8 ms·

I love the idea of Spotify (and I'm a subscriber). I also buy albums occasionally, and spend many thousands of dollars a year seeing bands play live. What's g

I love the idea of Spotify (and I'm a subscriber). I also buy albums occasionally, and spend many thousands of dollars a year seeing bands play live. What's great about Spotify, is that artists get paid per listen, which favours artists which make great, lasting music, and against those who produce one hit wonders. If people continue to listen to your music over a period of time, the artist will continue to get paid, and that's great (and those who produce one hit wonders get paid a lot at the time, and virtually nothing afterwards). The problem, of course, is that Spotify doesn't pay very much to artists. Spotify says this is because artists have shitty deals with labels (and I'm sure this is true), but independents also complain about the amount passed on. Spotify, however, last I checked, isn't profitable, so they can't afford to pass on more money anyway. I would happily pay more, but I use it near-constantly at work and at home (easily 6+ hours a day on average). I suspect I'm a minority here. Ensuring artists get paid enough is a problem we haven't solved yet. I tend to think it'll go the way of free-or-near-free streaming (a la Spotify or Youtube), with albums becoming collectibles like Vinyls, and the vast majority of artist revenue coming from live shows. Unfortunately, this is going to mean labels are going to have to negotiate a cut of live shows with artists to cover album production costs (assuming they're not independent, obviously). I don't mind a one-or-two week delay on streaming sites to give people who really want a listen to buy it first. Of course, this helps drive piracy back up, but for artists, their aim shouldn't be minimising piracy, but maximising the profitability of their work.

