Live data from Hacker News

Why Spotify Pays So Little

lit.vulf.de

121–130 of 305 posts

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#121
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bit confused by the reasoning here. It's clear that light users are subsidizing heavy users, but why are we assuming that light users prefer indie bands and heavy users prefer pop music?

> why are we assuming that light users prefer indie bands and heavy users prefer pop music? The article explained this - because heavy users are playing music 24/7 at gyms, etc., and never play the smaller groups or genres that only some individuals like (and would like to support).

Interesting. I'm sure people are doing this illegally, but technically you're supposed to buy a commercial Spotify license for public performance.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#122
The proposition in the article only works because users pay a fixed monthly rate for unlimited listening, rather than a charge that is metered based on how much they stream.

Jack Stratton's proposition is wagered on the proposition that the users who listen to his tracks are ones who don't listen to very much other stuff. His listeners pay $9.99 per months, but don't stream very much, and a big chunk of what they do stream is Stratton's material. He doesn't want most of that $9.99 going to those other damn artists, who are just random junk whose material isn't sought out by anyone, but streamed randomly in Yoga classes, elevators, supermarkets or wherever.

If there is some user who paid $9.99, 70% of which is $7 going to the artists, and half of what that user listened to was Stratton's tracks, Stratton wants $3.50 for that month, for that user alone. Add to that other similar users, and extrapolate to twelve months and you have some non-negligible cash at the end of the year: better than a fraction of a cent.

Problem is, no matter how you slice the pie, it is a zero-sum game. There is so much revenue and so many artists. Most artists, likely including Stratton, will lose this zero-sum game no matter how the pie is carved.

There is little difference between 99% of the artists getting peanuts, and 100% of the artists getting peanuts. The proposed rule would just create a tiny group which gets quite a lot more revenue than the rest, at the cost of slightly impoverishing every member of the remaining group, who then gets a slightly smaller fraction of a cent.

It's actually a good rule from Spotify's POV because this tiny group would represent "success stories" which Spotify could use for promotion.

On a different topic, this kind of reminds me of the whiners who complain about online dating sites. "I'm obviously a more qualified bachelor than most of the losers who make profiles on this site, so if only the implementation of the site were based on somewhat different rules, then I would easily get replies from the women I'm interested in. I might have found a girlfriend long ago if it weren't for this damn dating site. Waaaah ... sniff!"

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complex accounting isn't a good reason to pay artists unfairly. Having said that, the accounting doesn't have to be that complex: 1. When paying out an artist, list out the (anonymous) users who listened to their music on Spotify. 2. For each user: a) Show the what percent of the user's total listening was spent listening to that artist. (e.g. 40%) b) Multiply the amount the user paid by the percentage from (a). (e.g…

It might not be complicated, but it's cumbersome as hell: "Hey, Rhianna, here's your 65-million line payment breakdown for the week! I know it used to just be one simple intuitive calculation, but isn't this great!?" > 99% of artists would prefer this model, even if it meant more complex accounting. What are you basing that on? Artists paid more might not complain, and those paid less (likely the more popular artists…

If only we had some kind of machine that was capable of computing these complex models for us...

EDIT: my point being, if the model is fairer, we can deal with a little extra complexity.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please provide an example. As the examples I have seen of artists showing their Spotify payments do not support this assertion. Here is a link to one such example I have seen which has each song paid at the same amount per play. This has made the number of items on the payment record to simply be the number of different songs which were played by that artist. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02…

That is a statement sent to the artist but broadcasters report far more detail to SoundExchange and licensing agencies.

And this whole time I was precisely talking about what would need to be sent to the artist...

Guess I am just missing your point, if you had one.

