3 ms·
It's pointless to come up with models like these because none of the top artists are going to keep their music on the platform if their payout is reduced to tha
by paxys 3y ago
It's pointless to come up with models like these because none of the top artists are going to keep their music on the platform if their payout is reduced to that degree. For any such unlimited usage model to work the low volume users always have to subsidize the opposite end.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- esafak 3y agoThe richest artists are going to leave the platform, and do what; start their own, go back to iTunes, or rely on concerts? I can't see that happening, but I'm sure Spotify is capable of estimating how the revenue attribution scheme affects artist- and consequently subscriber retention. I'm in favor of paying artists in proportion to time played; that's a granular vote by users.
- chrisco255 3y agoWhat's their alternative? Spotify has a near monopoly on streaming and we're not going back to FM radio. If fragmentation occurs in music streaming apps they'll end up with less overall streamers and revenue anyways. I suppose a middle of the road solution would be to allocate X% towards the user-centric pot and Y% towards a pool for overall. Maybe that's 50/50 or 80/20, I don't know. But niche artists seem like will continue to have a hard time unless they go viral under the current system.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoWhy wouldn't they? Top artists don't earn that much off of Spotify either; it's promotion (like radio is / can be) for their more direct and lucrative sources of income, concerts, album sales, merchandise, and others.
- satyrnein 3y agoRecord labels are the ones making the decisions, since they own the recordings. And they do make their money on Spotify.