5 ms·

Spotify Paid $10B to the Music Industry in 2024, $1B More Than Last Year

37 points by ilamont 2y ago

johncoltrane 2y ago
Spotify is part of the music industry.
tclancy 2y ago
Wow, that’s a back rub of a puff piece even for a trade rag. Hix In Stix Love Context-free Stats might be a better title. It conflates data from multiple, unrelated years, makes no mention of how their traffic or revenue grew during those years and tries to pass blame onto amorphous “rights holders” who are the ones really taking too much money.
bearjaws 2y ago
It's a shame Spotify is just going to get killed by large music groups and anti-competitive platforms from Google and Apple. Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators, but you effectively have large middle men in the way. Apple and Google don't even need to turn a profit on their platforms, and both of them are hurting Spotify directly by taking 30% of their subscription payments. Neither of them even directly report revenue from their services. Think about it, Apple or Google make more net profit from Spotify subscriptions than Spotify does. Meanwhile, TikTok only pays per the number of videos using your music, not the number of times the videos are played. The only worse deal for artists would to not be paid at all...
- Always42 2y ago
  Not everybody pays for subscription through those platforms afaik
  - barbazoo 2y ago
    I didn’t even know I could. Not that I want to obviously.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Actually no one does.
- echelon 2y ago
  Antitrust. Break up big tech next election cycle. The big companies are suffocating entire industries because their scale is so large that they don't even need to profit in many of their businesses. They just enter new markets, snuff out the competition, and add eyeballs to their platforms. Amazon is a movie studio and a grocery store and a primary healthcare provider. Google owns every ingress to the web on every pane of glass. Apple taxes and polices all activity happening on a platform they tightly control and that due to economies of scale you can't launch a competitor. Their duopoly partner in crime is complicit.
  - xandrius 2y ago
    Yep, big tech sounds like they are in a dire position right now /s
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    This has absolutely nothing to do with Spotify’s bad business model. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for almost a decade Amazon doesn’t wield much power at all in the grocery industry or the movie streaming industry.
    - echelon 2y ago
      Because Apple and Google are abusing their power to tax and dictate the shape of all modern digital businesses.
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        Apple doesn’t “tax” Spotify. Spotify doesn’t allow in app purchasing, neither does Netflix. Apple is not getting 30% from Spotify
  - elevatedastalt 2y ago
    I think the big entities you should be directing your anger towards are the big media companies, not tech companies. When it comes to streaming, Media companies have the Tech companies balls in a vice grip.
- thunkingdeep 2y ago
  If you login to Spotify on the website you can get a better deal and then you can sign in on your phone and it will work like normal. If they got into trouble I assume they’d just make all the users do it that way…
  - bearjaws 2y ago
    That is an exclusive back door deal with both Google and Apple, that was likely only created because of how much antitrust pressure they were under. Times are changing, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple backs out of the deal over time.
    - permo-w 2y ago
      they mean that you can pay for spotify without it being through the app store or play store, meaning that Apple and Google can't take a cut, meaning that it's cheaper. that's not some kind of deal, that's just how it works.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      There was never a “back door deal”. Very few of the subscription streaming services allow in app purchases.
- fullshark 2y ago
  > Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators, Creators or rights holders? There's a huge difference.
  - ganoushoreilly 2y ago
    While true, its regularly implied that the creators are being screwed by Spotify when in fact it would be between them and the rights holders and Spotify has nothing to do with that relationship / contract.
  - vips7L 2y ago
    Isn't it the creators choice to sell their rights to a publisher? Is anyone holding a gun to their head?
