Live data from Hacker News

Justice at Spotify

unionofmusicians.org

51–60 of 405 posts

Re: Justice at Spotify

#52
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do some back-of-the-envelop calculations: Let's say people stream for 4 hours a day on average. 4 * 60 = 240 minutes Let's say a song is 3 minutes. 240 / 3 = 80 streams == 80p/day 80p * 30 days per month = 2400p 2400p == £24 So that would be ~2.4x increase in price for end users without including Spotify cut or taxes. Doesn't seem possible to me.

It's also still remarkably cheap for unlimited access to all the music ever recorded.

Will consumers pay that price is the question?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#53
post #11

As a creator, relying on these platforms is problematic because they are the #1 target for Government taxation. Depending on the country, 20% of customer spend is swallowed up immediately by sales taxes. Another 30% is potentially swallowed up by Google and Apple. The solution is really to go direct-to-consumer, through things like Crowdfunding (unfortunately Patreon now charges VAT). Though of course this adds a lot…

Working till 70? Gosh I don't think that's realistic

This is already the case in some countries. For eg, the Netherlands revises the retirement age every year, and is currently at 68yrs.

The public suspicion is that they do this to avoid paying pension, most of which has been squandered by the government.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#54
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do some back-of-the-envelop calculations: Let's say people stream for 4 hours a day on average. 4 * 60 = 240 minutes Let's say a song is 3 minutes. 240 / 3 = 80 streams == 80p/day 80p * 30 days per month = 2400p 2400p == £24 So that would be ~2.4x increase in price for end users without including Spotify cut or taxes. Doesn't seem possible to me.

It's also still remarkably cheap for unlimited access to all the music ever recorded.

That ship sailed in the 90s with widespread music piracy. The market simply doesn't value digital copies of recorded music that much anymore.

Spotify was an increase in artist revenues as prior to that most people were paying nothing for their music, be it bittorrent in the 00s, cd copying in the 90s, or recording radio to tape in the 80s.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#55
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do some back-of-the-envelop calculations: Let's say people stream for 4 hours a day on average. 4 * 60 = 240 minutes Let's say a song is 3 minutes. 240 / 3 = 80 streams == 80p/day 80p * 30 days per month = 2400p 2400p == £24 So that would be ~2.4x increase in price for end users without including Spotify cut or taxes. Doesn't seem possible to me.

It's also still remarkably cheap for unlimited access to all the music ever recorded.

I'd just go back to torrenting at that price.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#56
post #19
post #10

The ask is 1p/stream. I'm not sure that that's actually sustainable without a massive rise in spotify prices, given the proportion of free users and even paid users that listen to more than 1000 tracks a month. If spotify raises prices, consumers go back to piracy. I'm not sure this will have the effect they want. Let's imagine a radio station. Something medium sized, about a million listeners. They play a track. Are…

If this is not sustainable for the artists, how is this different than piracy? I'd say it is even worse, because people is paying but the money goes to a middleware company that is not paying the right price. It is like buying CDs from the street sellers.

I mean....radio was never a money maker for acts. It was to get their name out their to make money elsewhere.

Just kinda how the market is setup. I don't think it is unsustainable for artists.

I fucking hate "exposure", but that is literally what radio/streaming is is.

It is never a substantial revenue stream until you hit big.

And with today's tech, radio had to become streaming.

Paying a penny per stream is highly unsustainable for everyone.

What would you suggest to fix it?

I think the system is pretty decent all things considered. Now, Spotify could definitely be better at hyping and pushing new music/low creators....but other than that I don't think they're the enemy here.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#57
post #10

The ask is 1p/stream. I'm not sure that that's actually sustainable without a massive rise in spotify prices, given the proportion of free users and even paid users that listen to more than 1000 tracks a month. If spotify raises prices, consumers go back to piracy. I'm not sure this will have the effect they want. Let's imagine a radio station. Something medium sized, about a million listeners. They play a track. Are…

Let's do some back-of-the-envelop calculations: Let's say people stream for 4 hours a day on average. 4 * 60 = 240 minutes Let's say a song is 3 minutes. 240 / 3 = 80 streams == 80p/day 80p * 30 days per month = 2400p 2400p == £24 So that would be ~2.4x increase in price for end users without including Spotify cut or taxes. Doesn't seem possible to me.

Also, consider the free account. Presumably, the artist still wants to get paid. So now Spotify somehow needs to be able to make back those 2,400 pennies per user from advertisement.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#58
post #27

So I wanted to try put this into perspective since "a penny per stream" is intentionally meant to sound insignificant. This seems like it would roughly double Spotify's costs: https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/apps/how-much-... And Spotify is already paying out 75% of it's revenue to royalty holders: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/spotify-pr... So unless you believe that Spotify is bad…

Spotify doesn’t want to take the risk, but there’s probably money on the table from all the small gyms, coffee shops, etc that should be paying commercial rates.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#59
post #10

The ask is 1p/stream. I'm not sure that that's actually sustainable without a massive rise in spotify prices, given the proportion of free users and even paid users that listen to more than 1000 tracks a month. If spotify raises prices, consumers go back to piracy. I'm not sure this will have the effect they want. Let's imagine a radio station. Something medium sized, about a million listeners. They play a track. Are…

There is also the issue of fraud. Click/Stream farms are already soaking up the artists pool of revenue, and this change would incentivize it more. Justin Bieber recently asked his fans to go to sleep with his new song on repeat, and I'm sure other artists/labels are looking at ways to game the system as well. In my opinion there needs to be a way to pay artists based on first time streams from new accounts.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#60
People acting on emotions rather than actually doing the math and seeing that one penny per stream will make Spotify prices skyrocket and if no one uses Spotify, well, they will be in a worse situation.
Post reply on HN