3 ms·
>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"
by 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 agoArticulating 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”.