    - bearjaws 2y ago
      The deal they made 8 years ago that gives the publisher all the rights is figuratively holding a gun to their head, yes.
- tgv 2y ago
  > Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators The article says "nearly 70%" in 2023. Like Apple. So they would get to keep $4.2B for themselves. That's quite a lot. It also matters that Spotify undercut other ways of distributing music, effectively reducing income for artists. > Meanwhile, TikTok ... Of course, there's always a worse one.
  - efsavage 2y ago
    > effectively reducing income for artists. Does it though? Revenues are off their 90s peaks, but coming back[1], and keep in mind that in the 90s a _huge_ portion (~50%) of that went to the retail store and physical media manufacturing. [1] https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc
    - jppope 2y ago
      thank you for providing links and reminding everyone what the world was like before streaming
      - ghaff 2y ago
        Well, it really wasn't that bad. People were more selective about what they listened to but the average person probably spent about what they do today on streaming. (Which also probably sets some ceiling on streaming prices and digital entertainment more broadly.)
        efsavage 2y ago
        I'm not sure selective is the right word, there were just far fewer choices. A typical record store would have O(thousands) of different titles, whereas spotify has over 100 million. Obviously much of that is trash, but it's still a huge difference. It's also worth noting that a big contributor to the 90s spike was people replacing tapes/records with CDs, which were a far superior medium for most usage. The decline after 2000 was not streaming, since that didn't exist, but the wind-down of the upgrade cycle and the rise of file sharing and 0.99 digital track purchases in lieu of $15-20 album purchases.
- skord 2y ago
  Kids don't care about corporate ethics or artist respect, they care about where their friends are and where their playlists and memories live. Spotify is the soundtrack of their lives and my own kids love their sort of curated history of music. Moving their playlists isn't going to happen, asking them to switch to my Apple One subscription would be like asking them to rewrite their social identity. My own household would be in open revolt if I asked them to switch to anything else.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Do your kids pay for Spotify themselves? If I had a family Apple One subscription I wouldn't be very inclined to pay for an essentially redundant music streaming service.
    - dleink 2y ago
      Disinclined, but I would like to publicly thank my parents for a CD Budget that was far too high for a teenager. I was probably averaging 1-3 CDs/month in the 90s, that's a ton of money!
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    So your kids run your household?
    - dleink 2y ago
      We're talking about a likely inconsequential amount of money for a thing that might be of high importance to a member of the household. What are you talking about?
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        I’m talking about training kids early that life is about choices and budgeting so when they are grown and operating on a limited budget they aren’t paying for unnecessary subscriptions.
- basisword 2y ago
  >> Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators This pisses me off every time I see it. It makes Spotify look great and that's why they share it. It completely ignores the fact that they offer a free plan that a large percentage of their users enjoy. The important figure in my mind is the per stream rate and when I last checked Apple was paying double the rate Spotify does (because Spotify's per stream rate is dragged down due to its free users). Artists don't have a way to say to Spotify, only show my music to premium users and pay me a higher rate. It's one (of many) ways in which Spotify takes advantage of artists for its own gain. Another being their new policy to not pay artists who get less than 1000 streams on a track in a 12 month period. They just blanket decided they were going to keep that money for themselves.
  - jppope 2y ago
    Not sure you remember where we were in 2012. We've come a long way from listeners not paying at all to $10B. The system is far from perfect but it is better than it was
    - basisword 2y ago
