3 ms·

>I think a better payout structure for Spotify would be to go per-user. [...] - I only listened to one song this month? The full 4$ go to that artist. [...] I t

by jasode 3y ago

>I think a better payout structure for Spotify would be to go per-user. [...] - I only listened to one song this month? The full 4$ go to that artist. [...] I think the current model of per-stream across the whole platform distorts the playing field towards more popular artists Your idea has been suggested many times but as other sibling comments already noted, Spotify didn't have the leverage in business negotiations to implement that type of payout. In other words, Spotify needed the vast song catalogs from the Universal + Sony + Warner -- more than those Big 3 Labels needed Spotify. Your idea has higher payouts (i.e. "more fair") for independent musicians at the expense of less payout for the Big 3 Major Labels. In contrast, the current payout system favors the Big Labels at the expense of independents. Why did this happen? Because the Big Labels have more leverage. Some factors leading up to the Big Labels negotiating from a position of strength to get more favorable treatment from the "weaker" Spotify: - 2000: Napster lost its case against Metallica and RIAA - 2000: mp3.com lost its case for "users CD-ownership-verify-then-playback service" - 2003: Big Major Labels felt they got screwed by Apple & Steve Jobs iTunes deal with the flat 99 cents pricing. By the time of 2011 licensing negotiations, they were already winning their lawsuits against the internet "stealing" their music. They were in no mood to give Spotify a sweet deal for access to their song catalogs. This is why the no-name artists get fractions of pennies adding up a few dollars while Taylor Swift gets millions from Spotify. This unbalanced financial arrangement was the carrot to help get the Big Labels on board. To add to this, Spotify also gave the labels part ownership stock[1]. In contrast, smaller independents like CDBaby and TuneCore didn't get offered Spotify stock. Examples like that should give an idea of how much leverage the Big Labels had. [1] https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-spotify/#:~:text=The%20biggest%20labels%2C%20including%20Warner,hundreds%20of%20millions%20of%20dollars https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-spotify/#:~:text=The%2....

crazygringo 3y ago
> In contrast, the current payout system favors the Big Labels at the expense of independents. Is there an actual statistic around this? The linked article you provided doesn't have it. I'm curious: 1a) What is the average per-stream rate for a song from one of the Big Labels? 1b) What is the average per-stream rate for a song from one of the Big Labels, that is then passed along to the artist after the label takes their own cut? 2) What is the per-stream rate if you self-publish your song via DistroKid instead (that then publishes it to Spotify), that goes directly to the artist? It's not obvious to me that 1b) is larger than 2). Maybe it is -- but are there actual numbers here? Especially for "average" or "median" artists at a label, not Taylor Swift.
- n2d4 3y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted, I'm wondering something similar. Anecdotally (and maybe incorrectly), I'd expect people who listen to a lot of indie music to stream more songs per month than those who listen to pop & big label music, which means that big labels would be making less money if they get paid per stream than per user? Obviously there are probably many other factors, I'd love to see the numbers. I find the explanation easier to believe that "per stream" is a much simpler & transparent system for the artists that causes less outrage towards Spotify[0]. And to cater to big labels, Spotify just increases their specific per-stream rate (as parent's article explains). Still, it causes issues like the botting ones in the OP. I don't know, it's really hard to make a conclusion here without the actual numbers. [0] Imagine you get more streams but less money than your friend with the same indie deal, just because his listeners listen to less music overall. You could convince ME that it's fair from an outsider perspective... but probably not an artist who's trying to make a living.

by jasode 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

> In contrast, the current payout system favors the Big Labels at the expense of independents. Is there an actual statistic around this? The linked article you provided doesn't have it. I'm curious: 1a) What is the average per-stream rate for a song from one of the Big Labels? 1b) What is the average per-stream rate for a song from one of the Big Labels, that is then passed along to the artist after the label takes their own cut? 2) What is the per-stream rate if you self-publish your song via DistroKid instead (that then publishes it to Spotify), that goes directly to the artist? It's not obvious to me that 1b) is larger than 2). Maybe it is -- but are there actual numbers here? Especially for "average" or "median" artists at a label, not Taylor Swift.

n2d4 3y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, I'm wondering something similar. Anecdotally (and maybe incorrectly), I'd expect people who listen to a lot of indie music to stream more songs per month than those who listen to pop & big label music, which means that big labels would be making less money if they get paid per stream than per user? Obviously there are probably many other factors, I'd love to see the numbers. I find the explanation easier to believe that "per stream" is a much simpler & transparent system for the artists that causes less outrage towards Spotify[0]. And to cater to big labels, Spotify just increases their specific per-stream rate (as parent's article explains). Still, it causes issues like the botting ones in the OP. I don't know, it's really hard to make a conclusion here without the actual numbers. [0] Imagine you get more streams but less money than your friend with the same indie deal, just because his listeners listen to less music overall. You could convince ME that it's fair from an outsider perspective... but probably not an artist who's trying to make a living.