6 ms·

Lily Allen Says Her OnlyFans Feet Pictures Make More Money Than Spotify Streams

45 points by unpopularopp 2y ago

1oooqooq 2y ago
whoever does marketing for onlyfans deserve the next physics Nobel prize
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  It’s the internet, it was made for porn and markets itself.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    Porn and FOSS have always been on the leading edge of tech.
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  Especially when you look closer at who purchased it a few years back.. some of the literal worst people in the world getting massively wealthy. Use one of your favorite paywall-bypasses if you’re interested in a good deep dive into sex trafficking and CSM.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/06/16/the-shady-secret-history-of-onlyfans-billionaire-owner/?sh=777068045c17 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/06/16/the-s...
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Don't be an arse, you imply that he was involved in sex trafficking and CSM which the article makes clear is not the case. He was just a porn spammer. Not the nicest thing to do, sure... but hardly heinous. Definitely not "some of the literal worse people". There are people that are actually involved in sex trafficking which I hope you would agree is worse.
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      Most of the old exposés about MFC have been taken down by either link rot or via his very, very large "reputation management" budget. People like Andrew Tate who literally traffic women are abhorrent, but those who profit off of those trafficking operations are only a sliver of a hair 'better'. Especially when it was patently obvious that many of the camgirls were not of legal age.
- alecco 2y ago
  Remember when there were many, many articles from MSM against OF? And then it got sold to some other people and, suddenly, no more attacks. Only stupid shock stories on how much money some woman is making on OF. What a coincidence.
bearjaws 2y ago
I always found these kinds of hit pieces interesting. Because Spotify does not exactly take a lot of money to the bank, around $200M a quarter. Spotify pays around 70% of its revenue to their artists. This means if they just fired everyone and only paid for bandwidth it would barely move the needle. Artists need to remember the alternative isn't 2-4x higher payouts - it's piracy.
- bediger4000 2y ago
  > Artists need to remember the alternative isn't 2-4x higher payouts - it's piracy. The implication here is that people as a whole don't value streaming music very much at all, right? I'm not much of a music listener, I've followed the whole evolution inattentively, why is online music of such low value?
  - chgs 2y ago
    I pay for Spotify streaming and I strongly suspect I could buy every song I’ve listened to and save a lot of money Perhaps Spotify overheads are too high, perhaps that 70% goes to the wrong people. Certainly in my view the disbursement is very wrong. I spend £20 a month and listen for one hour a day. if I listen to 4 artists equally (either by number or by seconds) then each of those 4 artists should get 70% of £5 a month each. That’s not how it works though, and I fund artists I’m not interested in and never listen to, who are listened to for 8 hours a day by others
    - graemep 2y ago
      > Perhaps Spotify overheads are too high, Its says 70% of revenues, so even if they reduced overheads and their profit to zero artists would only get 42% more. > perhaps that 70% goes to the wrong people. Possibly. Who are the wrong and right people? Some people get a lot: https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/ https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/
      - chgs 2y ago
        If I spend £10 and listen to only Lily Allen I would expect her to get £7 If you spent £10 and listen to only Taylor Swift I’d expect her to also get £7 Howver I believe if I listen to Lily for 10 hours in the month and you listen to Taylor for 90 hours, then instead Taylor gets 90% of the £14 (£12.80) and Lily gets 10% (£1.40) That doesn’t seem right.
fullshark 2y ago
I'm guessing she owns her feet photos, but she doesn't own her songs' publishing rights. There's really no reason to sign with the recording industry at all these days.
- paxys 2y ago
  My exact thought. 50-90% of an artist's revenue goes to record labels. They then run PR campaigns blaming services like Spotify for the problem.
- bvirb 2y ago
  The argument would be that the marketing done by the label(s) she has signed with is a big part of why she has 7.5M monthly Spotify listeners (and the related fame is why so many people will pay to see her feet). Not sure if that's a good argument, maybe she would've grown just as popular w/o help from a label, but that's why artists sign.
immibis 2y ago
The state of the music industry since forever: I sign away my rights, so I can get promoted, and then they buy a Royce, and it's apparent I'm paid exposure. It's not fair, and I think it's really mean. I think it's really mean. I think it's really mean. Oh, they're supposed to share, but they ruined all my dreams. They ruined all my dreams.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Lily Allen - Not Fair https://youtu.be/fUYaosyR4bE https://youtu.be/fUYaosyR4bE
Oarch 2y ago
I wonder if she'll find a way to work this into her live act. Why not. Might be hilarious.
JSDevOps 2y ago
And the only reason that is because she’s known for her music.
- hulitu 2y ago
  I've never heard about her music, but i heard about her feet. /s
AdmiralAsshat 2y ago
All this shade constantly thrown at foot fetishists, and yet this article shows they're one of the few internet denizens that are genuinely willing to pay for content!
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Yeah same with onlyfans fans too.
okasaki 2y ago
Just don't post on any other site I guess > In August 2022, a series of lawsuits were filed which alleged that OnlyFans had bribed employees of Meta to add Instagram accounts of OnlyFans creators who also sold content on OnlyFans' competitor websites to a terrorist blacklist. According to the lawsuits, adult performers including Alana Evans had traffic driven away from their Instagram accounts after being falsely tagged as terror-related, effectively shadow banning them and diminishing their ability to promote their content on rival websites.
goosejuice 2y ago
Art valuation has never been fair. It's all zeitgeist and marketing. Spotify or not, it will always be that way. This however comes down to a matter of scarcity right? How many pop stars have feet on onlyfans vs songs on Spotify? I've been a Spotify user for a few years now. It's a discovery platform for me. It drives vinyl, merch, and live sales. If you enjoy an artist go see them live and buy their merch.
ASalazarMX 2y ago
Read she's rated 10/10 on some wiki about feet, so I had to image search "Lilly Allen feet", and some pictures had her feet blurred as NSFW. What stupid times we are living now.

