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

'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#131

Post by n2d4 »

crazygringo wrote: post #126
jasode wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think a better payout structure for Spotify would be to go per-user. [...] - I only listened to one song this month? The full 4$ go to that artist. [...] I think the current model of per-stream across the whole platform distorts the playing field towards more popular artists Your idea has been suggested many times but as other sibling comments already noted, Spotify didn't have the leverage in business negotiation…

> In contrast, the current payout system favors the Big Labels at the expense of independents. Is there an actual statistic around this? The linked article you provided doesn't have it. I'm curious: 1a) What is the average per-stream rate for a song from one of the Big Labels? 1b) What is the average per-stream rate for a song from one of the Big Labels, that is then passed along to the artist after the label takes t…

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, I'm wondering something similar. Anecdotally (and maybe incorrectly), I'd expect people who listen to a lot of indie music to stream more songs per month than those who listen to pop & big label music, which means that big labels would be making less money if they get paid per stream than per user? Obviously there are probably many other factors, I'd love to see the numbers.

I find the explanation easier to believe that "per stream" is a much simpler & transparent system for the artists that causes less outrage towards Spotify[0]. And to cater to big labels, Spotify just increases their specific per-stream rate (as parent's article explains).

Still, it causes issues like the botting ones in the OP. I don't know, it's really hard to make a conclusion here without the actual numbers.

[0] Imagine you get more streams but less money than your friend with the same indie deal, just because his listeners listen to less music overall. You could convince ME that it's fair from an outsider perspective... but probably not an artist who's trying to make a living.

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#132

Post by n2d4 »

MDGeist wrote: post #63
emilecantin wrote: post #38

I think a better payout structure for Spotify would be to go per-user. For example, for each subscriber a given amount from their subscription plan is earmarked for payouts. Let's say about 4$ per user. We divide that amount by the number of streams the user had that month, and we simply pay that amount to the artist. Examples: - I only listened to one song this month? The full 4$ go to that artist. - I listened to 2…

I think your last bullet point is the one that sticks for me the most. If I only listen to independent death metal then why is my money going to Taylor Swift or Joe Rogan or whoever.

With per-stream pricing, it only does if you don't stream enough songs. If you listen to much more music than the average Spotify user, then all your money will go to independent death metal, plus someone else's will also go there even if they only listened to Taylor Swift and Joe Rogan. Of course, there's still the the fact that big labels have better per-stream-rates than indies, so you'd have to stream two-ish-or-whatever times the average amount.

And honestly, I don't know if that's bad for indie? I mentioned this elsewhere on this thread but anecdotally my friends who listen to a LOT of music mostly listen to indie, not big label. Maybe I'm wrong/my bubble doesn't generalize? I'd love to see numbers if anyone has them.

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#133

Post by itsyaboi »

sgslo wrote: post #108
itsyaboi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He seems to have a net worth of ~$20M.

I assume you're quoting ~$20M based on a search like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=weird+al+net+worth Every one of those pages is absolute bunk with made up numbers. They're trying to drive clicks. Take a look at any of them and you'll notice quite quickly that they never cite any source.

Looking at the first result (https://www.celebritynetworth.com/about-us/), they claim to:

> take into account known salaries, real estate holdings, divorce records, royalties, lawsuits, and endorsements. Our estimates incorporate a proprietary formula that removes estimated taxes, manager's fees, agent fees, and lifestyle expenses. The results are fact checked and confirmed by a team of editors and industry insiders.

No idea how truthful or accurate this is, but $20M does not seem unreasonable. Are there any better sources you know of?

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#134

Post by jwlstn »

s3p wrote: post #87
jwlstn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify literally has never turned an annual profit because labels extract all of the $ due to the monopoly they have on content. Artists should be mad at the labels THEY entered into contracts with, not spotify.

From what I have heard this is because Spotify has many people on their free tier, versus profitable competitors like Apple music which give a trial but are paid-only. If I understand it correctly Spotify's ads on the free tier don't generate the $10/mo revenue they get from paid users.

