4 ms·
From a PR perspective, I can understand why insiders would be keen to leak a massive headline figure and gloss over the fact it's probably a big step down from
by SilverBirch 3y ago
From a PR perspective, I can understand why insiders would be keen to leak a massive headline figure and gloss over the fact it's probably a big step down from the previous deal - and as you say, is more likely to either be $50m annually or has some incentive structure that's unlikely to be met.
If the deal were 250m per year that would be an incredible headline, there's no way they'd be quiet about that.
- gnicholas 3y agoIt makes sense that it would be much smaller than his initial deal on an annual basis. There's much less value in exclusivity since he already brought his biggest existing fans over to the platform. So they jettisoned exclusivity and enabled him to make tons more by monetizing on other platforms (twitter, youtube, third-party podcast apps). It would be interesting to know what percent of his total revenue ends up coming from this deal, now that the exclusivity is ending.
- SilverBirch 3y agoOh I read it the opposite way- he won’t be exclusive but Spotify would get the revenue from all advertisers. So say he releases on YouTube? The ad placement and revenue for that would at least go via Spotify and presumably Spotify would take a tidy chunk of that.
- gnicholas 3y agoThat would seem to set up very strange incentives. Are there other agreements like this, where one distributor gets a cut of advertising that is derived by an artist/speaker on a totally different platform?