3 ms·

Back to torrenting I guess. If I’m not mistaken snoop said he made 45k off 1 billion plays. Thats ridiculous

by cranberryturkey 3y ago

reliablereason 3y ago
That was apparently a track that was not his own, he was only a partial co author of that track.
ansc 3y ago
To be fair, that's because the label siphons the rest. Spotify pays $4 per 1000 streams.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- djxfade 3y ago
  Where do you get those numbers from? I'm a self published artist. I had 150k streams on Spotify last year. I only earned roughly $450. There's no label or other middleman here taking a cut. Spotify is just cheap.
  - Martinussen 3y ago
    It's somewhere around $3.5/1k streams - you're not exactly super far off their estimate either, though. It varies a bit based on (listener, or artist?) regions too, I believe.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Snoop's number was $0.045 per thousand plays. ansc's number was $4 per thousand plays. Your number is $3 per thousand plays. It sounds like you basically agree with ansc. While Spotify might be cheap, that cheapness is not the problem Snoop is having.
  - auggierose 3y ago
    That's not too far off, is it? 150 * $4 = $600 ≈ $450.
  - ssl-3 3y ago
    They say: $4 / 1,000 = $0.004 per streamed track. You say: $450 / 150,000 = $0.003 per streamed track. The two sets of numbers don't seem so far apart that the discrepancy cannot be explained by rounding errors.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jstummbillig 3y ago
Ah. Music income numbers, where the details are not actually details. He did say that[1], but the statement is misleading (and has little to do with Spotify). A very rough global average per-stream payout is often estimated at around $0.003 to $0.005. That brings the payout for 1 billion streams between $3,000,000 and $5,000,000. Let's go with the lower end. This is actual money paid out by Spotify for 1 billion streams, as in, a bank transfer of $3,000,000. How do you get from there to $45,000? - As with any legacy artist, the record label gets most (maybe 70%). Why that is, oh well. It's less shocking if you think of the label as an employer and how little an average employee gets compared to what they produce. Do you need an employer? Absolutely not. Do you need a record label? Absolutely not. Anyway, a 70% cut would leave the artist with $900,000. - Expenses: There are various costs associated with producing, distributing, and promoting music, hotel costs. Let your imagination run wild. Safe to say: This is a black hole, depending on how you want the process to look. If Snoop wants to sit in a big studio for months, he pays prices, for month, but that's not required to make music. Renting a high end studio on end is lifestyle. Sure, it's an expense, but it's like complaining about your profit while driving a Porsche. Awkward. Let's assume a 20% deduction here, reducing the revenue to $720,000. - Focus on Publishing Royalties: Publishing royalties are just one part of the total royalties an artist earns. So there's quite a bit of double accounting going on if you want to pretend that the above costs are all deducted from your Spotify income. If we assume publishing royalties make up only 10% of the total, that brings the figure down to $72,000. - tldr: Snoop is living the big life, confused about money, and then proceeds to confuse others about money. [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/snoop-dogg-talks-about-how-much-he-earned-from-1-billion-spotify-streams/articleshow/105865552.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/s...
- tibu 3y ago
  If the ownership is with the publishing studio then AFAIK they pay the producing, distribution and promotion. It is an investment into the artist, so they shouldn't have these costs.
- addicted 3y ago
  A record label is probably much more of a VC than it is an employer. The business has changed since streaming and self publishing but the labels took bets on artists and gave them expensive recording studios and marketing dollars, gave them some basic money, and in return took the majority of rights to the first few albums. They also knew that if the artist truly made it big they would likely go to a different label where they could get better terms or start their own where they’d keep all the money after the initial contract which drove their side higher. The record label model clearly doesn’t work as well in modern days but it was successful for good reasons at the time it really flourished.
Daz1 3y ago
Ah yes performative postering by people who 'really care' about artists getting paid.
Mashimo 3y ago
> Back to torrenting I guess. Or just buy it on bandcamp friday and give it all to the artists :)
amelius 3y ago
I hear taylor swift is a billionaire. Is she on Spotify?