Edit due to reply since its getting nested way too deep: Thanks for clarifying. I never meant to say it was a reason to switch, complexity should never be a reason not to improve. I am just trying to say it isn't what I would call a 'simple' solution as the author asserts. I am also questioning just how much individual artists would actually want to receive all that information, which I believe would become necessary for them.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complex accounting isn't a good reason to pay artists unfairly. Having said that, the accounting doesn't have to be that complex: 1. When paying out an artist, list out the (anonymous) users who listened to their music on Spotify. 2. For each user: a) Show the what percent of the user's total listening was spent listening to that artist. (e.g. 40%) b) Multiply the amount the user paid by the percentage from (a). (e.g…

I never said it was a reason to. I simply said this method is anything but simple, as the author called it. Your method would require even more potential lines on the monthly report than the nearly identical method I described above. As yours would require a per user line, even though many of them would have duplicate rates. Keep in mind things would still need to be split per song also, as rights holders vary per so…

Exactly. Based on data from Spotify[1] and taking an average payment[2] of $.0052, I calculated Spotify would be storing about 20 BILLION accounting records PER MONTH.

Showing my work: 15m paying subscribers = ~150m per month, ~105m paid to artists @ .0052 per song = 20.154 million songs in a month.

[1]https://press.spotify.com/us/information/ [2]http://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/12/the-streaming-price-bib...

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The average consumer only spends $48 on recorded music per year.[0] At $100+ per year, services like Spotify are much more expensive for all but the most prolific music collector. [0] http://recode.net/2014/03/18/the-price-of-music/

But only one quarter of the users is a subscriber:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/12/spotify-60...

Suppose that the average price for subscribers is $7.50 (since students get discounts and they are probably a large chunk of subscribers).

That's (12 * 7.50) / 4 = $22.50

Suddenly that $48 starts to look pretty good.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#127
post #78

Like others in this thread, I naively assumed this was how Spotify already worked, and wondered why the payouts tended to be so low. Now it makes sense, and puts the numbers here ( http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/ ) in context. Realistically, it would be both hard to change structurally and a hard sell for major labels to give up what is effectively a subsidy of popular music by indie fans. Let’s take…

I'm a bit confused by the reasoning here. It's clear that light users are subsidizing heavy users, but why are we assuming that light users prefer indie bands and heavy users prefer pop music?

[deleted]

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#128

The proposition in the article only works because users pay a fixed monthly rate for unlimited listening, rather than a charge that is metered based on how much they stream. Jack Stratton's proposition is wagered on the proposition that the users who listen to his tracks are ones who don't listen to very much other stuff. His listeners pay $9.99 per months, but don't stream very much, and a big chunk of what they do…

3.5$ per user(!, or should I say a fan ) is significantly more than just negligible compared with fractions of a cent for every user.

It is also more correct, your subscription is distributed to artists whose music you actually listened to. It repeat listens are accounted for, then it would be even more fair, since you usually listen more to your favorite artists.

Currently the distribution just isn't correct. This is probably because of technical reasons.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#129
post #77

Like others in this thread, I naively assumed this was how Spotify already worked, and wondered why the payouts tended to be so low. Now it makes sense, and puts the numbers here ( http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/ ) in context. Realistically, it would be both hard to change structurally and a hard sell for major labels to give up what is effectively a subsidy of popular music by indie fans. Let’s take…

> A subsidy of popular music by indie fans That's an interesting problem — this is only true if indie fans listen to less music than pop fans. Imagine there are 10 users, 9 of whom only listen to pop, one only listens to indy, all of whom pay 10$. Now consider two scenarios: A. everybody listens to 100 tracks per month, or B. pop listeners stream 110 tracks per month, and the indy listener streams 10 track per month…

Yes, the article really missed this point.

One could also mentioned some sort of tiered payout scheme or a non-linear minimum after a certain amount of plays plus a percentage above that. Likely something that Spotify will experiment with over the years.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#130
post #58

Jack Stratton is correct in pointing out that less active users are subsidising active users. However, he then makes the leap that that means that less popular artists are subsidising the popular ones, which has yet to be proved.

I suspect that the paying users are more likely to listen to more obscure indie artists, simply based on the people I know who pay for premium. Anyone interested in listening to only top 40 likely won't see the value in paying $9.99 a month for it. Thus the less popular artists are bringing in the revenue but the big artists keep more money.

That being said, there's no proof of this without data to back it up.

Post reply on HN