Spotify should create app store-like programs, where artists can choose to "self-publish" and get 70 percent of the revenue. If they are already doing that, then maybe they should promote it more, because I'm not hearing about too many artists joining such a program. Most still use Spotify through labels.
Why Spotify Pays So Little
21–30 of 305 posts
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#22If someone started a service that did exactly this, would artists take their music off spotify and onto this new service? Would the users follow?
I had always thought it was the record labels who would essentially prevent this from happening as they're essentially getting cut. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. It would certainly be interesting to see a new streaming service with a different type of payment structure for artists.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#23Vulfpeck 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
Vulfpeck is also also the band behind four really terrific EPs in as many years, and you should absolutely give them a listen[1], although ideally not on Spotify.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#24> Terry is below average. In 2014 he averaged 350 streams per month. If his subscription money only went to artists he listened to, it would’ve been $0.02 per stream.
> Instead it was $0.00786.
This sounds like a much better way to do it. The artists should ask Spotify to change it. However I guess the big players don't really want it changed.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#25Vulfpeck 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.
Agreed that having fans play your music on mute would be just as - if not more - effective, and would work without creating a prime target for banning. But I think in this case it made for a very effective "statement", even if it could've been a more efficient hack.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#26Why 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?
To answer your first question, mobile usability is limited with the free version (e.g. can only shuffle play, can't play straight through an album). Should they stick to the free version? That's a value proposition that can only be answered by the user.
>Following this suggested model, free users listening wouldn't help the artists at all - is that really desirable? I doubt it. Paid users are usually free users first. No free users means fewer paid users down the line.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#27I think it depends on who the artist is. For the most popular the artists wouldn't be complaining about being paid too little. Either way if a formula change, distributing earnings based on an individual user instead of the whole pool, means the popular songs would earn far less. It also means if someone listens to one song that would earn more than someone who loves music and pays the same thing! I would argue the f…
> For the most popular the artists wouldn't be complaining about being paid too little.
Taylor Swift did just that recently and pulled her music from Spotify because she didn't feel she was fairly compensated.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#28Vulfpeck 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
Vulfpeck is also the hottest funk band that currently rocks this planet. But as it seems, I should rather purchase their albums from Bandcamp than streaming them via Spotify.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#29Radio never paid much for users either. The problem is nobody buys albums any more.
I think that's because buying a digital album has so far been really unrewarding.
Artists need to come up with a package for their music that people actually want to buy.
Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little
#30Spotify 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.
Agreed, I finally admitted last year that I was tired of maintaining my own MP3 library and that $9/mo was a fair enough price to listen to whomever I want.
But ya, that sure seems like that should be fair enough and profitable enough for the artists I listen to, so if Spotify isn't doing a good job of making sure that is the case then I hope someone else arrives on the scene who does. After all, switching costs are now incredibly low for us as consumers and that is where I want my money going.