      Of course, and streaming was always going to be the best solution. But unfortunately it's a market where there are a few big players and they can use that power in an abusive way. Spotify can do better. And puff pieces where they brag bout 'percentage of revenue' or speak in absolute numbers are bullshit and should be called out as such. I mean this should be criminal given their market power: > their new policy to not pay artists who get less than 1000 streams on a track in a 12 month period It may not be much to the individual artists (at most a few hundred $ a year in the extreme cases) but it's a nice chunk of change for Spotify to pocket.
      - freetime2 2y ago
        Spotify doesn’t “pocket” the money. Here is their justification, which seems reasonable to me: > Tens of millions of them have been streamed between 1 and 1,000 times over the past year and, on average, those tracks generated $0.03 per month. > Because labels and distributors require a minimum amount to withdraw (usually $2-$50 per withdrawal), and banks charge a fee for the transaction (usually $1-$20 per withdrawal), this money often doesn't reach the uploaders. And these small payments are often forgotten about. > But in aggregate, these small disregarded payments have added up to $40 million per year, which could instead increase the payments to artists who are most dependent on streaming revenue. > Spotify will not make additional money under this model. There is no change to the size of the music royalty pool being paid out to rights holders from Spotify; we will simply use the tens of millions of dollars annually to increase the payments to all eligible tracks, rather than spreading it out into $0.03 payments. https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-system https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-...
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  >It's a shame What's special about Spotify in this situation? It's also a behemoth with at-least-somewhat-controversial standing in the music community. It's not like it's the little guy fighting the good fight. Personally, I think YouTube Music is better anyway.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Spotify is getting “killed” because it was always a bad business to be in when your costs - payments to labels - scale linearly with your revenue. The exact opposite of a normal tech company that has high fixed costs and very low marginal costs. > Apple and Google don't even need to turn a profit on their platforms, and both of them are hurting Spotify directly by taking 30% of their subscription payments. Neither of them even directly report revenue from their services. This is not true. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases of subscriptions in almost a decade.
  - jsnell 2y ago
    > This is not true. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases of subscriptions in almost a decade. That is not true either. Spotify's Android app allows purchasing Premium in-app, with Spotify as a payment provider. I believe it's also the case that Apple Music on Android has in-app purchases, with Apple as the payment provider.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      That’s true for Android. And Google only takes a 4% cut when using Google payments and a 0% cut when using Spotify. But Spotify doesn’t pay Google 30% https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-android-billing-commission-secret-deal https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-... So that’s still not a cause for their financial issues.
- jsnell 2y ago
  > Apple and Google don't even need to turn a profit on their platforms, and both of them are hurting Spotify directly by taking 30% of their subscription payments. I think you mean just Apple there. Spotify on Android has in-app Premium subscriptions using Spotify as the payment provider (at the same price as Premium on the web).
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Google doesn’t pay Spotify anything when you do an in app purchase using Spotify’s payment system and charges 4% when you use Google’s payment system. So that’s not the cause of Spotify’s trouble either
swarnie 2y ago
You can argue back and forth over how much they pay and how its distributed. For me personally its a black and white divide. I pay for Spotify and something gets put back in to the industry or we all pretend its 2005 again and start sailing the high seas so nothing goes back. I'm sure with a 1gb up/down home connection its easier than ever.
- Nursie 2y ago
