5 ms·

>unless indie fans listen to less music than mainstream music fans That point is explicitly addressed in the post. Mainstream users listen more because mainstr

by tormeh 12y ago

>unless indie fans listen to less music than mainstream music fans That point is explicitly addressed in the post. Mainstream users listen more because mainstream users are gyms etc. that just let the top 40 run in shuffle 24/7.

CaveTech 12y ago
I have trouble believing that commercial venues make the majority of the plays on Spotify.
- huckyaus 12y ago
  Here in Melbourne it's very common for venues to use Spotify - almost ubiquitous, in fact. The bar that I moonlight at used CDs for the longest time but eventually made the switch last year. Most venues don't want to spend time carefully selecting music when they could instead be focusing on customer service.
  - dasil003 12y ago
    Sure, but what is the total market size of businesses versus individuals?
    - Consultant32452 12y ago
      I agree. Even if 100% of commercial properties that play music was using Spotify behind the scenes 24/7 that's still got to be only a small percentage of total Spotify plays.
      - dagw 12y ago
        Don't businesses also pay a lot more than individuals. I know here in Sweden playing music as part of your business is licensed differently than playing music in your living room. Commercial properties pay about 10 times as much pr. month for Spotify to cover commercial licensing of the music.
        Consultant32452 12y ago
        That was a really good question so I looked it up. Apparently commercial use of Spotify is against their TOS. So while some businesses certainly do use Spotify illegally, it's not a piece of business they are trying to get. https://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/public-usage https://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/pub...
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - eric_h 12y ago
      Agreed, but a business that plays spotify likely plays it for the entire time said business is open. Very few individual users will listen to spotify for 15 hours a day like a business (bar) that plays spotify would. [Edit] just read the earlier sibling comment. I'm informing my theory based on my own very occasional usage of spotify. I suspect I'm in the long tail of their business, and I would imagine that the aggregate of businesses that play spotify all day matches up with a good portion of that long tail.
      - dasil003 12y ago
        The problem is it's all speculation. We don't have any hard numbers to tell us how any given revenue split policy would affect payouts to different artists. My instinct (and I'm the Co-Founder of a streaming service that does revenue share FWIW) is that the reason so little is paid is because there are just a lot of streams period, and changing the algorithm around to try to make it "more fair" might shift the distribution a bit, but it won't really move the needle for anyone. The fact is that when people had to buy music they were spending a lot more on it than they do on Spotify for the same quantity. It's just like Netflix vs cable—you can play shell games all day long, but the minute you go to raise the price from $9.99 to $11.99 the entire customer base flips their lid. So you'll never monetize like you could in the past, and this is a permanent change because there is no limit on supply anymore.
        jschwartzi 12y ago
        It seems inevitable at this point that if most or all plays are done through streaming services the only thing we will have available to stream are top 40 singles.
        dasil003 12y ago
        For most of humanity musicians have earned their living through live performance. The last 70 years have been an extreme outlier as recording and playback technology has matured, but now the novelty and barrier to entries are gone, and the supply is flooded. I don't see any shortage of new artists willing to give their music away to get discovered. I also don't see streaming services succeeding with just Top 40 (diversity of music has never been higher). Sure some artists will pull their catalog or straight up retire out of spite, but I don't see any trends or market forces pointing to this "inevitable" outcome.
lclarkmichalek 12y ago
Wouldn't that use be both against Spotify's EULA [0] and be illegal without a PPL [1] (in the UK at least). [0] https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 [1] http://www.ppluk.com/ http://www.ppluk.com/
- grrowl 12y ago
  In terms of small bars, hairdressers, co-working spaces, yoga studios, mik bars, etc... probably, but no one's going to tackle the small fries. Large chains tend to have their own corporate-mandated "radio" playlists for this reason, though (supermarkets and gyms)
  - goatforce5 12y ago
    From what I recall, the PPL is pretty aggressive about going after small venues. e.g.: http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/Dunstable-nightclub-Ivory-Lounge-banned-playing/story-26131134-detail/story.html http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/Dunstable-nightclub-Ivory-L...
- geoelectric 12y ago
  Yes, but at worst bars and venues like this end up paying the flat fee to the recording cartels to basically have unlimited plays of whatever they want and none of that really goes to the artists in any significant way. And in most cases, it doesn't really come up until they're audited at least once, which might be never.
  - jakejake 12y ago
    I know that calling them recording cartels is making a certain point, but the licensing companies in the US are ASCAP and BMI and they don't really have anything to do with actually recording music. They collect royalties on behalf of the artists. I happen to know because I was once in a band and the only money I really ever received for our recordings after the label advance was from ASCAP. Even years later I get a check every few months for a few bucks, whereas I get nothing from spotify or any other music service (even though my music is on there). So at least for me, I appreciate ASCAP and BMI, even though it is not a lot of money, they are the only ones who have ever paid me royalties as an artist - and their service is free to all artists no matter how small.
dataminded 12y ago
Isn't that illegal? Does a spotify license include broadcast rights?
plorg 12y ago
This also assumes that the balance of venues playing indie/alternative music versus those playing "mainstream" music tilts further than the balance of individual users doing the same. I have a limited set of datapoints, but most if not all of the venues in which I encounter Spotify playlists are playing indie/alternative/etc. music, rather than "mainstream" music - places like my local coffeeshop and game shop, for example.

