, all of them on the secondary market. I essentially didn't spend any money on music before Spotify came along. Now I spend 15 EUR every freaking month. And it's not just piracy, although it is that, too. Before Spotify came along, I listened to music radio, and I also listened to a lot of free amateur music. And that was at a time when distribution was a challenge; now any artist can create a Bandcamp (or whatever) page in seconds and give away their work. The entry barrier for making music is just incredibly low. I'm sure only gifted individuals can make exceptionally good music. But most music isn't exceptionally good and loads of people can make music that's good enough to have on in the background, i.e. what Spotify is being used for the vast majority of the time.
- gizajob 3y agoRevenue is NOWHERE NEAR what it was - you’re neglecting to click on the graph that says “value (adjusted for inflation)”. The graph is a clear indication of an industry trying to transform itself by whatever means having been repeatedly decimated. If the entire US music industry was a company, it wouldn’t even make it into the S&P 500.
- morsch 3y agoI clicked the button. It's literally within a few percent of where it was 30 years ago, adjusted for inflation. I call that broadly in line. Yes, it was much bigger in 2000, and much smaller in 2010, also bigger in 1978 and smaller in 1982. It was never that big, in absolute economic terms. I remember Slashdot was joking 20 years ago that one of the tech companies should just buy all of it to make the RIAA shut up. I guess it's unsurprising that organized culture has an outsized reach.
- gizajob 3y agoIt looks about 40% lower, not a few percent. I’m not denying that the recorded music industry has been totally overcome, and in some senses they’re lucky to have anything at all from Spotify, but almost everyone in society wants recorded music and the revenue side of it is dying, indeed, almost completely killed except for those at the very top of the pyramid. This hasn’t happened in the same way in other intellectual industries. It is how it is, but it’s a shame that something we all want has to be expensively done and then given away basically for free.
- Solvency 3y agoSpotify spends millions per month on lavish "creative" team salaries in NYC who do nothing but create gradient playlist covers and other low grade "design" work that is 100% unnecessary. All while they redesign and destroy their UX and product experiences every iteration. All of that money could go straight to the artists.
- PodgieTar 3y agoI don't agree that it is unnecessary. I think Spotify's aesthetic and design is one of the things that keeps people from moving over to other platforms. Nobody wants to use programmer art software. And these things are more carefully considered than most people would believe. Granted, I have this opinion about shovelling money at podcasts creators, and I'm sure someone could tell me the same. But you know, 200mill for Joe Roegan. Ugh.
- nurbl 3y agoAt least someone in their design department keeps uselessly moving things around. The latest was tucking away the desktop application's search function into the sidebar, even though the space it used to occupy is now just wasted space. It feels like they are trying to go the Netflix way where the normal usage is just consuming whatever they put in front of you. But we're probably not even supposed to use it on desktop...
- kikokikokiko 3y agoThe true value of music is pretty much zero, anything someone can get for the "reproduction" of their work is a plus. Now Uruguayan musicians will get the true value for their work, when Uruguayans go to the piratebay to listen to their songs.
- mattrighetti 3y ago> Current prices are an incredible bargain and only so because they don’t reflect the true value of the product. Seems like many artists are okay with the price, that’s why they stream on Spotify. There is no true value. That is indeed decided by the people who are willing to pay for it.
- tomjen3 3y agoArtists are making plenty. It is just that the supply of artists is much higher than the demand, because lots of people want to make money playing music, but there is only so many hours a day to listen to it. And while I get plenty value from my Spotify subscription, I also spend much more on music than I otherwise would have.
- RHSman2 3y agoThe price of something is determined by those that are willing to pay for it. And I am a Spotify artist just over the >1000 streams mark. Spotify (and others) are a discovery service that you happen to get some money for. You are trying to get into the algo and if people like it reads that signal and puts it out. It has NOTHING to do with fairness. If your music doesn’t connect with people then, that. If interested. Work cost circa €600 (mostly from session drummer) and an awful amount of work from me as the producer. Am I annoyed that I may never break even? No because I am realistic about the product I am creating and how it is a pyramid scheme. But I do get to listen to it https://open.spotify.com/track/5MCvIFKabQfN7gnInX12BB?si=RzXuedhxS0-QihpXLbOiSw https://open.spotify.com/track/5MCvIFKabQfN7gnInX12BB?si=RzX...
- munch117 3y agoGreat song. C'mon downvoters, yes he snuck in a plug, but so what, let him have it.
- wodenokoto 3y agoI actually don’t think they are an incredible bargain. At current prices, a single subscription is 8-10 albums a year. That is way above what I would have been buying had the world stayed on CDs.