  It's not black and white when there are other platforms that do a better job at distribution.
  - swarnie 2y ago
    I'll admit ignorance in this area. Can you name me one that will do unlimited everything, no adverts, PC and mobile for about £9 a month?
    - Nursie 2y ago
      Apple, Deezer, Tidal and Spotify are all about the same price (Spotify is £11.99 in the UK, Tidal is 10.99) and they all have all of those features. Tidal claim to distribute more to artists than the other big ones, and Deezer claim to do so as well, or have a better compensation model, or something. AFAICT from using Spotify, Deezer and Apple they all have access to the same library, with more or less the exact same gaps. This is not to say any of them are perfect, but it does give us room to say “Spotify have flaws with how they spend our subscription money, you can choose not to use them” without implicitly or explicitly encouraging piracy. Some artists I like have encouraged people to switch away to the other services because of what they see as unfair practice from Spotify.
    - Nursie 2y ago
      Currently I use Apple because I bundle it with other Apple stuff. Plus on top of those features I can also sync my own mp3 collection and use that from wherever (in theory, in practice the sync is partially successful, which is somewhat frustrating).
- 2y ago
Y-bar 2y ago
I think Spotify's payment model is flawed, not the large number they pay out, but how they distribute it. If I pay them EUR 10 per month and listen to 200 songs by seven artists/bands, I would like Spotify to first take what they need to run the service (and make a profit) from the money. Then I would like the rest of my payment to be divided among the artists of the songs I listened to. Because Spotify seems to pool all payments into one large sum, if an artist has some fans who listens 500x each to their songs then those fans will "siphon off" my payment to their favourite artist.
- pavlov 2y ago
  Do they pay podcast creators from the same pool? It really sucks if my subscription money goes to Joe Rogan because some dummy listened to him 10x more than I listened to music.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Companies may pretend they have buckets of money but, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the same bottom line. So, effectively yes, the same pool.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    Joe Rogan and the people Spotify have a contract with sign a contract for a fixed amount.
- melvinroest 2y ago
  Wait what? So people that use the service more support their artists more? That's unfair. I pay the same 10 euro's per month as they do. My use should have nothing to do with it. If I decide to only listen to one song, then the proceeds of my 10 euro's should go to that artists. At least, I'd find that logical. I wish I didn't know what you just wrote, but thanks for mentioning it anyway.
  - Y-bar 2y ago
    Yup, there are a few more variables[1] going into it, but that is the cliffs notes. 1. https://releese.io/article/how-are-royalties-calculated-on-spotify/ https://releese.io/article/how-are-royalties-calculated-on-s...
wnevets 2y ago
thats it?
ollybee 2y ago
A much better model would be that Spotify split the monthly revenue from each user amongst the artists they listened to that month.
_bin_ 2y ago
Q2'23: 343mm MAU Q2'24: 393mm MAU They have 114% the users and paid 111% the royalties. Seems reasonable.
ang_cire 2y ago
I don't use Spotify at all, I still buy my music (direct from the artist if I can) so I have the mp3s. No messy bs with some streaming service that can cut off my music.
musesum 2y ago
>> In 2023, the company said it pays out nearly 70% to the industry Does not stop there; there are tiers of middlemen: https://youtu.be/kVY7-Ti77UQ?si=2neBSw4yJL7qGdxX&t=441 https://youtu.be/kVY7-Ti77UQ?si=2neBSw4yJL7qGdxX&t=441
rajnathani 2y ago
Ignoring the 425M free users (where ad revenue comes in), given that Spotify has 250M paying users, that it translates to $3.33/month/user being paid to the music industry. This isn't a lot. And in maybe a more benevolent world where automatic tipping a coffee's amount of money to a weighted-distribution of your favorite music artists every month is a thing (think: one dropping change money into the hat / empty guitar box of a performing street music artist), that we could not only have way better open music clients but also have this $3.33/month go directly to the artists. This is predicated on benevolence, as in this case music will be free to download in the first place.

