4 ms·

Without giving specific numbers, I think the following situation is inherently unfair: I pay Spotify $20. They take their cut (say, 50%) and there's $10 left f

Without giving specific numbers, I think the following situation is inherently unfair: I pay Spotify $20. They take their cut (say, 50%) and there's $10 left for the artists. I've only listened to one small artist throughout the entire month. The artist does not get $10 but much less despite Spotify knowing precisely which artists I listened to.

benoau 1y ago
They on average pass approximately 70% on, but the record labels also eat heavily into that before the artists get their share. I'm reminded of an effort a few years ago to legislate the creators getting 50% - which of course meant the "platforms" and the "labels" would collectively share only the other 50%. Which is presumably why the initiative failed. > The three major labels - Sony, Universal and Warner Music - faced some of the toughest questioning of the inquiry, and were accused of a "lack of clarity" by MPs. > They largely argued to maintain the status quo, saying any disruption could damage investment in new music, and resisted the idea that streaming was comparable to radio - where artists receive a 50/50 royalty split. > "It is a narrow-margin business, so it wouldn't actually take that much to upset the so-called apple cart," said Apple Music's Elena Segal. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57838473 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57838473 These days Spotify has hundreds of millions for Joe Rogan and podcast investments, and Apple reports a 75% profit margin on services, so I guess it is quite profitable for everyone except the actual artists.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  indeed - record company exec salaries don't come out of the ether, that's money that could otherwise go in the artists' pockets
- scarface_74 1y ago
  Apple Music is a miniscule part of service revenue compared to App Store, payments from Google ($20 Billion a year), AppleCare, etc.
  - steveBK123 1y ago
    Right, and before you even get into password sharing you have stuff like this: Apple Family Plan: Costs $25.95 per month, includes Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, and 200GB of iCloud+ storage, and allows sharing with up to five other people So $5.20/mo per head and you get TV, games and storage with it. Or Spotify Family Plan - 6 Premium accounts for family members under one roof. $11.49/month So family plans seem to discount unlimited music streaming down to $2/mo per head. $24/year or what a single CD used to cost, before even doubling it for inflation..
- sniffers 1y ago
  If I pay Spotify $20 and listen to one song one, surely they don't send that artist $14...
  - yladiz 1y ago
    They don’t. What happens is that your listen is pooled with all listens of all songs, and every payout the artist/label gets a check for the percentage of that total listening pool. For small artists that have relatively few listens, they don’t get almost any money. So it doesn’t matter if Spotify passes on 70%, most artists aren’t going to see any substantial portion of that, label or not.
- hndamien 1y ago
  The record company representing that one artist also does not get $7 of the $10.
higgins 1y ago
shameless plug: SoundCloud implements a "fan powered royalties" model, so that $10 in your example goes to those who artists who you stream https://community.soundcloud.com/fanpoweredroyalties https://community.soundcloud.com/fanpoweredroyalties
- cortesoft 1y ago
  I have often thought this method made more sense. It should not be total revenue / total streams, it should be what a single person pays going to exactly what they listen to. It isn’t fair that someone who listens to a ton of things has a much greater say in how the money is distributed even though they pay the same as someone who only listens to one artist.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    By that logic the most fair would be pay per play for every song, with some fraction to the artist. But subscribers really like the single payment for unlimited plays model.
    - cortesoft 1y ago
      Whether that is the most ‘fair’ method or not, a pay per play model wouldn’t be the best for either listeners, artists, or streaming company. There is always this challenge for creating a business model around digital goods; there is a non-zero cost to create the good, but there is a near zero cost per unit of the good. No one is going to want a pay per listen model. The heaviest users aren’t going to want to pay that much and will likely turn to piracy, and the lightest users don’t have that strong a desire to listen to music (as demonstrated by their light usage) to want to pay for each stream. The advantage of a single price, all you can stream, model is that it generates revenue for artists AND it properly recognizes the fact that each stream has a near zero unit cost. In my model, each listener generates a fixed revenue that is divided up amongst all the artists who create something that user listens to in the same proportion that they listen to it.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
Spivak 1y ago
There's just one problem with your model. There's no royalty difference between a Spotify subscriber playing one song vs 1000 songs if it's just % of subscriber's listening time. Someone who gets more plays by absolute numbers is going to be upset when they don't get a proportionate amount of money. The only way to make more money on Spotify is to get more fans and/or convince your existing fans to listen to fewer artists. This is a popular HN suggestion for disbursement but it makes the math super weird.
- ruffsl 1y ago
  This isn't likely to happen or change, but what if subscribers were instead billed by usage? If you streamed 24 hours a day for the whole month, that could round out to $10 a month, but if less, then simply a proportional percentage. Spotify would never forgo current profits from flat monthly plans, but then why shouldn't artists be granted the same advantages in royalties proportional to a subscriber's ratio of playtime if the subscribers are charged a flat rate any how?
lawgimenez 1y ago
I just found out Spotify is $20? In my country it's less than $3. Why the huge pricing difference.
- al_borland 1y ago
  It usually comes down to cost of living in the county.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Speaking of Spotify, they apparently just updated their Terms of Use as of September 3, 2025, effective September 26, 2025. From the email I received: > We have clarified that you may only access the version of the Spotify service available where you live at the applicable price set for that version of the service. > We have clarified how we bill you for subscriptions and how subscriptions may be canceled. > We have provided more information about different ways in which content may be posted or shared on the platform. > We have also provided more information about our content policies and practices, and our personalized recommendations. > We have included links to important user policies and guidelines for your ease of reference. > We are making some updates to the arbitration agreement. Found some more discussion of pricing issues: https://old.reddit.com/r/digitalnomad/comments/1n4x58f/spotify_premium_to_turn_on_14day_restriction_for/ https://old.reddit.com/r/digitalnomad/comments/1n4x58f/spoti... And this change was not called out in the email, but seems interesting to note: https://musictechpolicy.com/2025/09/02/ai-implications-of-spotifys-updated-terms-of-use-your-data-is-their-new-oil/ https://musictechpolicy.com/2025/09/02/ai-implications-of-sp...
    - shrikant 1y ago
      YouTube have done the same with the Premium subscription. From the email I received: > We are updating the Terms of Service for YouTube Premium, YouTube Music Premium and YouTube Premium Lite subscriptions ('Terms'). These new Terms will be included in the YouTube Paid Service Terms of Service and will come into effect on September 26, 2025. > We are making these changes to improve clarity and transparency regarding your subscription, including: Clarifying our plan types. Explaining our policies on promotional offers and accepted payment methods. Clarifying that your subscription access should be predominantly from the country where you signed up. Providing additional explanations and clarifications on our subscription policies.

