3 ms·
> There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked. This isn't an excuse for Spotify not paying much for pla
by helsinkiandrew 3y ago
> There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked.
This isn't an excuse for Spotify not paying much for plays, but I bet having music on spotify helps the gig revenue though.
In some ways this is also true for Taylor Swift et al - they also make thousands times the amount from playing gigs than 'selling' albums, streaming, and radio plays but that drives ticket sales.
- jfoster 3y agoIndie: No one pays you. Popular: Gigs pay you. Taylor Swift: Governments pay you millions of dollars for regional exclusivity. (essentially, play 2 - 3 concerts instead of 10+) https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/mar/05/taylor-swift-singapore-exclusive-southeast-asia-eras-tour-deal https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/mar/05/taylor-swift-s...
- coldtea 3y agoOf course that's a quite rare case of a small nation with many neighbors with interested listeners, trying to get an artist to play there exclusively in order to drive concert tourism.
- brabel 3y agoThe music industry is the most vicious example of inequality. While some artists are so big that governments compete to have you come to their country (and NOT to your neighbours), the vast majority has trouble even getting to play free gigs.
- jhrmnn 3y agoSpotify should then be run as ad business—charge artists to let them advertise on Spotify.
- l33tman 3y agoIsn't that exactly what they do if they have the stream-cutoff discussed in this thread then? At least implicitly..
- zadokshi 3y agoThis is literally their current business model. Large music distributors pay for streams, the songs rise up the charts, people see the songs. If that’s not advertising I don’t know what is.
- neocritter 3y agoThat sounds like good old fashioned payola.