37 points by ilamont 2y ago

Spotify is part of the music industry.

Wow, that’s a back rub of a puff piece even for a trade rag. Hix In Stix Love Context-free Stats might be a better title. It conflates data from multiple, unrelated years, makes no mention of how their traffic or revenue grew during those years and tries to pass blame onto amorphous “rights holders” who are the ones really taking too much money.

bearjaws 2y ago

It's a shame Spotify is just going to get killed by large music groups and anti-competitive platforms from Google and Apple. Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators, but you effectively have large middle men in the way. Apple and Google don't even need to turn a profit on their platforms, and both of them are hurting Spotify directly by taking 30% of their subscription payments. Neither of them even directly report revenue from their services. Think about it, Apple or Google make more net profit from Spotify subscriptions than Spotify does. Meanwhile, TikTok only pays per the number of videos using your music, not the number of times the videos are played. The only worse deal for artists would to not be paid at all...

Always42 2y ago
Not everybody pays for subscription through those platforms afaik
- barbazoo 2y ago
  I didn’t even know I could. Not that I want to obviously.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Actually no one does.
echelon 2y ago
Antitrust. Break up big tech next election cycle. The big companies are suffocating entire industries because their scale is so large that they don't even need to profit in many of their businesses. They just enter new markets, snuff out the competition, and add eyeballs to their platforms. Amazon is a movie studio and a grocery store and a primary healthcare provider. Google owns every ingress to the web on every pane of glass. Apple taxes and polices all activity happening on a platform they tightly control and that due to economies of scale you can't launch a competitor. Their duopoly partner in crime is complicit.
- xandrius 2y ago
  Yep, big tech sounds like they are in a dire position right now /s
- scarface_74 2y ago
  This has absolutely nothing to do with Spotify’s bad business model. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases for almost a decade Amazon doesn’t wield much power at all in the grocery industry or the movie streaming industry.
  - echelon 2y ago
    Because Apple and Google are abusing their power to tax and dictate the shape of all modern digital businesses.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      Apple doesn’t “tax” Spotify. Spotify doesn’t allow in app purchasing, neither does Netflix. Apple is not getting 30% from Spotify
- elevatedastalt 2y ago
  I think the big entities you should be directing your anger towards are the big media companies, not tech companies. When it comes to streaming, Media companies have the Tech companies balls in a vice grip.
thunkingdeep 2y ago
If you login to Spotify on the website you can get a better deal and then you can sign in on your phone and it will work like normal. If they got into trouble I assume they’d just make all the users do it that way…
- bearjaws 2y ago
  That is an exclusive back door deal with both Google and Apple, that was likely only created because of how much antitrust pressure they were under. Times are changing, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple backs out of the deal over time.
  - permo-w 2y ago
    they mean that you can pay for spotify without it being through the app store or play store, meaning that Apple and Google can't take a cut, meaning that it's cheaper. that's not some kind of deal, that's just how it works.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    There was never a “back door deal”. Very few of the subscription streaming services allow in app purchases.
fullshark 2y ago
> Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators, Creators or rights holders? There's a huge difference.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  While true, its regularly implied that the creators are being screwed by Spotify when in fact it would be between them and the rights holders and Spotify has nothing to do with that relationship / contract.
- vips7L 2y ago
  Isn't it the creators choice to sell their rights to a publisher? Is anyone holding a gun to their head?
  - bearjaws 2y ago
    The deal they made 8 years ago that gives the publisher all the rights is figuratively holding a gun to their head, yes.
tgv 2y ago
> Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators The article says "nearly 70%" in 2023. Like Apple. So they would get to keep $4.2B for themselves. That's quite a lot. It also matters that Spotify undercut other ways of distributing music, effectively reducing income for artists. > Meanwhile, TikTok ... Of course, there's always a worse one.
- efsavage 2y ago
  > effectively reducing income for artists. Does it though? Revenues are off their 90s peaks, but coming back[1], and keep in mind that in the 90s a _huge_ portion (~50%) of that went to the retail store and physical media manufacturing. [1] https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc
  - jppope 2y ago
    thank you for providing links and reminding everyone what the world was like before streaming
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Well, it really wasn't that bad. People were more selective about what they listened to but the average person probably spent about what they do today on streaming. (Which also probably sets some ceiling on streaming prices and digital entertainment more broadly.)
      - efsavage 2y ago
        I'm not sure selective is the right word, there were just far fewer choices. A typical record store would have O(thousands) of different titles, whereas spotify has over 100 million. Obviously much of that is trash, but it's still a huge difference. It's also worth noting that a big contributor to the 90s spike was people replacing tapes/records with CDs, which were a far superior medium for most usage. The decline after 2000 was not streaming, since that didn't exist, but the wind-down of the upgrade cycle and the rise of file sharing and 0.99 digital track purchases in lieu of $15-20 album purchases.
skord 2y ago
