Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice at Spotify

unionofmusicians.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 405 posts

Re: Justice at Spotify

#181

Post by stephenhuey »

smachiz wrote: post #174
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to one source [1], Spotify users stream on average 25 hours a month. Assuming an average song is 3 minutes [2], that's 500 streams per month. Going with the $9.99 per month rate, users pay about $0.02 per stream. Currently, the artists see only $0.0038 per stream, or less than 1/5th of what Spotify makes. I think that with a 50% profit margin, Spotify should be very happy. Of course, it's not that easy / st…

Yes, ignoring all other costs isn't great. Their revenue per subscriber is also substantively lower - including free users, discounted EDU users, and family memberships. Excluding free users, it's probably ~$5 per user. That being said, Apple Music pays .75p/stream, Tidal is 1.25p/stream. They can probably figure it out.

If they cannot pay the artists more, a long-term freemium plan might not be a great business model then. If free users are seriously cutting into profits, should they change the free plan to a limited free trial? I was around in the 80s 90s and we didn't really have free cassettes and CDs and radio paid studios & artists with ad revenue. Spotify is well known enough now that it could be argued an unending free tier may no longer be necessary.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#182

Post by afavour »

disgu wrote: post #108
cratermoon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Spotify is already paying out 75% of it's revenue to royalty holders Realize that the royalty holders are not the musicians, but typically the major labels. The musicians get virtually nothing.

The fact that they're showing up at Spotify's offices then shows even more why they're not making money. They seemingly don't understand the business they're in... at all. They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing".

> They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing".

I guess that's what you have to do when you're powerless. Record labels force you into shitty contracts. They have the power. Who has power over the record labels? Spotify.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#183

Post by Denvercoder9 »

NopeNotToday wrote: post #173
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to one source [1], Spotify users stream on average 25 hours a month. Assuming an average song is 3 minutes [2], that's 500 streams per month. Going with the $9.99 per month rate, users pay about $0.02 per stream. Currently, the artists see only $0.0038 per stream, or less than 1/5th of what Spotify makes. I think that with a 50% profit margin, Spotify should be very happy. Of course, it's not that easy / st…

How much of Spotify's revenue goes towards songwriters, labels, distributors, publishers, as opposed to the artist?

The quoted $0.0038 is the total of what Spotify pays out to the distributor, who then distributes it between themselves, the artist, songwriters, their labels, etc.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#184

Post by ProofByAccident »

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #169
jsiepkes wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 90's (Napster, Kazaa, etc.) has proven people are simply not going to pay that kind of money for the product (music). The music industry also seems a bit like a "winner takes all" market where there are a bunch of top grossing artists which make an insane amount of money and a much, much larger part which can't make a decent living out of it.

Almost every major internet content industry is winner takes all. That is just the nature of power law distributions. Ask your average social media influencer how much they make. Also your average YouTuber/Twitch streamer. It is not unique to the music industry, just that the music industry is older and has more inefficiencies in the form of middle man that don't contribute much in value production but still takes a…

> has more inefficiencies in the form of middle man that don't contribute much in value production but still takes a large cut.

Not to go laser-eyes Marx, but this is definitely not unique to the music industry either

Re: Justice at Spotify

#185

Post by z5h »

I’ll make a track 1 second long, post to Spotify, and with my Spotify account I’ll listen to it non stop. I’ll earn $26000/month. I see no problem here.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#186

Post by Hamuko »

afavour wrote: post #182
disgu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that they're showing up at Spotify's offices then shows even more why they're not making money. They seemingly don't understand the business they're in... at all. They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing".

> They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing". I guess that's what you have to do when you're powerless. Record labels force you into shitty contracts. They have the power. Who has power over the record labels? Spotify.

>Who has power over the record labels? Spotify.

What power does Spotify have over record labels?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#187

Post by _jstreet »

mattnewton wrote: post #167
jessriedel wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the artists think consumers should pay more. If Spotify wasn't a quasi-monopoly, it would seem silly for artists to demand consumers pay more only on the Spotify platform, but since Spotify is, the argument is at least prima facie reasonable?

Spotify doesn’t seem like a monopoly that has pricing power; they are in tight competition with multiple streaming services like Apple Music and amazon close behind and catching up. There are some sources that have Apple Music already with more paid subscribers than Spotify, and Spotify definitely can’t pay a penny per stream of their free ad users. https://www.statista.com/statistics/653926/music-streaming-s... http…

> Spotify doesn’t seem like a monopoly that has pricing power

I'd argue that all music-streaming services have very little pricing power!

Streaming services rely on being an easier/friction-free option as opposed to piracy (or alternatively, buying the copies directly from the musicians).

Your point is still valid though, the competition is still fierce; Amazon, Tidal, Apple.. etc.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#188

Post by rsstack »

metajack wrote: post #93
antihero wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a problem generally in the music industry?

Music rights are split into two traditionally, the songwriting copyright and the mechanical reproduction right. Previous to the internet, media sales mostly went to the labels who held hte mechanical rights and songwriting copyright was earned directly to the artist. So if you bought a CD the label gets paid, if you play a song on the radio an artist gets paid. The music industry lawyers were incredibly smart when th…

Can you, or someone, share a source for the first paragraph? It completely changes my perception of music royalties and I'd like to be sure before I repeat it :)

Re: Justice at Spotify

#189

Post by ProofByAccident »

efsavage wrote: post #179
Barrin92 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could blame the furniture stores for not promoting me or taking too big a cut or any number of other factors not only could you but you should. Of course workers over the last few decades have internalised the mindset that they cannot use their power to bargain and that whatever they get is fair and they should just shut up, which is why we tolerate corporate middlemen eating our lunch. I don't know if a penny pe…

My scenario is not one of power imbalance, it is that I simply cannot create enough economic value doing it to make a living, and I have no right to change anyone else's rules to accommodate for that fact. I cannot make you a bookshelf cheaper than you can buy one at IKEA. At my software developer rate a Billy Bookcase would cost you $1000. It's probably safe to say you aren't going to "stop whining" and pay that. Bu…

Your example is a little specious in that a bookcase is very different from a song. The production of one has huge economies of scale, whereas a song doesn't. I agree that producing things competitively is important to improve overall efficiency, but with the music industry you really have a small cartel of massive labels dictating the terms for everyone else (ie. engaging in massively anti-competitive behavior). It seems weird to me that your pro-market ideology leads you to support what (to me) seems to be more or less wage-fixing for a labor supplier (musicians)

Re: Justice at Spotify

#190

Post by [deleted] »

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #183
NopeNotToday wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of Spotify's revenue goes towards songwriters, labels, distributors, publishers, as opposed to the artist?

The quoted $0.0038 is the total of what Spotify pays out to the distributor, who then distributes it between themselves, the artist, songwriters, their labels, etc.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN