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

301–310 of 405 posts

Re: Justice at Spotify

#301

Post by 015a »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #160
Eridrus wrote: 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…

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…

Think about a strategic decision like this: Spotify decides to pay-out a $0.005/stream rate to Taylor Swift. That's more than most artists make, but its what Taylor demands, and Taylor holds some cards here because she's popular.

Let's say that Spotify says No. Spotify's argument is, in effect, all artists are sharing a piece of the same pie; if they give Taylor Swift a higher than average rate, it lowers the average payout for every other artist. By saying No, in this hypothetical universe, Spotify is standing up for indie artists.

Taylor (more accurately, her rights holders) does not put her music on Spotify. Customers who come to Spotify for Taylor Swift's music no longer feel that their subscription is worthwhile; they stop paying.

Now, the pie is smaller. Indie artists receive a bigger chunk of a smaller pie. Customers are left without the music they want. Spotify's revenue is lower. Everyone loses.

Its easy to place the blame at Spotify, and I'm sure they deserve some, but we've known for about half a century that the record industry is a hive of shit, and this is just another symptom of this. The disparity in income between the popular artists and average artists is huge, and its mostly because of gatekeeping that the popular artists actively engage in to protect their nine-figure fortunes. Spotify could have stood up for smaller artists, but I'm not convinced they'd even exist today if they had; it was really their willingness to work with the record industry that turned them into the force they are.

I do have some hope that Square's purchase of Tidal could be a catalyst for change in the industry. In other words, if they maintain Tidal's high(est) revenue share with artists, improve the user experience (a lot), leverage their existing industry relationships to keep enough popular artists on the platform, and work with indie artists... it could be very good. I'm optimistic. I think Tidal's core investors being artists themselves and a traditionally low-margin payment processor is actually very healthy, versus Spotify who effectively is just a middle-man that needs to extract enough to survive.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#302

Post by Spivak »

ccsnags wrote: post #98
justynadorsz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, artist and dev here. I don't agree. First, ideas are not copyrighted anyway. Second, you are both vague about those "different ways" of earning. Please expand on that.

Patrons. Sell merch. Sell tickets. Super chats. Patents and copyrights are literally ideas put on paper that one is claiming legal dominion over. Unless you are making physical media, your products are your ideas. It’s a tradeoff, not a cure for problems artists face. The current system favors wealthy institutions over artists. No one is willing to donate to a giant record company but fans of the work will readily gi…

How do you keep a screen printing shop from just selling your merch for cheaper than you? In your hypothetical they'll always be able to undercut you since they don't have to support anything but screen printing business with the profits while you have to fund art production?

The main point is that every avenue of monetizing art is create something that isn't your art that is scarce and then sell that. Why not just have a system where you can make the art itself scarce?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#303

Post by zdragnar »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #160
Eridrus wrote: 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…

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…

Are only paid plans paying out royalties? I used to pay for spotify, but cut it after a budget rebalance since we just didn't use it enough. I still use it about 50% as much as when I paid.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#304

Post by paxys »

lux wrote: post #198
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".

Unsigned artists don't sign anything with labels but we do agree to Spotify's terms, and those terms take from us and hand it over to major labels. If a user pays $10/mo and listens to nothing but indie streams, those indies are getting far less than $7.50 (more like pennies) due to the way they calculate their payouts. The major labels pocket the majority of that money. Spotify have the ability to change this, but n…

If you are an indie artist (no record label deals) and agree to Spotify's terms, how are major labels involved at all? How are they getting the payouts meant for you?

