by bartoszhernas on 8/30/21, 7:59 AM with 61 comments
by pedrocr on 8/30/21, 8:35 AM
So Spotify only takes a 30% cut, that seems reasonable. Could be lower with more competition but it seems they have a lead over other services.
>How does that work? All the money is split across all streams. But the system also concerns the share of one artist within all those streams. So let's say Drake is responsible for five percent of all streams, then five percent of all money has to go to Drake.
And it seems like it's proportional to the usage.
>Is it unfair?
>Of course, that's okay if you enjoy listening to Drake. But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. That's why some artists think that you should only pay for the artists you actually stream. And not that everything is lumped together and then distributed.
And then this seems to try and contradict that? What's unfair here? Are they giving a bigger share to artists that are played across more users and not more streams?
by minxomat on 8/30/21, 8:29 AM
[1] https://medium.com/made-by-elements/subscriber-share-on-enva...
by jmcgough on 8/30/21, 8:35 AM
by tiagod on 8/30/21, 8:40 AM
>[...]
>If you are a listener and it's vital for you to support artists, you can start using TIDAL instead of another music streaming platform
Why TIDAL and not Napster? Weird plug
by czechdeveloper on 8/30/21, 8:34 AM
I pay 9.99 EUR for family (11.8 USD). There are other people on my account.
by tick_tock_tick on 8/30/21, 8:30 AM
by zpeti on 8/30/21, 8:36 AM
How is that coming to $0.004 per stream spotifies fault? What are they supposed to do?
by rapht on 8/30/21, 9:20 AM
Is the "per-stream" measure a result to try and have a comparable basis between the various actors, or is it really the only underlying factor in the calculation (beside the country which is mentionned as another factor)?
My guess would be that services would pay per minute-stream, not per stream. Otherwise, artists that tend to have longer form would not be willing to participate (I'm a big fan of Keith Jarrett, for instance, whose solo concerts mostly consist of tracks of around 40 minutes). You could also imagine hybrid models with bounds that de-linearize certain factors.
Looking at a very aggregate average is a recipe for erroneous conclusions...
by kleiba on 8/30/21, 8:33 AM
by tibbydudeza on 8/30/21, 9:01 AM
Merch and concerts has always been the money maker but obviously the last 2 years put paid to that.
by BlasDeLezo on 8/30/21, 12:50 PM
by newobj on 8/30/21, 8:28 AM
by 88840-8855 on 8/30/21, 8:30 AM
Further, I would put the hypothesis into the room that the revenue mix has also shifted. From selling music to selling tickets, merch, etc.
Any ideas on those two things?
by fundatus on 8/30/21, 9:23 AM
by azinman2 on 8/30/21, 8:34 AM
I’d love to see a comparison with what artists we’re getting paid from iTunes before this streaming model.
by stacker8888 on 8/30/21, 8:31 AM
by slac on 8/30/21, 8:39 AM
by hdjjhhvvhga on 8/30/21, 10:58 AM
by lmilcin on 8/30/21, 9:07 AM
by anoncow on 8/30/21, 8:46 AM
by Shadonototro on 8/30/21, 5:08 PM
only people with $AAPL in their portfolio can be against this
Playing your music in the metro doesn't automatically give you money, a stream shouldn't automatically give you money
Music is art, you offer your art, and it's up to the person to choose to support you
If you can't get your art to people, you can't expect people to support you
Stream != engagement