by tormeh 12y ago

CaveTech 12y ago

I have trouble believing that commercial venues make the majority of the plays on Spotify.

huckyaus 12y ago
Here in Melbourne it's very common for venues to use Spotify - almost ubiquitous, in fact. The bar that I moonlight at used CDs for the longest time but eventually made the switch last year. Most venues don't want to spend time carefully selecting music when they could instead be focusing on customer service.
- dasil003 12y ago
  Sure, but what is the total market size of businesses versus individuals?
  - Consultant32452 12y ago
    I agree. Even if 100% of commercial properties that play music was using Spotify behind the scenes 24/7 that's still got to be only a small percentage of total Spotify plays.
    - dagw 12y ago
      Don't businesses also pay a lot more than individuals. I know here in Sweden playing music as part of your business is licensed differently than playing music in your living room. Commercial properties pay about 10 times as much pr. month for Spotify to cover commercial licensing of the music.
      - Consultant32452 12y ago
        That was a really good question so I looked it up. Apparently commercial use of Spotify is against their TOS. So while some businesses certainly do use Spotify illegally, it's not a piece of business they are trying to get. https://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/public-usage https://support.spotify.com/us/learn-more/faq/#!/article/pub...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - eric_h 12y ago
    Agreed, but a business that plays spotify likely plays it for the entire time said business is open. Very few individual users will listen to spotify for 15 hours a day like a business (bar) that plays spotify would. [Edit] just read the earlier sibling comment. I'm informing my theory based on my own very occasional usage of spotify. I suspect I'm in the long tail of their business, and I would imagine that the aggregate of businesses that play spotify all day matches up with a good portion of that long tail.
    - dasil003 12y ago
      The problem is it's all speculation. We don't have any hard numbers to tell us how any given revenue split policy would affect payouts to different artists. My instinct (and I'm the Co-Founder of a streaming service that does revenue share FWIW) is that the reason so little is paid is because there are just a lot of streams period, and changing the algorithm around to try to make it "more fair" might shift the distribution a bit, but it won't really move the needle for anyone. The fact is that when people had to buy music they were spending a lot more on it than they do on Spotify for the same quantity. It's just like Netflix vs cable—you can play shell games all day long, but the minute you go to raise the price from $9.99 to $11.99 the entire customer base flips their lid. So you'll never monetize like you could in the past, and this is a permanent change because there is no limit on supply anymore.
      - jschwartzi 12y ago
        It seems inevitable at this point that if most or all plays are done through streaming services the only thing we will have available to stream are top 40 singles.
        dasil003 12y ago
        For most of humanity musicians have earned their living through live performance. The last 70 years have been an extreme outlier as recording and playback technology has matured, but now the novelty and barrier to entries are gone, and the supply is flooded. I don't see any shortage of new artists willing to give their music away to get discovered. I also don't see streaming services succeeding with just Top 40 (diversity of music has never been higher). Sure some artists will pull their catalog or straight up retire out of spite, but I don't see any trends or market forces pointing to this "inevitable" outcome.

lclarkmichalek 12y ago

Wouldn't that use be both against Spotify's EULA [0] and be illegal without a PPL [1] (in the UK at least). [0] https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 [1] http://www.ppluk.com/ http://www.ppluk.com/

grrowl 12y ago
In terms of small bars, hairdressers, co-working spaces, yoga studios, mik bars, etc... probably, but no one's going to tackle the small fries. Large chains tend to have their own corporate-mandated "radio" playlists for this reason, though (supermarkets and gyms)
- goatforce5 12y ago
  From what I recall, the PPL is pretty aggressive about going after small venues. e.g.: http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/Dunstable-nightclub-Ivory-Lounge-banned-playing/story-26131134-detail/story.html http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/Dunstable-nightclub-Ivory-L...
geoelectric 12y ago
Yes, but at worst bars and venues like this end up paying the flat fee to the recording cartels to basically have unlimited plays of whatever they want and none of that really goes to the artists in any significant way. And in most cases, it doesn't really come up until they're audited at least once, which might be never.
- jakejake 12y ago
  I know that calling them recording cartels is making a certain point, but the licensing companies in the US are ASCAP and BMI and they don't really have anything to do with actually recording music. They collect royalties on behalf of the artists. I happen to know because I was once in a band and the only money I really ever received for our recordings after the label advance was from ASCAP. Even years later I get a check every few months for a few bucks, whereas I get nothing from spotify or any other music service (even though my music is on there). So at least for me, I appreciate ASCAP and BMI, even though it is not a lot of money, they are the only ones who have ever paid me royalties as an artist - and their service is free to all artists no matter how small.

dataminded 12y ago

Isn't that illegal? Does a spotify license include broadcast rights?

plorg 12y ago

This also assumes that the balance of venues playing indie/alternative music versus those playing "mainstream" music tilts further than the balance of individual users doing the same. I have a limited set of datapoints, but most if not all of the venues in which I encounter Spotify playlists are playing indie/alternative/etc. music, rather than "mainstream" music - places like my local coffeeshop and game shop, for example.