- klelatti 3y agoSo you get a vast amount more choice for the same price? That doesn’t factor into your assessment of value at all?
- a1o 3y agoBut you don't own the data as in you can play in different devices, the streaming service has to exist where you want the music and it has to have constant internet access. Before you could load the CD in the car and run in roads that are in no-coverage area. Also you pay for the internet access.
- nickthegreek 3y agoNot true, offline play is possible. https://support.spotify.com/us/article/listen-offline/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/listen-offline/
- iforgotpassword 3y agoFor me, absolutely not. I'd rather go back to listening to the radio and not being able to decide what's playing. I currently buy two to three albums a year on Bandcamp or Amazon, the rest is YouTube.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoIve got the family subscription to Spotify. The four of us each listen to a solid 100,000 minutes of music a year for $15 a month. 400,000 minutes of entertainment for $180 is easily the best value entertainment I’ve ever seen. That’s 37 hours per dollar.
- 3y ago
- flir 3y agoAs the value of reproduction falls towards zero, shouldn't the cost fall towards zero as well?
- lacrimacida 3y agoYes. And so should the quality
- SirMaster 3y agoWill that work if it causes fewer people to subscribe?
- knallfrosch 3y agoI'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that "artists" (who?) do not get a "fair" (how much?) deal. I'm sorry noone wants to listen to your garage band anymore because they prefer megastars like Taylor Swift or can listen to the newest K-Pop five seconds after a song was released and uploaded, but that's globalization for you. Sure, 200 years ago you had to listen to whoever could afford an instrument in your village - regardless of skill - but we don't inhabit that world anymore.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> megastars like Taylor Swift ... whoever could afford an instrument in your village - regardless of skill I would not vall thr current megastars the pibbacle of skill. In fact its well known they are not chosen based on skill.
- niek_pas 3y ago> I'm sorry noone wants to listen to your garage band anymore That's exactly the problem. People _are_ still listening to local bands, they're just not paying them to do so.
- max_ 3y agoHow we're local bands making money previously? Wasn't it mostly from concerts? I doubt the margins from records & CD sales made them a killing.
- dvlsg 3y agoCan't speak for every case, but local concerts usually only made a bit of money when we were the ones hosting the show somewhere, inviting other bands, and selling tickets. Even then it was a bit of a gamble. More than a few lost us money. Otherwise, if we weren't hosting, the money we were paid for playing wasn't even enough to cover band expenses (instrument maintenance, travel costs, etc). Selling merch helped. Selling LPs / EPs was usually just an attempt to make back the cost of recording them in the first place. If the band was signed, things were different depending on their specific deal. But those bands probably don't count as just "local" anymore, at that point.
- max_ 3y agoArtists are free to sell their music digitally on their own websites at what ever price they want then pull their music off streaming services. I really hate it when people try to use government regulation to twist the arm of business for these types of "fair" deals. What exactly is a "fair" deal ? It's a very complex question and almost impossible to optimise for.
- lacrimacida 3y agoEverybody needs to eat not just CEOs
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- max_ 3y agoIf the problem is poverty I think the solution should be creating a proper safety net for people and offering the a Universal Basic Income.
- scarface_74 3y agoThen don’t choose to do something that people aren't willing to pay money for. There are some jobs that people don’t have a choice but to work. Being an artist isn’t one of them.
- lacrimacida 3y agoThe first problem is some people are meant to be artists, it’s what they’re good and excell at. Placing them in engineering domains won’t do anyone any justice, they’ll suck. Second, people will consume and like and pay for what’s available to them. If their government decides that an entity like Spotify disadvantages their local artists they can simply add legislation to fix that. I really don’t like the idea that artists should just give up because some SV types just rendered them useless. Artists are like a glue to the fabric of community, it’ll be a huge loss to have everyone doing stem instead.
- iforgotpassword 3y agoRemove the incredibly bloated middleman aka the traditional music industry. The actual cost of distributing music has come down immensely with digital distribution and streaming. "But they do so much more, like PR and marketing and stuff". Ironically, those who are already big get the biggest PR plus better deals than smaller artists. I don't think we need to raise Spotify prices just so Taylor swift can get even richer.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]
- scarface_74 3y agoNo matter how much prices rise, the artist will never get a fair deal as long as they deal with labels. On the other hand while they may get more of a percentage of the payout if they don’t deal with labels, they probably will get fewer streams without the marketing. Streaming music unfortunately needs to be considered marketing for most artist and as a cliche as it sounds - it’s all about live performances and merchandise. And breaking up the one true monopoly - Ticketmaster
- FalconSensei 3y agoEven if it's still too cheap, then they still need to split the money equally, and not just not pay small artists.