3 ms·
Why assume that you have to charge every user the same amount and then divide up the income fractionally based on usage? An (arguably simpler) alternative is y
by jp57 3y ago
Why assume that you have to charge every user the same amount and then divide up the income fractionally based on usage? An (arguably simpler) alternative is you begin by paying a fixed constant amount to the artist for every stream, then figure out a pricing model.
I'd also argue that "fairness" is not really that important. One could in theory charge a fixed monthly rate to customers and pay a fixed constant fee to artists as long as the company's finances work out favorably. It's not really the customer's business how the company's costs are distributed.
- paxys 3y agoArtists want to be paid per stream rather than get a fixed amount. Users want to pay a fixed monthly fee and get unlimited access. Spotify has figured out the best way to combine the two, and this involves pooling all the money paid by all users – regardless of what they listen to – and then allotting it to artists based on the number of streams they served to the platform. Yes this means that plenty of users are subsidizing artists they don't like, but this is also what works best for everyone in the system. Trying to paint it as "fair" or "unfair" is pointless.
- jp57 3y agoYeah. I said “a constant amount to the artist for every stream.” So yes. Per stream.
- terminous 3y agoYeah pretty much no normal consumer wants to pay per stream.
- jp57 3y agoThere are plenty of flat-rate customer billing models that would support paying artists a fixed price per stream. If the argument is that it would be "too expensive" -- i.e. it would end up paying the artists "too much" -- well, that's something to think about, isn't it?
- chrisco255 3y agoIt doesn't work better for niche artists and it makes it very hard for new music to get revenue.
- pc86 3y ago"Niche artists" sounds like another way to say "artists nobody listens to" so it seems like a bad business decision to try to create a model that would funnel money their way, doesn't it?
- chrisco255 3y agoNo, they should be paid proportional to their listeners. As it is, it's the popular artists being subsidized by the niche music fans. Niche music should get the niche music fan revenue. Very simple concept. If there are 1M niche genre music fans and they're spending 100% of their time listening to that genre, their money should go to that genre, not siphon it off to popular artists. Otherwise we get no new genres, no innovation, aand fewer up and coming artists.
- danaris 3y ago> Spotify has figured out the best way to combine the two This seems to be begging the question. Spotify has figured out a way to combine the two. Many people clearly feel that it is not the best way, and some that it is not even working.
- pc86 3y agoGood luck convincing the general public to sign up for a service where they pay every time they listen to a song, even a small fraction of a cent.