45 points by unpopularopp 2y ago

1oooqooq 2y ago

whoever does marketing for onlyfans deserve the next physics Nobel prize

Mistletoe 2y ago
It’s the internet, it was made for porn and markets itself.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Porn and FOSS have always been on the leading edge of tech.
mikeyouse 2y ago
Especially when you look closer at who purchased it a few years back.. some of the literal worst people in the world getting massively wealthy. Use one of your favorite paywall-bypasses if you’re interested in a good deep dive into sex trafficking and CSM.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/06/16/the-shady-secret-history-of-onlyfans-billionaire-owner/?sh=777068045c17 https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/06/16/the-s...
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Don't be an arse, you imply that he was involved in sex trafficking and CSM which the article makes clear is not the case. He was just a porn spammer. Not the nicest thing to do, sure... but hardly heinous. Definitely not "some of the literal worse people". There are people that are actually involved in sex trafficking which I hope you would agree is worse.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Most of the old exposés about MFC have been taken down by either link rot or via his very, very large "reputation management" budget. People like Andrew Tate who literally traffic women are abhorrent, but those who profit off of those trafficking operations are only a sliver of a hair 'better'. Especially when it was patently obvious that many of the camgirls were not of legal age.
alecco 2y ago
Remember when there were many, many articles from MSM against OF? And then it got sold to some other people and, suddenly, no more attacks. Only stupid shock stories on how much money some woman is making on OF. What a coincidence.

bearjaws 2y ago

I always found these kinds of hit pieces interesting. Because Spotify does not exactly take a lot of money to the bank, around $200M a quarter. Spotify pays around 70% of its revenue to their artists. This means if they just fired everyone and only paid for bandwidth it would barely move the needle. Artists need to remember the alternative isn't 2-4x higher payouts - it's piracy.

