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

Why Spotify Pays So Little

lit.vulf.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 305 posts

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#191

Post by hussong »

ebbv wrote: post #29

Radio 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.

As a start, correct ID3 tags and an album cover bigger than the size of a thumbnail would be great. Bonus points for configurable folder and file naming scheme and playlists generation upon download.

I always felt kinda stupid paying 10 Euros for an album, then spending 10 minutes fixing metadata and downloading a halfway decent cover image from discogs.

You'd get better data quality from filesharing sources, since fans obviously care more about releases than labels. Same goes for movie releases btw.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#192

Post by grrowl »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #182
tormeh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>unless indie fans listen to less music than mainstream music fans That point is explicitly addressed in the post. Mainstream users listen more because mainstream users are gyms etc. that just let the top 40 run in shuffle 24/7.

Wouldn't that use be both against Spotify's EULA [0] and be illegal without a PPL [1] (in the UK at least). [0] https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 [1] http://www.ppluk.com/

In terms of small bars, hairdressers, co-working spaces, yoga studios, mik bars, etc... probably, but no one's going to tackle the small fries. Large chains tend to have their own corporate-mandated "radio" playlists for this reason, though (supermarkets and gyms)

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#193

Post by geoelectric »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #182
tormeh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>unless indie fans listen to less music than mainstream music fans That point is explicitly addressed in the post. Mainstream users listen more because mainstream users are gyms etc. that just let the top 40 run in shuffle 24/7.

Wouldn't that use be both against Spotify's EULA [0] and be illegal without a PPL [1] (in the UK at least). [0] https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 [1] http://www.ppluk.com/

Yes, but at worst bars and venues like this end up paying the flat fee to the recording cartels to basically have unlimited plays of whatever they want and none of that really goes to the artists in any significant way.

And in most cases, it doesn't really come up until they're audited at least once, which might be never.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#194

Post by maurits »

nharada wrote: post #130
Flimm wrote: 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.

If I were to speculate, I would expect the number of times a song is played most likely to adhere to a power law and therefor this average number of streams is not an ideal measure.

And yes, I'd would expect the tail to be fragmented. Lots of people listening to but a small and mutual exclusive set of bands. Next to the odd main stream one.

So perhaps it is not really a question of light users sponsoring heavy ones, but more the banality of average taste.

Would love to see some stats.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#195

Post by nl »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #182
tormeh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>unless indie fans listen to less music than mainstream music fans That point is explicitly addressed in the post. Mainstream users listen more because mainstream users are gyms etc. that just let the top 40 run in shuffle 24/7.

Wouldn't that use be both against Spotify's EULA [0] and be illegal without a PPL [1] (in the UK at least). [0] https://www.spotify.com/uk/legal/end-user-agreement/#s4 [1] http://www.ppluk.com/

Yes[1].

It still happens though. I can't find any instances any stories being written about this condition being enforced.

[1] https://support.spotify.com/au/learn-more/faq/#!/article/pub...

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#196

Post by aczerepinski »

In the 90s I bought hundreds of CDs that cost $20-$25 each, inflation adjusted. Now albums are delivered at better than CD quality, and cost only $10. Supporting the music you love is cheaper than it's ever been. Why opt out of it?

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#197

Post by freyr »

mark-r wrote: post #158
pfraze wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a zero sum game. Spotify isn't going to pay any more in total, no matter how the rules change. That means for every winner under a new scheme, there will be a loser. If those losers are the popular artists that the service can't exist without, you have a non-starter.

> That means for every winner under a new scheme, there will be a loser.

No, that doesn't follow. Imagine one artist is receiving all the money, and the other 10,000 artists are receiving none. Spotify could move to another payment model that would result in 10,000 winners and one loser.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#198

Post by 0x0 »

mortenjorck wrote: post #35

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…

Wouldn't it be a fraction of a fraction of a cent for every subscriber going to the band?

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#199

Post by freyr »

corndoge wrote: post #110

Streaming: + Huge catalogue on-demand - Lower quality - Latency, dropped streams - Monthly subscription - Artists get next to nothing - Player lock-in Hard disk: + Zero latency + Highest quality + Artists get everything + Any player - Device storage limitations - Heavy file transfers I never understood why streaming caught on to begin with.

You forgot to include paying $0.99/song as a hard disk negative.

Two more possible trade-offs:

- Does the average person know how to transfer their music collection to a new computer?

- Paying for songs a la carte requires thinking about what to buy and deciding if it's worth your money. Streaming reduces that friction.

Having moved to streaming, I can't really imagine going back to storing songs. If I had a really great stereo or headphones, maybe then I'd reconsider. But streaming is just so much more convenient.

Re: Why Spotify Pays So Little

#200

Post by dasil003 »

huckyaus wrote: post #188
CaveTech wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have trouble believing that commercial venues make the majority of the plays on Spotify.

Here in Melbourne it's very common for venues to use Spotify - almost ubiquitous, in fact. The bar that I moonlight at used CDs for the longest time but eventually made the switch last year. Most venues don't want to spend time carefully selecting music when they could instead be focusing on customer service.

Sure, but what is the total market size of businesses versus individuals?
Post reply on HN