Back to torrenting I guess. If I’m not mistaken snoop said he made 45k off 1 billion plays. Thats ridiculous

reliablereason 3y ago

That was apparently a track that was not his own, he was only a partial co author of that track.

ansc 3y ago

To be fair, that's because the label siphons the rest. Spotify pays $4 per 1000 streams.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
djxfade 3y ago
Where do you get those numbers from? I'm a self published artist. I had 150k streams on Spotify last year. I only earned roughly $450. There's no label or other middleman here taking a cut. Spotify is just cheap.
- Martinussen 3y ago
  It's somewhere around $3.5/1k streams - you're not exactly super far off their estimate either, though. It varies a bit based on (listener, or artist?) regions too, I believe.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Snoop's number was $0.045 per thousand plays. ansc's number was $4 per thousand plays. Your number is $3 per thousand plays. It sounds like you basically agree with ansc. While Spotify might be cheap, that cheapness is not the problem Snoop is having.
- auggierose 3y ago
  That's not too far off, is it? 150 * $4 = $600 ≈ $450.
- ssl-3 3y ago
  They say: $4 / 1,000 = $0.004 per streamed track. You say: $450 / 150,000 = $0.003 per streamed track. The two sets of numbers don't seem so far apart that the discrepancy cannot be explained by rounding errors.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jstummbillig 3y ago

Ah. Music income numbers, where the details are not actually details. He did say that[1], but the statement is misleading (and has little to do with Spotify). A very rough global average per-stream payout is often estimated at around $0.003 to $0.005. That brings the payout for 1 billion streams between $3,000,000 and $5,000,000. Let's go with the lower end. This is actual money paid out by Spotify for 1 billion streams, as in, a bank transfer of $3,000,000. How do you get from there to $45,000? - As with any legacy artist, the record label gets most (maybe 70%). Why that is, oh well. It's less shocking if you think of the label as an employer and how little an average employee gets compared to what they produce. Do you need an employer? Absolutely not. Do you need a record label? Absolutely not. Anyway, a 70% cut would leave the artist with $900,000. - Expenses: There are various costs associated with producing, distributing, and promoting music, hotel costs. Let your imagination run wild. Safe to say: This is a black hole, depending on how you want the process to look. If Snoop wants to sit in a big studio for months, he pays prices, for month, but that's not required to make music. Renting a high end studio on end is lifestyle. Sure, it's an expense, but it's like complaining about your profit while driving a Porsche. Awkward. Let's assume a 20% deduction here, reducing the revenue to $720,000. - Focus on Publishing Royalties: Publishing royalties are just one part of the total royalties an artist earns. So there's quite a bit of double accounting going on if you want to pretend that the above costs are all deducted from your Spotify income. If we assume publishing royalties make up only 10% of the total, that brings the figure down to $72,000. - tldr: Snoop is living the big life, confused about money, and then proceeds to confuse others about money. [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/snoop-dogg-talks-about-how-much-he-earned-from-1-billion-spotify-streams/articleshow/105865552.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/s...

tibu 3y ago
If the ownership is with the publishing studio then AFAIK they pay the producing, distribution and promotion. It is an investment into the artist, so they shouldn't have these costs.
addicted 3y ago
A record label is probably much more of a VC than it is an employer. The business has changed since streaming and self publishing but the labels took bets on artists and gave them expensive recording studios and marketing dollars, gave them some basic money, and in return took the majority of rights to the first few albums. They also knew that if the artist truly made it big they would likely go to a different label where they could get better terms or start their own where they’d keep all the money after the initial contract which drove their side higher. The record label model clearly doesn’t work as well in modern days but it was successful for good reasons at the time it really flourished.

Daz1 3y ago

Ah yes performative postering by people who 'really care' about artists getting paid.

Mashimo 3y ago

> Back to torrenting I guess. Or just buy it on bandcamp friday and give it all to the artists :)

amelius 3y ago

I hear taylor swift is a billionaire. Is she on Spotify?