bediger4000 2y ago
> Artists need to remember the alternative isn't 2-4x higher payouts - it's piracy. The implication here is that people as a whole don't value streaming music very much at all, right? I'm not much of a music listener, I've followed the whole evolution inattentively, why is online music of such low value?
- chgs 2y ago
  I pay for Spotify streaming and I strongly suspect I could buy every song I’ve listened to and save a lot of money Perhaps Spotify overheads are too high, perhaps that 70% goes to the wrong people. Certainly in my view the disbursement is very wrong. I spend £20 a month and listen for one hour a day. if I listen to 4 artists equally (either by number or by seconds) then each of those 4 artists should get 70% of £5 a month each. That’s not how it works though, and I fund artists I’m not interested in and never listen to, who are listened to for 8 hours a day by others
  - graemep 2y ago
    > Perhaps Spotify overheads are too high, Its says 70% of revenues, so even if they reduced overheads and their profit to zero artists would only get 42% more. > perhaps that 70% goes to the wrong people. Possibly. Who are the wrong and right people? Some people get a lot: https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/ https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/
    - chgs 2y ago
      If I spend £10 and listen to only Lily Allen I would expect her to get £7 If you spent £10 and listen to only Taylor Swift I’d expect her to also get £7 Howver I believe if I listen to Lily for 10 hours in the month and you listen to Taylor for 90 hours, then instead Taylor gets 90% of the £14 (£12.80) and Lily gets 10% (£1.40) That doesn’t seem right.

fullshark 2y ago

I'm guessing she owns her feet photos, but she doesn't own her songs' publishing rights. There's really no reason to sign with the recording industry at all these days.

paxys 2y ago
My exact thought. 50-90% of an artist's revenue goes to record labels. They then run PR campaigns blaming services like Spotify for the problem.
bvirb 2y ago
The argument would be that the marketing done by the label(s) she has signed with is a big part of why she has 7.5M monthly Spotify listeners (and the related fame is why so many people will pay to see her feet). Not sure if that's a good argument, maybe she would've grown just as popular w/o help from a label, but that's why artists sign.

immibis 2y ago

The state of the music industry since forever: I sign away my rights, so I can get promoted, and then they buy a Royce, and it's apparent I'm paid exposure. It's not fair, and I think it's really mean. I think it's really mean. I think it's really mean. Oh, they're supposed to share, but they ruined all my dreams. They ruined all my dreams.

fragmede 2y ago
Lily Allen - Not Fair https://youtu.be/fUYaosyR4bE https://youtu.be/fUYaosyR4bE

Oarch 2y ago

I wonder if she'll find a way to work this into her live act. Why not. Might be hilarious.

JSDevOps 2y ago

And the only reason that is because she’s known for her music.

hulitu 2y ago
I've never heard about her music, but i heard about her feet. /s

AdmiralAsshat 2y ago

All this shade constantly thrown at foot fetishists, and yet this article shows they're one of the few internet denizens that are genuinely willing to pay for content!

EasyMark 2y ago
Yeah same with onlyfans fans too.

okasaki 2y ago

Just don't post on any other site I guess > In August 2022, a series of lawsuits were filed which alleged that OnlyFans had bribed employees of Meta to add Instagram accounts of OnlyFans creators who also sold content on OnlyFans' competitor websites to a terrorist blacklist. According to the lawsuits, adult performers including Alana Evans had traffic driven away from their Instagram accounts after being falsely tagged as terror-related, effectively shadow banning them and diminishing their ability to promote their content on rival websites.

goosejuice 2y ago

Art valuation has never been fair. It's all zeitgeist and marketing. Spotify or not, it will always be that way. This however comes down to a matter of scarcity right? How many pop stars have feet on onlyfans vs songs on Spotify? I've been a Spotify user for a few years now. It's a discovery platform for me. It drives vinyl, merch, and live sales. If you enjoy an artist go see them live and buy their merch.

ASalazarMX 2y ago

Read she's rated 10/10 on some wiki about feet, so I had to image search "Lilly Allen feet", and some pictures had her feet blurred as NSFW. What stupid times we are living now.