Live data from Hacker News

Why Spotify Pays So Little

lit.vulf.de

11–20 of 305 posts

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#11
post #5

Is the description of Spotify's model to pay artists accurate? It sounds suspiciously simple, free of any special deals with labels to get artists on board etc... (which I had just assumed was a necessary evil) And do total stream divisions take into account only premium accounts? Or do they also include free ones? Because ya, as a premium user, I really do want (and perhaps naively expected) my $9/mo split between t…

Money to pay the artists listened to by free users needs to come from somewhere. I don't think artists and rightsholders are willing to accept a lower per-play revenue from free users. Which means I doubt that the ad revenue is enough to support the free accounts without subsidy from paid users. (The ad revenue isn't nothing, and the ads helps encourage conversion to paid user, so they're not without value to Spotify…

You could merge the two ideas to meet in the middle. 35% based on total revenue and 35% based on used revenue.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#12
post #6

Spotify has been villified since the beginning, and I certainly want a more fair system to exist for artists. That said, has there EVER been a business model in the US that was profitable for artists? I don't think there was ever money in music for artists from album sales. The cost of distributing and promoting music is just more expensive than making an album.

Is it actually the case that signing record contracts was always a bad deal for artists? I was under the impression that they reduced risk for artists who could then use money from the contract as a more stable source of income to pay for, say, childcare expenses.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#13
Why are light listeners like the example paying for Spotify? Shouldn't they just stick to the free version rather than going for premium?

Following this suggested model, free users listening wouldn't help the artists at all - is that really desirable?

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#15
post #6

Spotify has been villified since the beginning, and I certainly want a more fair system to exist for artists. That said, has there EVER been a business model in the US that was profitable for artists? I don't think there was ever money in music for artists from album sales. The cost of distributing and promoting music is just more expensive than making an album.

Is it actually the case that signing record contracts was always a bad deal for artists? I was under the impression that they reduced risk for artists who could then use money from the contract as a more stable source of income to pay for, say, childcare expenses.

That is my understanding as well; in particular, a lot of popular mythologies about artists "recouping" and being stiffed on royalties seem to be just that: mythological.

Here's a good post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3850935

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#16
post #2

Vulfpeck is also the band behind Sleepify[1], the album of ten silent 30s songs which fans looped on Spotify while they slept. Vulfpeck earned $20k as a result and used it to organize a tour. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify

Wouldn't you have had to (if a free user) listen to commercials during this? Wouldn't that sort-of defeat the purpose of the silence?

May as well ask people to play some more normal 30s songs and turn off their speakers, avoid being delisted as a non-album.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#17
post #6

Spotify has been villified since the beginning, and I certainly want a more fair system to exist for artists. That said, has there EVER been a business model in the US that was profitable for artists? I don't think there was ever money in music for artists from album sales. The cost of distributing and promoting music is just more expensive than making an album.

Spotify has me and all I know spending 9x12=108 per year on just music. If anyone expected any of us to ever spend more than this, they are very wrong. Even if we go back to the golden days of CD sales, I doubt the average consumer spent more than this, but I might be terribly wrong. I'm sure I wouldn't.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#18
post #2

Vulfpeck is also the band behind Sleepify[1], the album of ten silent 30s songs which fans looped on Spotify while they slept. Vulfpeck earned $20k as a result and used it to organize a tour. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify

Artsits used to put together similar listening schemes on MP3.com. The money was much better back then, from what I remember.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#19
post #13

Why are light listeners like the example paying for Spotify? Shouldn't they just stick to the free version rather than going for premium? Following this suggested model, free users listening wouldn't help the artists at all - is that really desirable?

For free users the money divided would be the ad money.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#20
post #16
post #2

Vulfpeck is also the band behind Sleepify[1], the album of ten silent 30s songs which fans looped on Spotify while they slept. Vulfpeck earned $20k as a result and used it to organize a tour. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify

Wouldn't you have had to (if a free user) listen to commercials during this? Wouldn't that sort-of defeat the purpose of the silence? May as well ask people to play some more normal 30s songs and turn off their speakers, avoid being delisted as a non-album.

Spotify premium eliminates all ads, both visual and audio.
Post reply on HN