Kids don't care about corporate ethics or artist respect, they care about where their friends are and where their playlists and memories live. Spotify is the soundtrack of their lives and my own kids love their sort of curated history of music. Moving their playlists isn't going to happen, asking them to switch to my Apple One subscription would be like asking them to rewrite their social identity. My own household would be in open revolt if I asked them to switch to anything else.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Do your kids pay for Spotify themselves? If I had a family Apple One subscription I wouldn't be very inclined to pay for an essentially redundant music streaming service.
  - dleink 2y ago
    Disinclined, but I would like to publicly thank my parents for a CD Budget that was far too high for a teenager. I was probably averaging 1-3 CDs/month in the 90s, that's a ton of money!
- scarface_74 2y ago
  So your kids run your household?
  - dleink 2y ago
    We're talking about a likely inconsequential amount of money for a thing that might be of high importance to a member of the household. What are you talking about?
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      I’m talking about training kids early that life is about choices and budgeting so when they are grown and operating on a limited budget they aren’t paying for unnecessary subscriptions.
basisword 2y ago
>> Spotify pays out 80% of its money to its creators This pisses me off every time I see it. It makes Spotify look great and that's why they share it. It completely ignores the fact that they offer a free plan that a large percentage of their users enjoy. The important figure in my mind is the per stream rate and when I last checked Apple was paying double the rate Spotify does (because Spotify's per stream rate is dragged down due to its free users). Artists don't have a way to say to Spotify, only show my music to premium users and pay me a higher rate. It's one (of many) ways in which Spotify takes advantage of artists for its own gain. Another being their new policy to not pay artists who get less than 1000 streams on a track in a 12 month period. They just blanket decided they were going to keep that money for themselves.
- jppope 2y ago
  Not sure you remember where we were in 2012. We've come a long way from listeners not paying at all to $10B. The system is far from perfect but it is better than it was
  - basisword 2y ago
    Of course, and streaming was always going to be the best solution. But unfortunately it's a market where there are a few big players and they can use that power in an abusive way. Spotify can do better. And puff pieces where they brag bout 'percentage of revenue' or speak in absolute numbers are bullshit and should be called out as such. I mean this should be criminal given their market power: > their new policy to not pay artists who get less than 1000 streams on a track in a 12 month period It may not be much to the individual artists (at most a few hundred $ a year in the extreme cases) but it's a nice chunk of change for Spotify to pocket.
    - freetime2 2y ago
      Spotify doesn’t “pocket” the money. Here is their justification, which seems reasonable to me: > Tens of millions of them have been streamed between 1 and 1,000 times over the past year and, on average, those tracks generated $0.03 per month. > Because labels and distributors require a minimum amount to withdraw (usually $2-$50 per withdrawal), and banks charge a fee for the transaction (usually $1-$20 per withdrawal), this money often doesn't reach the uploaders. And these small payments are often forgotten about. > But in aggregate, these small disregarded payments have added up to $40 million per year, which could instead increase the payments to artists who are most dependent on streaming revenue. > Spotify will not make additional money under this model. There is no change to the size of the music royalty pool being paid out to rights holders from Spotify; we will simply use the tens of millions of dollars annually to increase the payments to all eligible tracks, rather than spreading it out into $0.03 payments. https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-system https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-...
itsoktocry 2y ago
>It's a shame What's special about Spotify in this situation? It's also a behemoth with at-least-somewhat-controversial standing in the music community. It's not like it's the little guy fighting the good fight. Personally, I think YouTube Music is better anyway.
scarface_74 2y ago
Spotify is getting “killed” because it was always a bad business to be in when your costs - payments to labels - scale linearly with your revenue. The exact opposite of a normal tech company that has high fixed costs and very low marginal costs. > Apple and Google don't even need to turn a profit on their platforms, and both of them are hurting Spotify directly by taking 30% of their subscription payments. Neither of them even directly report revenue from their services. This is not true. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases of subscriptions in almost a decade.
- jsnell 2y ago
  > This is not true. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app purchases of subscriptions in almost a decade. That is not true either. Spotify's Android app allows purchasing Premium in-app, with Spotify as a payment provider. I believe it's also the case that Apple Music on Android has in-app purchases, with Apple as the payment provider.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    That’s true for Android. And Google only takes a 4% cut when using Google payments and a 0% cut when using Spotify. But Spotify doesn’t pay Google 30% https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-android-billing-commission-secret-deal https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-... So that’s still not a cause for their financial issues.
jsnell 2y ago
> Apple and Google don't even need to turn a profit on their platforms, and both of them are hurting Spotify directly by taking 30% of their subscription payments. I think you mean just Apple there. Spotify on Android has in-app Premium subscriptions using Spotify as the payment provider (at the same price as Premium on the web).
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Google doesn’t pay Spotify anything when you do an in app purchase using Spotify’s payment system and charges 4% when you use Google’s payment system. So that’s not the cause of Spotify’s trouble either