majormajor 14y ago
I'd also happily pay considerably more for things like Spotify and Hulu Plus and Netflix in exchange for bigger catalogs and sufficient amounts getting passed to the creators to fund the production of future content. I don't see any way to keep physical media from being phased out, and if that's inevitable I prefer a streaming model to a rebuy-for-each-new-digital-format model.
- jeffool 14y ago
  I'm surprised services like Spotify and Hulu haven't divvied up their content into special subscriber packs like Cable companies do. Spotify Premium costs $10? We have to assume the average listener listens to less than $10 worth of music. Find the amount each genre listens to, and charge just a dollar over that (but less than $10) for, say, the current top selling 100 albums and the genre of the subscriber's choosing. Say, $5 for hip hop, $7 for rock, $3 for country, etc. Hulu could do the same with scifi, drama, comedy, film, TV, and documentary packs all at cheaper prices, all along with their current "everything for the top fee" charge. /edit: Similarly, as they've done with StarTrek.com and SouthParkStudios.com, I can't imagine why every show hasn't offered their full series online. Especially those brands with many shows and fan-bases that could be brought together.
  - batiudrami 14y ago
    I don't think this would appeal to many people who aren't already subscribed. Unlimited streaming is such a minimal cost as it is - $5 or $10 for mobile, that I see this maybe moving some people to a cheaper plan, but not getting any new subscribers. Music is different to TV, the appeal is being able to listen to whatever I want, to discovering new music based on what I listen to, or instantly listening to something that's well reviewed on Pitchfork or The Guardian or Triple J.
    - chrischen 14y ago
      You need to do the same for TV shows actually. That's why iTunes often gives away pilots for free.
  - pdubs 14y ago
    I can get the top 100 albums for free on Youtube essentially. Spotify would simply lose my $10/mo. That said, I'd gladly pay more, maybe $20/mo for an expanded catalog and an iota of dedication to improving their Android app.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Money devoured by the big labels also hurts the indies. It's money that can't be given to indies. The big record labels have to die. They've been mostly killed, and we're definitely past their point of utility, but they hang on and on and on.
- eupharis 14y ago
  No. The big record labels are not dying. Album sales are UP. And at least according to Nielsen, the big four record companies account for 90% of those sales.[1] Nielsen's methods of measuring probably favor established record companies over independents. But the fact remains: sales are UP among the big four in 2011. Price per album has of course dropped like a stone with the switch to digital. But so have distribution costs. And do you know what happened when the price dropped? The number of units sold went up! This is mad, MAD, I tell you, an outcome never even dreamed of by any economist ever. Their profits aren't quite as obscene as they used to be perhaps. But they are still making money hand over fist. This myth that the big record companies are dying needs to stop. It gives weight to their whining about piracy. Which is the real long-term danger. [1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2011-Music-Industry-Report http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Niel...
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    There were about 750 million albums sold in 2000. An increase from 326 million in 2010 to 330 million in 2011 is not a recovery. Really, it's just a couple of extra hit albums.
    - eupharis 14y ago
      Ah. I was not aware of how much higher it was in 2000. Price per album was significantly higher as well.[1] Still, I take issue with your characterization of the big record labels as having "been mostly killed." $4.158 billion dollars in sales is not "mostly killed."[2] If I owned a significant proportion of a company that had that kind of revenue per year, well, I would not just throw it in the trash and advise they close up shop ;) [1]http://theunderstatement.com/post/3377858909/album-prices http://theunderstatement.com/post/3377858909/album-prices [2]330 million * $14 per album (from [1]) * 90%
qq66 14y ago
Spotify doesn't pay much to artists because it doesn't take in much money. It has to remain competitive against piracy -- it can't charge $100 per month. I pay $10 per month to Spotify Premium and probably play 100 tracks per day -- whereas I used to pay $20 per CD that I'd probably play 100 tracks from in its lifetime. The bottom line is that I pay a lot less for music now than I used to, and most people do, which means there's just less money from recordings in the pot that can go to artists.
cageface 14y ago
It's true that artists aren't making any money on Spotify. But neither is Spotify: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and-spotify-rake-in-the-money-and-then-send-it-off-in-royalties/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and... Personally I think the Bandcamp model is the way forward.
- FreeWorld 14y ago
  Indeed. Free streaming of all songs, and the price is often cheaper than elsewhere since the profit margin for musicians is greater (Bandcamp takes 15% [1]). Also the fact that there are multiple formats to choose from (mp3,flac, ...) is a big plus. The only downside is the lack of any major label/big names (which for me I don't mind, but the general population does mind). [1] http://bandcamp.com/pricing http://bandcamp.com/pricing
- chrischen 14y ago
  Isn't the Bandcamp model just the iTunes model... except iTunes's been here for over 10 years?
  - coolnow 14y ago
    Except iTunes don't stream all songs for free and don't give you a variety of formats to choose from? Then yeah, you could say that.
    - chrischen 14y ago
      iTunes has 90 second samples, which is a big chunk of the song. Definitely enough for you to sample and decide if you want the whole thing.
      - cageface 14y ago
        Not for me it isn't. I much prefer to listen to the whole album all the way through a few times to see if it has any staying power. Previews are better than nothing but when you're competing with piracy you should strive to give the user the best experience possible.
token78 14y ago
> The problem, of course, is that Spotify doesn't pay very much to artists. False. The notion that Spotify just doesn't pay very much to artists is simply unfounded. The figure's close to 70% of their revenue. Relevant: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/16193319442/myth-dispensing-whole-spotify-barely-pays-artists-story-is-bunk.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/16193319442/myth-...
- batiudrami 14y ago
  No, they don't pay very much. The problem is, the revenue isn't very much either (and they're unprofitable). I don't think they're doing a MegaUpload and making millions off other people's content, but compared to CD sales, artists are being undercompensated. My entire post was my thoughts on how to improve that.

majormajor 14y ago

I'd also happily pay considerably more for things like Spotify and Hulu Plus and Netflix in exchange for bigger catalogs and sufficient amounts getting passed to the creators to fund the production of future content. I don't see any way to keep physical media from being phased out, and if that's inevitable I prefer a streaming model to a rebuy-for-each-new-digital-format model.

jeffool 14y ago
I'm surprised services like Spotify and Hulu haven't divvied up their content into special subscriber packs like Cable companies do. Spotify Premium costs $10? We have to assume the average listener listens to less than $10 worth of music. Find the amount each genre listens to, and charge just a dollar over that (but less than $10) for, say, the current top selling 100 albums and the genre of the subscriber's choosing. Say, $5 for hip hop, $7 for rock, $3 for country, etc. Hulu could do the same with scifi, drama, comedy, film, TV, and documentary packs all at cheaper prices, all along with their current "everything for the top fee" charge. /edit: Similarly, as they've done with StarTrek.com and SouthParkStudios.com, I can't imagine why every show hasn't offered their full series online. Especially those brands with many shows and fan-bases that could be brought together.
- batiudrami 14y ago
  I don't think this would appeal to many people who aren't already subscribed. Unlimited streaming is such a minimal cost as it is - $5 or $10 for mobile, that I see this maybe moving some people to a cheaper plan, but not getting any new subscribers. Music is different to TV, the appeal is being able to listen to whatever I want, to discovering new music based on what I listen to, or instantly listening to something that's well reviewed on Pitchfork or The Guardian or Triple J.
  - chrischen 14y ago
    You need to do the same for TV shows actually. That's why iTunes often gives away pilots for free.
- pdubs 14y ago
  I can get the top 100 albums for free on Youtube essentially. Spotify would simply lose my $10/mo. That said, I'd gladly pay more, maybe $20/mo for an expanded catalog and an iota of dedication to improving their Android app.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Money devoured by the big labels also hurts the indies. It's money that can't be given to indies. The big record labels have to die. They've been mostly killed, and we're definitely past their point of utility, but they hang on and on and on.

