4 ms·

Free users already have to suffer through advertisements while the artists get ridiculous amounts of money. As I wrote below: I doubt many people will start pa

Free users already have to suffer through advertisements while the artists get ridiculous amounts of money. As I wrote below: I doubt many people will start paying if they don't have access to lyrics. It is just another power move to make the "free" alternative worse for those who can't or won't afford the paid version.

piva00 2y ago
Check the financial reports, Q1 2024 has just been released a week ago: ads don't pay much for Spotify, free users are mostly subsidised because it's a conversion funnel for people to try the service and become a premium subscriber. Makes sense to not pay licencing costs for lyrics as well on top of music for free users, they don't bring enough revenue. It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided.
- Krasnol 2y ago
  Ads seem to pay enough to make them squeeze more and more in it. > It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided. It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention.
  - piva00 2y ago
    It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough. The best ads revenue would be to have as little as possible ads for the maximum amount of revenue, the opposite is counterproductive after a threshold (which is quite low). Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify, for most of the ads in podcasts Spotify is not earning anything. > It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention. Ads on Spotify are much more similar to radio ads than the stuff done by Meta, and Google. Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily? Same for Spotify's free tier...
    - Krasnol 2y ago
      > It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough. Not enough for whom? The investors or the customers? We know it's for the investors who need more and more, but Spotify is a limited service. It offers music, lyrics and podcasts. You can't generate more and more money without making the service shitty if you don't plan to expand into some other service or media, but this is not what is happening here. The only thing you get more of is ads while getting less service for it. > Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify I can't even blame them. They barely get any money from Spotify, but they still have to be there because they're being held hostage in a quasi monopoly situation. > Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily? With paying customers of course. The fact remains: it's not free and yes it is the same with radio, however I have more, easy choice. Just switch the station. No need to click links somebody else send you because they want you to listen to their music, for example. FYI: there are also public broadcasters. Quite a many in less greedy countries.

piva00 2y ago

Check the financial reports, Q1 2024 has just been released a week ago: ads don't pay much for Spotify, free users are mostly subsidised because it's a conversion funnel for people to try the service and become a premium subscriber. Makes sense to not pay licencing costs for lyrics as well on top of music for free users, they don't bring enough revenue. It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided.

Krasnol 2y ago
Ads seem to pay enough to make them squeeze more and more in it. > It's free, you can't expect to have all the features that cost money per user to be provided. It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention.
- piva00 2y ago
  It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough. The best ads revenue would be to have as little as possible ads for the maximum amount of revenue, the opposite is counterproductive after a threshold (which is quite low). Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify, for most of the ads in podcasts Spotify is not earning anything. > It is not free. People pay with their data and their stolen attention. Ads on Spotify are much more similar to radio ads than the stuff done by Meta, and Google. Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily? Same for Spotify's free tier...
  - Krasnol 2y ago
    > It's been squeezed more and more exactly because it doesn't pay enough. Not enough for whom? The investors or the customers? We know it's for the investors who need more and more, but Spotify is a limited service. It offers music, lyrics and podcasts. You can't generate more and more money without making the service shitty if you don't plan to expand into some other service or media, but this is not what is happening here. The only thing you get more of is ads while getting less service for it. > Also if you mean more ads like in podcasts, those are mostly inserted by the shows themselves rather than Spotify I can't even blame them. They barely get any money from Spotify, but they still have to be there because they're being held hostage in a quasi monopoly situation. > Are radio ads stealing attention? How should radios support themselves if the listener doesn't pay anything monetarily? With paying customers of course. The fact remains: it's not free and yes it is the same with radio, however I have more, easy choice. Just switch the station. No need to click links somebody else send you because they want you to listen to their music, for example. FYI: there are also public broadcasters. Quite a many in less greedy countries.