swarnie 2y ago

You can argue back and forth over how much they pay and how its distributed. For me personally its a black and white divide. I pay for Spotify and something gets put back in to the industry or we all pretend its 2005 again and start sailing the high seas so nothing goes back. I'm sure with a 1gb up/down home connection its easier than ever.

Nursie 2y ago
It's not black and white when there are other platforms that do a better job at distribution.
- swarnie 2y ago
  I'll admit ignorance in this area. Can you name me one that will do unlimited everything, no adverts, PC and mobile for about £9 a month?
  - Nursie 2y ago
    Apple, Deezer, Tidal and Spotify are all about the same price (Spotify is £11.99 in the UK, Tidal is 10.99) and they all have all of those features. Tidal claim to distribute more to artists than the other big ones, and Deezer claim to do so as well, or have a better compensation model, or something. AFAICT from using Spotify, Deezer and Apple they all have access to the same library, with more or less the exact same gaps. This is not to say any of them are perfect, but it does give us room to say “Spotify have flaws with how they spend our subscription money, you can choose not to use them” without implicitly or explicitly encouraging piracy. Some artists I like have encouraged people to switch away to the other services because of what they see as unfair practice from Spotify.
  - Nursie 2y ago
    Currently I use Apple because I bundle it with other Apple stuff. Plus on top of those features I can also sync my own mp3 collection and use that from wherever (in theory, in practice the sync is partially successful, which is somewhat frustrating).
2y ago

Y-bar 2y ago

I think Spotify's payment model is flawed, not the large number they pay out, but how they distribute it. If I pay them EUR 10 per month and listen to 200 songs by seven artists/bands, I would like Spotify to first take what they need to run the service (and make a profit) from the money. Then I would like the rest of my payment to be divided among the artists of the songs I listened to. Because Spotify seems to pool all payments into one large sum, if an artist has some fans who listens 500x each to their songs then those fans will "siphon off" my payment to their favourite artist.

pavlov 2y ago
Do they pay podcast creators from the same pool? It really sucks if my subscription money goes to Joe Rogan because some dummy listened to him 10x more than I listened to music.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Companies may pretend they have buckets of money but, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the same bottom line. So, effectively yes, the same pool.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Joe Rogan and the people Spotify have a contract with sign a contract for a fixed amount.
melvinroest 2y ago
Wait what? So people that use the service more support their artists more? That's unfair. I pay the same 10 euro's per month as they do. My use should have nothing to do with it. If I decide to only listen to one song, then the proceeds of my 10 euro's should go to that artists. At least, I'd find that logical. I wish I didn't know what you just wrote, but thanks for mentioning it anyway.
- Y-bar 2y ago
  Yup, there are a few more variables[1] going into it, but that is the cliffs notes. 1. https://releese.io/article/how-are-royalties-calculated-on-spotify/ https://releese.io/article/how-are-royalties-calculated-on-s...

wnevets 2y ago

thats it?

ollybee 2y ago

A much better model would be that Spotify split the monthly revenue from each user amongst the artists they listened to that month.

_bin_ 2y ago

Q2'23: 343mm MAU Q2'24: 393mm MAU They have 114% the users and paid 111% the royalties. Seems reasonable.

ang_cire 2y ago

I don't use Spotify at all, I still buy my music (direct from the artist if I can) so I have the mp3s. No messy bs with some streaming service that can cut off my music.

musesum 2y ago

>> In 2023, the company said it pays out nearly 70% to the industry Does not stop there; there are tiers of middlemen: https://youtu.be/kVY7-Ti77UQ?si=2neBSw4yJL7qGdxX&t=441 https://youtu.be/kVY7-Ti77UQ?si=2neBSw4yJL7qGdxX&t=441

rajnathani 2y ago

Ignoring the 425M free users (where ad revenue comes in), given that Spotify has 250M paying users, that it translates to $3.33/month/user being paid to the music industry. This isn't a lot. And in maybe a more benevolent world where automatic tipping a coffee's amount of money to a weighted-distribution of your favorite music artists every month is a thing (think: one dropping change money into the hat / empty guitar box of a performing street music artist), that we could not only have way better open music clients but also have this $3.33/month go directly to the artists. This is predicated on benevolence, as in this case music will be free to download in the first place.