benoau 1y ago

They on average pass approximately 70% on, but the record labels also eat heavily into that before the artists get their share. I'm reminded of an effort a few years ago to legislate the creators getting 50% - which of course meant the "platforms" and the "labels" would collectively share only the other 50%. Which is presumably why the initiative failed. > The three major labels - Sony, Universal and Warner Music - faced some of the toughest questioning of the inquiry, and were accused of a "lack of clarity" by MPs. > They largely argued to maintain the status quo, saying any disruption could damage investment in new music, and resisted the idea that streaming was comparable to radio - where artists receive a 50/50 royalty split. > "It is a narrow-margin business, so it wouldn't actually take that much to upset the so-called apple cart," said Apple Music's Elena Segal. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57838473 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57838473 These days Spotify has hundreds of millions for Joe Rogan and podcast investments, and Apple reports a 75% profit margin on services, so I guess it is quite profitable for everyone except the actual artists.

micromacrofoot 1y ago
indeed - record company exec salaries don't come out of the ether, that's money that could otherwise go in the artists' pockets
scarface_74 1y ago
Apple Music is a miniscule part of service revenue compared to App Store, payments from Google ($20 Billion a year), AppleCare, etc.
- steveBK123 1y ago
  Right, and before you even get into password sharing you have stuff like this: Apple Family Plan: Costs $25.95 per month, includes Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, and 200GB of iCloud+ storage, and allows sharing with up to five other people So $5.20/mo per head and you get TV, games and storage with it. Or Spotify Family Plan - 6 Premium accounts for family members under one roof. $11.49/month So family plans seem to discount unlimited music streaming down to $2/mo per head. $24/year or what a single CD used to cost, before even doubling it for inflation..
sniffers 1y ago
If I pay Spotify $20 and listen to one song one, surely they don't send that artist $14...
- yladiz 1y ago
  They don’t. What happens is that your listen is pooled with all listens of all songs, and every payout the artist/label gets a check for the percentage of that total listening pool. For small artists that have relatively few listens, they don’t get almost any money. So it doesn’t matter if Spotify passes on 70%, most artists aren’t going to see any substantial portion of that, label or not.
hndamien 1y ago
The record company representing that one artist also does not get $7 of the $10.

