6 ms·
I have a hypothesis I'd like feedback on: Per-stream rates are actually similar to the per-listen equivalent for CDs, and the revenue difference is because lis
by spiffytech 3y ago
I have a hypothesis I'd like feedback on:
Per-stream rates are actually similar to the per-listen equivalent for CDs, and the revenue difference is because listeners have different behavior now that music is less scarce and is a la carte.
In the CD era, artists earned more revenue because listeners had to buy whole albums, even if only a few of the tracks were worth listening to.
People also listened to fewer artists, because listening to something new was expensive.
Some napkin math:
Say a CD costs $18, the artist gets 6.6% of that, it has 12 tracks, and you listen to the whole CD 30 times while you own it. That gets you $0.0033 per track listen.
(Thinking of how I listened to CDs twenty years ago, an average of 30 listens feels like an okay estimate. Some albums more, some less.)
Gizmodo reports Spotify pays $0.003 per stream.
While there's some wiggle room in my CD calculations, I don't think they're off by e.g., 10x.
- brk 3y agoIn that era (when I spent some time in the music industry) it was common for labels to tell artists to not release 12 "Good" tracks. It was more like 3-4 Good tracks and then basically Filler tracks/B-side quality. But if you wanted the Good tracks, you had to buy the whole CD, and you might listen to the Good tracks 30 times, but the Fillers a lesser amount. This makes the per-track payment extrapolation from CDs somewhat challenging as these days users have more control over specific tracks, and artists can also do a track-only release as easily as a full album release if they want.