3 ms·

> Why should I pay money to listen to music I like, and then that money goes to music and artists I've never and never will listen to? Well, you could simply b

> Why should I pay money to listen to music I like, and then that money goes to music and artists I've never and never will listen to? Well, you could simply bypass Spotify and just buy the music directly from the artist, no (which you indicate you do)? So Spotify isn't necessary for this, I'd guess? Spotify isn't a payment app for artists (again, I feel super weird defending them, I am not a fan myself!), it's a distribution channel.

ikt 3y ago
Even better, use Spotify to discover artists then buy their music! It's not mutually exclusive!
- mittermayr 3y ago
  That's exactly what I wanted to say further up but you summarized it way better in less words. I still think Spotify is great to discover music, but yes, there needs to be direct monetization outside of it!
jchw 3y ago
I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. You could give a more charitable interpretation by just treating Spotify as a music discovery service, that's not really what Spotify is marketed or intended for. Spotify is meant to be the ultimate end-game of online music streaming: it is meant to flat-out replace your giant MP3 library. And that's exactly how many people use Spotify. Not just Spotify, but also Apple Music, Pandora, etc. If it was a music discovery service, it would be reasonable for artists to accept lower payouts and whatever other garbage because it's just an additional revenue source anyway. However, streaming music is not just an additional revenue source. Streaming music is becoming the primary way that people consume music all of the time. It is a $25 billion/year industry. Artists and fans alike can't control the way that the larger market moves, but the way that the larger market moves will for sure have major impact on the entire industry and that impact will trickle all the way down. There is no reason to think that we can't or shouldn't try to discourage and flat-out regulate unfair practices. It's not that all things middlemen do are bad, it's that they routinely gain immense power in the market and then together they act against the best interests of nearly everyone other than themselves, while the barrier to entry remains so high that it may as well not be possible for all intents and purposes. I don't really understand the point of defending what Spotify does, Spotify fights tooth and nail to try not to pay more royalties. When they were small they argued they had no choice but to pay low rates because otherwise they could never survive, and of course they never went back and changed their mind on that, because what incentive do they have? So yeah. My opinion? Spotify sucks, the article was spot on.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. So people here are complaining about how Spotify does not pay the people who create music enough. And there exists a zero friction option to pay the people who create music. But people don’t want to use the zero friction option to pay the people who create music because it would cost $1 or $2 per song. So yeah. My opinion? People are just really cheap, and what they want is to spend as little as possible on music, but at the same time feel good about it by blaming someone else for not paying the music creators more. You want the people who create your music to be paid more? Go to their website, and buy it. Life does not get much easier.
  - jchw 3y ago
    Sure I buy music, but that's really beside the point and not at all to do with the problem that is being raised. We (at least me and whoever wrote this article) are in fact choosing to not use streaming services. But even if people are "really cheap" there's no particular reason their money should be split across artists they don't listen to, and there's no particular reason to defend this practice as if it simply must work this way, if it doesn't have to work this way for any other industry, it doesn't have to work this way for music. If we have to fix it with regulation, painfully, over a long period of time, then fine. I don't like that, but that's what happens when industries fail to self-regulate meaningfully.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > But even if people are "really cheap" there's no particular reason their money should be split across artists they don't listen to, Listeners opted into buying a product sold by a business that does that. And the music creator also opted into it. That is where the market cleared. And people had and have the option to simply pay for the music directly, but they don’t want to. >and there's no particular reason to defend this practice as if it simply must work this way, Anyone is welcome at anytime to come up with an alternative. With the internet, it has never been easier. The fact that this is the dominant model indicates that this is the solution that works for most people (due to them not wanting to pay more for music). >if it doesn't have to work this way for any other industry, it doesn't have to work this way for music. Don’t see why this has to be true, different businesses have different parameters and supply and demand curves that result in different solutions. The funny thing is even at this low price of Spotify, Spotify still loses money. So that’s how little people are willing to play (presumably because piracy is an easy alternative). Edit to reply to below comment since I hit posting limit: >Which parameters? Why music specifically and not other industries? The biggest one is probably the ease of pirating music. >And yet its shares have been a rocket ship up the past couple years. If anyone is concerned about losing money at Spotify, it sure doesn't show in their operating margin data points, and it sure doesn't show very much with the people invested The recent run up is still far from SP500 performance, which is basically break even. Since IPO, SP500 return is 11%+, and Spotify is 8%, which is basically a 3% per year loss. Spotify’s biggest customers are the 3 big record labels (Warner/Universal/Sony) and exists as a negotiating tool against Apple/Amazon/Alphabet. Anyway, to conclude, I would blame the broad populace for not wanting to pay more for music. Surely, lots of them knew how to, and then decided they would pirate it, until a sufficiently cheap monthly legal streaming option came along.

