3 ms·

You’re looking at it wrong. That $4 per song! What artist only releases one song ever? Spotify and other streaming platforms pay royalties to an artist’s distr

You’re looking at it wrong. That $4 per song! What artist only releases one song ever? Spotify and other streaming platforms pay royalties to an artist’s distributor and that aggregate of royalties from all platforms gets paid out to the artist when they reach the distributor’s threshold. Spotify is making that money no longer exist at all for indie artists.

crazygringo 3y ago
Ah sorry, I hadn't picked up on that -- thanks. But it still doesn't change the overall point at all. So if you've got 2 albums of 10 tracks each, then you need 1,000 listens of each album to reach a minimum payout of $80, which you've got an entire year to accumulate. So Spotify isn't on the low side -- it's comparable with AdSense's minimum payout of $100. But honestly, compared to the effort involved in producing an album, that's... nothing. $80 is not the difference between making or breaking your music career. It's under $7 a month. A slightly more expensive coffee. I just don't understand how that can be upsetting. If your streams on Spotify are that low, then you're doing it as a hobby anyways, for the love of it. Which is wonderful. But it isn't your source of income.
- unnamed76ri 3y ago
  You are correct. This isn’t really about income. It is the principle of the thing. Spotify is redistributing subscriber fees and ad revenue from the struggling artist to the record labels and superstars. As I said in another comment, I’ve cancelled my account so in my case it is costing them more than they are saving. I’m also no longer sending fans to Spotify and this year not all of the music I release will make its way to Spotify.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > redistributing subscriber fees and ad revenue from the struggling artist to the record labels and superstars. That seems a little harsh. They're also redistributing it to anyone with just 1,000 streams a song, right? And many (most? nearly all?) of those less-popular artists aren't even signed with a record label, correct? It seems like more of an anti-spam measure than anything else. And possibly about reducing overhead fees associated with the skinniest part of the long tail.

crazygringo 3y ago

Ah sorry, I hadn't picked up on that -- thanks. But it still doesn't change the overall point at all. So if you've got 2 albums of 10 tracks each, then you need 1,000 listens of each album to reach a minimum payout of $80, which you've got an entire year to accumulate. So Spotify isn't on the low side -- it's comparable with AdSense's minimum payout of $100. But honestly, compared to the effort involved in producing an album, that's... nothing. $80 is not the difference between making or breaking your music career. It's under $7 a month. A slightly more expensive coffee. I just don't understand how that can be upsetting. If your streams on Spotify are that low, then you're doing it as a hobby anyways, for the love of it. Which is wonderful. But it isn't your source of income.

unnamed76ri 3y ago
You are correct. This isn’t really about income. It is the principle of the thing. Spotify is redistributing subscriber fees and ad revenue from the struggling artist to the record labels and superstars. As I said in another comment, I’ve cancelled my account so in my case it is costing them more than they are saving. I’m also no longer sending fans to Spotify and this year not all of the music I release will make its way to Spotify.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > redistributing subscriber fees and ad revenue from the struggling artist to the record labels and superstars. That seems a little harsh. They're also redistributing it to anyone with just 1,000 streams a song, right? And many (most? nearly all?) of those less-popular artists aren't even signed with a record label, correct? It seems like more of an anti-spam measure than anything else. And possibly about reducing overhead fees associated with the skinniest part of the long tail.