eupharis 14y ago
No. The big record labels are not dying. Album sales are UP. And at least according to Nielsen, the big four record companies account for 90% of those sales.[1] Nielsen's methods of measuring probably favor established record companies over independents. But the fact remains: sales are UP among the big four in 2011. Price per album has of course dropped like a stone with the switch to digital. But so have distribution costs. And do you know what happened when the price dropped? The number of units sold went up! This is mad, MAD, I tell you, an outcome never even dreamed of by any economist ever. Their profits aren't quite as obscene as they used to be perhaps. But they are still making money hand over fist. This myth that the big record companies are dying needs to stop. It gives weight to their whining about piracy. Which is the real long-term danger. [1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2011-Music-Industry-Report http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Niel...
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  There were about 750 million albums sold in 2000. An increase from 326 million in 2010 to 330 million in 2011 is not a recovery. Really, it's just a couple of extra hit albums.
  - eupharis 14y ago
    Ah. I was not aware of how much higher it was in 2000. Price per album was significantly higher as well.[1] Still, I take issue with your characterization of the big record labels as having "been mostly killed." $4.158 billion dollars in sales is not "mostly killed."[2] If I owned a significant proportion of a company that had that kind of revenue per year, well, I would not just throw it in the trash and advise they close up shop ;) [1]http://theunderstatement.com/post/3377858909/album-prices http://theunderstatement.com/post/3377858909/album-prices [2]330 million * $14 per album (from [1]) * 90%

qq66 14y ago

Spotify doesn't pay much to artists because it doesn't take in much money. It has to remain competitive against piracy -- it can't charge $100 per month. I pay $10 per month to Spotify Premium and probably play 100 tracks per day -- whereas I used to pay $20 per CD that I'd probably play 100 tracks from in its lifetime. The bottom line is that I pay a lot less for music now than I used to, and most people do, which means there's just less money from recordings in the pot that can go to artists.

cageface 14y ago

It's true that artists aren't making any money on Spotify. But neither is Spotify: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and-spotify-rake-in-the-money-and-then-send-it-off-in-royalties/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and... Personally I think the Bandcamp model is the way forward.

FreeWorld 14y ago
Indeed. Free streaming of all songs, and the price is often cheaper than elsewhere since the profit margin for musicians is greater (Bandcamp takes 15% [1]). Also the fact that there are multiple formats to choose from (mp3,flac, ...) is a big plus. The only downside is the lack of any major label/big names (which for me I don't mind, but the general population does mind). [1] http://bandcamp.com/pricing http://bandcamp.com/pricing
chrischen 14y ago
Isn't the Bandcamp model just the iTunes model... except iTunes's been here for over 10 years?
- coolnow 14y ago
  Except iTunes don't stream all songs for free and don't give you a variety of formats to choose from? Then yeah, you could say that.
  - chrischen 14y ago
    iTunes has 90 second samples, which is a big chunk of the song. Definitely enough for you to sample and decide if you want the whole thing.
    - cageface 14y ago
      Not for me it isn't. I much prefer to listen to the whole album all the way through a few times to see if it has any staying power. Previews are better than nothing but when you're competing with piracy you should strive to give the user the best experience possible.

token78 14y ago

> The problem, of course, is that Spotify doesn't pay very much to artists. False. The notion that Spotify just doesn't pay very much to artists is simply unfounded. The figure's close to 70% of their revenue. Relevant: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/16193319442/myth-dispensing-whole-spotify-barely-pays-artists-story-is-bunk.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/16193319442/myth-...

batiudrami 14y ago
No, they don't pay very much. The problem is, the revenue isn't very much either (and they're unprofitable). I don't think they're doing a MegaUpload and making millions off other people's content, but compared to CD sales, artists are being undercompensated. My entire post was my thoughts on how to improve that.