higgins 1y ago

shameless plug: SoundCloud implements a "fan powered royalties" model, so that $10 in your example goes to those who artists who you stream https://community.soundcloud.com/fanpoweredroyalties https://community.soundcloud.com/fanpoweredroyalties

cortesoft 1y ago
I have often thought this method made more sense. It should not be total revenue / total streams, it should be what a single person pays going to exactly what they listen to. It isn’t fair that someone who listens to a ton of things has a much greater say in how the money is distributed even though they pay the same as someone who only listens to one artist.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  By that logic the most fair would be pay per play for every song, with some fraction to the artist. But subscribers really like the single payment for unlimited plays model.
  - cortesoft 1y ago
    Whether that is the most ‘fair’ method or not, a pay per play model wouldn’t be the best for either listeners, artists, or streaming company. There is always this challenge for creating a business model around digital goods; there is a non-zero cost to create the good, but there is a near zero cost per unit of the good. No one is going to want a pay per listen model. The heaviest users aren’t going to want to pay that much and will likely turn to piracy, and the lightest users don’t have that strong a desire to listen to music (as demonstrated by their light usage) to want to pay for each stream. The advantage of a single price, all you can stream, model is that it generates revenue for artists AND it properly recognizes the fact that each stream has a near zero unit cost. In my model, each listener generates a fixed revenue that is divided up amongst all the artists who create something that user listens to in the same proportion that they listen to it.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

Spivak 1y ago

There's just one problem with your model. There's no royalty difference between a Spotify subscriber playing one song vs 1000 songs if it's just % of subscriber's listening time. Someone who gets more plays by absolute numbers is going to be upset when they don't get a proportionate amount of money. The only way to make more money on Spotify is to get more fans and/or convince your existing fans to listen to fewer artists. This is a popular HN suggestion for disbursement but it makes the math super weird.

ruffsl 1y ago
This isn't likely to happen or change, but what if subscribers were instead billed by usage? If you streamed 24 hours a day for the whole month, that could round out to $10 a month, but if less, then simply a proportional percentage. Spotify would never forgo current profits from flat monthly plans, but then why shouldn't artists be granted the same advantages in royalties proportional to a subscriber's ratio of playtime if the subscribers are charged a flat rate any how?

lawgimenez 1y ago

I just found out Spotify is $20? In my country it's less than $3. Why the huge pricing difference.

al_borland 1y ago
It usually comes down to cost of living in the county.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Speaking of Spotify, they apparently just updated their Terms of Use as of September 3, 2025, effective September 26, 2025. From the email I received: > We have clarified that you may only access the version of the Spotify service available where you live at the applicable price set for that version of the service. > We have clarified how we bill you for subscriptions and how subscriptions may be canceled. > We have provided more information about different ways in which content may be posted or shared on the platform. > We have also provided more information about our content policies and practices, and our personalized recommendations. > We have included links to important user policies and guidelines for your ease of reference. > We are making some updates to the arbitration agreement. Found some more discussion of pricing issues: https://old.reddit.com/r/digitalnomad/comments/1n4x58f/spotify_premium_to_turn_on_14day_restriction_for/ https://old.reddit.com/r/digitalnomad/comments/1n4x58f/spoti... And this change was not called out in the email, but seems interesting to note: https://musictechpolicy.com/2025/09/02/ai-implications-of-spotifys-updated-terms-of-use-your-data-is-their-new-oil/ https://musictechpolicy.com/2025/09/02/ai-implications-of-sp...
  - shrikant 1y ago
    YouTube have done the same with the Premium subscription. From the email I received: > We are updating the Terms of Service for YouTube Premium, YouTube Music Premium and YouTube Premium Lite subscriptions ('Terms'). These new Terms will be included in the YouTube Paid Service Terms of Service and will come into effect on September 26, 2025. > We are making these changes to improve clarity and transparency regarding your subscription, including: Clarifying our plan types. Explaining our policies on promotional offers and accepted payment methods. Clarifying that your subscription access should be predominantly from the country where you signed up. Providing additional explanations and clarifications on our subscription policies.