So nefarious people could potentially DDoS artists they don’t like using bot plays to get their tracks removed. I can’t think of a real economic reason to do that besides perhaps offering the only cover version of a popular on Spotify that gets removed, which would juice your own plays.
The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
11–20 of 39 posts
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#12From the point of view of a streaming service, it looks like this:
1) music is generated from bands via spontaneous generation
2) we throw that music up on a streaming site without context or support unless paid by major labels
3) profit
That’s not how it works. Good music is usually developed in some context- a community of musicians will develop in some major city in a location where the rent is not too high. They go to each other’s shows, they support each other, they learn from each other, they imitate each other and develop new sounds. Once in a while one group becomes popular enough that people outside of that community start to hear about them.
But, just as Facebook has become a news aggregator and should probably take that responsibility seriously, iTunes should take its responsibility seriously to the musical community that generates the product it sells. It could start recommending to people bands that are local to them- who they could go see live. It could tie in promoting live experiences of the bands a user is listening to. They could redistribute the streaming profits a little to give some financial support to smaller artists instead of the top 10 bands who play on a loop at Applebee’s. There are lots of ways that they could foster the growth of musical communities, and they aren’t doing it.
One good thing about the old music industry was that they would at least somewhat do this for struggling bands- they would identify talent, and develop and promote it. iTunes doesn’t do that. Spotify doesn’t do that. A lot of talent is going to wither on the vine without support.
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#13american companies still hate the success of spotify
the music industry is bad
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#14Hope you find my Medium post thought provoking. Incentives in the music industry are setup such that any company offering promotional services to artists (ad agency, PR firm, promoter, radio promo, marketing department, etc) can quietly go to fiverr.com, buy 100,000 bot streams for $20, then take credit for their client’s rise in popularity—-getting the artist to pay again. Which, because of how streaming services pa…
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#15The whole premise of the way streaming music is marketed and sold is all wrong. In the long term if you want good music to be created you have to put a little thought into how you’re nurturing the community of musicians on the local level who are doing the hard work of creating the product that Spotify and iTunes are selling. From the point of view of a streaming service, it looks like this: 1) music is generated fro…
Both of these trends put traditionally local restaurants and small bands under increased pressure to compete with the likes of VC-funded Spotify or DoorDash. The pessimist in me sees a future where these local business are largely gone, kind of like how Walmart and other big box stores replaced many small, local retailers.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15961416/spotify-fake-art...
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#16The whole premise of the way streaming music is marketed and sold is all wrong. In the long term if you want good music to be created you have to put a little thought into how you’re nurturing the community of musicians on the local level who are doing the hard work of creating the product that Spotify and iTunes are selling. From the point of view of a streaming service, it looks like this: 1) music is generated fro…
It’s not all bad, but these are cool ideas.
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#17Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#18The whole premise of the way streaming music is marketed and sold is all wrong. In the long term if you want good music to be created you have to put a little thought into how you’re nurturing the community of musicians on the local level who are doing the hard work of creating the product that Spotify and iTunes are selling. From the point of view of a streaming service, it looks like this: 1) music is generated fro…
Conversely, a kid in a basement with a laptop can for $20 via distrokid be listed on Spotify and be discovered within non-geographic communities. It’s not all bad, but these are cool ideas.
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#19Hope you find my Medium post thought provoking. Incentives in the music industry are setup such that any company offering promotional services to artists (ad agency, PR firm, promoter, radio promo, marketing department, etc) can quietly go to fiverr.com, buy 100,000 bot streams for $20, then take credit for their client’s rise in popularity—-getting the artist to pay again. Which, because of how streaming services pa…
Re: The proliferation of disingenuous music marketing and playlisting services
#20Hope you find my Medium post thought provoking. Incentives in the music industry are setup such that any company offering promotional services to artists (ad agency, PR firm, promoter, radio promo, marketing department, etc) can quietly go to fiverr.com, buy 100,000 bot streams for $20, then take credit for their client’s rise in popularity—-getting the artist to pay again. Which, because of how streaming services pa…
I'd like fixed price per play to get replaced by something closer to splitting a users subscription fees based on the time they spent listening to a particular song/artist.