4 ms·
> if they spent 1% of those 10 dollars/month - or $15M - on paying the artists, each one would get 187K/month. According to my math, it would be $187.50, not $
by Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> if they spent 1% of those 10 dollars/month - or $15M - on paying the artists, each one would get 187K/month.
According to my math, it would be $187.50, not $187,500.
Let’s try a more realistic scenario. Let’s say that at some point in the future 10% of Spotify members pay $3 per month, and that Spotify spends 65% of its revenues on royalties (just like iTunes). That would mean that each one of the 80,000 artists would get $36.50 per month (if all artists’ music were played the same amount of times).
- clarky07 13y agounfortunately, i think you are both wrong. the actual number is 18,750. That being said, nowhere close to that many people pay pandora, and the monthly subscription is $3, and not $10.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago> the actual number is 18,750. 150 million times $10 divided by 80,000 is $18,750. However, smsm42 was talking about giving 1% of that to the artists, which would be $187,50. > nowhere close to that many people pay pandora, and the monthly subscription is $3, and not $10. Which I covered in my alternative scenario.
- clarky07 13y agoAh whoops. Totally missed the 1%. Sorry about that.
- Samuel_Michon 13y agoNo problem. In the end, Spotify’s payments to artists are not going to surmount to any meaningful income. Meanwhile, if an independent artist offers his music directly through iTunes, he/she gets 40% of all sales. That’s magnitudes more than Spotify offers.
- smsm42 13y agoOops, my bad and you're right. Forgot some zeroes on the way :)