Re: Justice at Spotify

#305

Post by babelfish »

mikepurvis wrote: post #282
anchpop wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's two groups of people, one who listens to pop music for 10 hours a month and one who listens who indie artists for 20 hours a month (which could easily be the case if their recommended playlists are mostly indie artists as mine is), then switching to the model you propose would reduce how much money indie artists make, right? It seems more fair to me that artists would get a set amount of money per stream,…

I think the argument is not that it's the 10 vs 20 hour listeners, but rather the 10-40 hour listeners (workday) vs the 700 hour listeners (radio playing in the corner of a breakroom somewhere). The 700 hour listener has no audience and no human curation, and yet it's got 10x the influence on who gets paid by Spotify. The article I linked also makes a really good point about this model motivating artists to encourage…

Right, but artists don't care whether you're listening to their music actively or passively. Whether you stream 10-20 hours or 700 hours, 1 stream is 1 stream. I don't see why this should affect the payout

Re: Justice at Spotify

#306

Post by Eridrus »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #160
Eridrus wrote: 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…

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…

I feel like you should take Spotify's audited financial statements about how much they make and how much they return to rights holders (~75% of revenue) more seriously than your back of the envelope estimates: https://investors.spotify.com/financials/default.aspx

Re: Justice at Spotify

#307

Post by smnrchrds »

Eridrus wrote: post #306
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…

I feel like you should take Spotify's audited financial statements about how much they make and how much they return to rights holders (~75% of revenue) more seriously than your back of the envelope estimates: https://investors.spotify.com/financials/default.aspx

Agreed. The above calculation for example does not account for the fact that Spotify pricing varies significantly between countries and can be as little as 1.60$ per month.

https://edm.com/industry/spotify-premium-prices-by-country

Re: Justice at Spotify

#308

Post by edoceo »

mikepurvis wrote: post #282
anchpop wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's two groups of people, one who listens to pop music for 10 hours a month and one who listens who indie artists for 20 hours a month (which could easily be the case if their recommended playlists are mostly indie artists as mine is), then switching to the model you propose would reduce how much money indie artists make, right? It seems more fair to me that artists would get a set amount of money per stream,…

I think the argument is not that it's the 10 vs 20 hour listeners, but rather the 10-40 hour listeners (workday) vs the 700 hour listeners (radio playing in the corner of a breakroom somewhere). The 700 hour listener has no audience and no human curation, and yet it's got 10x the influence on who gets paid by Spotify. The article I linked also makes a really good point about this model motivating artists to encourage…

Doesn't Spotify say "don't play at work"? Seems it shouldn't be on in the break room

Re: Justice at Spotify

#309

Post by herbturbo »

tschwimmer wrote: post #242

The hard truth in music (and in many creative industries) is that there's a huge oversupply (many musicians are willing to make music for free or very cheap) and demand has a low willingness to pay. The result is that there isn't much money to be made for musicians. In my mind, there's really no way around this fact. You can argue (as these folks are) that Spotify could take a smaller cut and give more to musicians.…

Yeah I think it's easy for up and coming musicians to blame Spotify for their financial woes, but as someone who was an aspiring musician in the 90s I can tell you it was no picnic back then. Everyone I knew was broke, so the only way to make a record was to get signed, and that involved playing shows in front of A&R people which meant finding venues etc - all on your own dime. If you did manage to get signed and get an advance, you probably used it to buy better instruments and maybe pay rent for a month or two but it didn't last long. Then if you were lucky and the label decided to distribute your stuff, you'd make about a dollar between you for every full length album you sold. Music has never been about making money. You might as well play the lottery if that's your goal.

And as a consumer of music, I am very happy to be paying $14.99 a month for access to a collection that would have been virtually impossible for an individual to assemble 20 years ago. Music has been opened up to people in a way that did not exist before Spotify. Also, a good deal of the music I listen to is stuff I had already bought on CD or vinyl years before, so those artists are getting paid twice for me listening now.

Bottom line is it's always been hard to break through into making money from music. Nothing has changed except the way it's distributed.

Re: Justice at Spotify

#310

Post by mensetmanusman »

Digital data has created a fascinating situation for artists because every new piece of art/music/video/etc. will henceforth always be competing with perfect replicas from the corpus of all human creation.

That means the added incremental value of a new unit of art/etc. will asymptote to zero.

This is one negative downside to the many upsides of digital technology.

Post reply on HN