ikt 3y ago

Even better, use Spotify to discover artists then buy their music! It's not mutually exclusive!

mittermayr 3y ago
That's exactly what I wanted to say further up but you summarized it way better in less words. I still think Spotify is great to discover music, but yes, there needs to be direct monetization outside of it!

jchw 3y ago

I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. You could give a more charitable interpretation by just treating Spotify as a music discovery service, that's not really what Spotify is marketed or intended for. Spotify is meant to be the ultimate end-game of online music streaming: it is meant to flat-out replace your giant MP3 library. And that's exactly how many people use Spotify. Not just Spotify, but also Apple Music, Pandora, etc. If it was a music discovery service, it would be reasonable for artists to accept lower payouts and whatever other garbage because it's just an additional revenue source anyway. However, streaming music is not just an additional revenue source. Streaming music is becoming the primary way that people consume music all of the time. It is a $25 billion/year industry. Artists and fans alike can't control the way that the larger market moves, but the way that the larger market moves will for sure have major impact on the entire industry and that impact will trickle all the way down. There is no reason to think that we can't or shouldn't try to discourage and flat-out regulate unfair practices. It's not that all things middlemen do are bad, it's that they routinely gain immense power in the market and then together they act against the best interests of nearly everyone other than themselves, while the barrier to entry remains so high that it may as well not be possible for all intents and purposes. I don't really understand the point of defending what Spotify does, Spotify fights tooth and nail to try not to pay more royalties. When they were small they argued they had no choice but to pay low rates because otherwise they could never survive, and of course they never went back and changed their mind on that, because what incentive do they have? So yeah. My opinion? Spotify sucks, the article was spot on.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. So people here are complaining about how Spotify does not pay the people who create music enough. And there exists a zero friction option to pay the people who create music. But people don’t want to use the zero friction option to pay the people who create music because it would cost $1 or $2 per song. So yeah. My opinion? People are just really cheap, and what they want is to spend as little as possible on music, but at the same time feel good about it by blaming someone else for not paying the music creators more. You want the people who create your music to be paid more? Go to their website, and buy it. Life does not get much easier.
- jchw 3y ago
  Sure I buy music, but that's really beside the point and not at all to do with the problem that is being raised. We (at least me and whoever wrote this article) are in fact choosing to not use streaming services. But even if people are "really cheap" there's no particular reason their money should be split across artists they don't listen to, and there's no particular reason to defend this practice as if it simply must work this way, if it doesn't have to work this way for any other industry, it doesn't have to work this way for music. If we have to fix it with regulation, painfully, over a long period of time, then fine. I don't like that, but that's what happens when industries fail to self-regulate meaningfully.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > But even if people are "really cheap" there's no particular reason their money should be split across artists they don't listen to, Listeners opted into buying a product sold by a business that does that. And the music creator also opted into it. That is where the market cleared. And people had and have the option to simply pay for the music directly, but they don’t want to. >and there's no particular reason to defend this practice as if it simply must work this way, Anyone is welcome at anytime to come up with an alternative. With the internet, it has never been easier. The fact that this is the dominant model indicates that this is the solution that works for most people (due to them not wanting to pay more for music). >if it doesn't have to work this way for any other industry, it doesn't have to work this way for music. Don’t see why this has to be true, different businesses have different parameters and supply and demand curves that result in different solutions. The funny thing is even at this low price of Spotify, Spotify still loses money. So that’s how little people are willing to play (presumably because piracy is an easy alternative). Edit to reply to below comment since I hit posting limit: >Which parameters? Why music specifically and not other industries? The biggest one is probably the ease of pirating music. >And yet its shares have been a rocket ship up the past couple years. If anyone is concerned about losing money at Spotify, it sure doesn't show in their operating margin data points, and it sure doesn't show very much with the people invested The recent run up is still far from SP500 performance, which is basically break even. Since IPO, SP500 return is 11%+, and Spotify is 8%, which is basically a 3% per year loss. Spotify’s biggest customers are the 3 big record labels (Warner/Universal/Sony) and exists as a negotiating tool against Apple/Amazon/Alphabet. Anyway, to conclude, I would blame the broad populace for not wanting to pay more for music. Surely, lots of them knew how to, and then decided they would pirate it, until a sufficiently cheap monthly legal streaming option came along.