Apple doesn't break out revenue for Music and it's highly unlikely they are profitable, or if they are, it ain't by much.

The labels have a monopoly on talent and content, It's impossible for anyone to make significant money in the streaming game when they have a stranglehold on the supply.

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#135

Post by happymellon »

doublerabbit wrote: post #124
happymellon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most couldn't, there were only a couple like Metallica. But that's my point, people never made money from this previously. Why is Spotify being demonised because bands have bad contracts with their labels?

Spotify follows the same game-book as the record companies did in the early 00's. Pay nearly-nothing to the artist, take money for themselves and charge the consumer. Nothing has changed other than an online-internet enabled application than a CD. You don't even have your own physical copy, once you hit cancel you loose all. So your locked in to a model where if you wish to listen to music you are forced to pay, othe…

> Pay nearly-nothing to the artist, take money for themselves and charge the consumer.

No they don't, they pay out 70% of all their taking.

The problem is that almost all artists work through labels still. Spotify pays the label who then screws over the artist in the same way they always have.

You are misdirecting your anger, just like the RIAA wants you to.

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#136

Post by lamroger »

bombcar wrote: post #116
brk wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that era (when I spent some time in the music industry) it was common for labels to tell artists to not release 12 "Good" tracks. It was more like 3-4 Good tracks and then basically Filler tracks/B-side quality. But if you wanted the Good tracks, you had to buy the whole CD, and you might listen to the Good tracks 30 times, but the Fillers a lesser amount. This makes the per-track payment extrapolation from CDs so…

Then they'd immediately undermine themselves and release a "Greatest Hits" to double-dip.

Everyone that would have bought the album already has it

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#137

Post by doublerabbit »

happymellon wrote: post #135
doublerabbit wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify follows the same game-book as the record companies did in the early 00's. Pay nearly-nothing to the artist, take money for themselves and charge the consumer. Nothing has changed other than an online-internet enabled application than a CD. You don't even have your own physical copy, once you hit cancel you loose all. So your locked in to a model where if you wish to listen to music you are forced to pay, othe…

> Pay nearly-nothing to the artist, take money for themselves and charge the consumer. No they don't, they pay out 70% of all their taking. The problem is that almost all artists work through labels still. Spotify pays the label who then screws over the artist in the same way they always have. You are misdirecting your anger, just like the RIAA wants you to.

Maybe so, could of done royalty google-fu before hand but still, my anger is more focused at today's subscription models and my point still stands where you own nothing in return.

I don't use Spotify, nor any subscription model for that matter. If I can't own it, then oh well. This goes for consumer products too.

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#138

Post by ryathal »

jjulius wrote: post #29
jkubicek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's how much he earns, I'm not sure his point does stand. If he's making $350k from Spotify, I'm guessing he makes about that much from all the other streaming services combined. $700k in income from what is essentially an advertisement for your tours and merch feels like a pretty good deal.

$700k regardless is a good chunk of cash, but can you blame an artist for asking, "Whoa what the fuck?" if that's still a lot less than they would've made in a time before Spotify existed?

The only reason they would have made more is reduced competition. Streaming allows historical catalogs to be infinitely available, and vastly lowers the bar for smaller musicians to add their music to the catalog. There's also more foreign music available then ever before. The supply of music is vastly increased thanks to streaming, but demand really can't increase, so obviously the price is going to fall.

Re: 'Weird Al' Roasts Spotify's Artist Payout System in Year-End Wrapped Video

#140

Post by lux »

crazygringo wrote: post #107
emilecantin wrote: post #38

I think a better payout structure for Spotify would be to go per-user. For example, for each subscriber a given amount from their subscription plan is earmarked for payouts. Let's say about 4$ per user. We divide that amount by the number of streams the user had that month, and we simply pay that amount to the artist. Examples: - I only listened to one song this month? The full 4$ go to that artist. - I listened to 2…

I don't think this matters at all. Whether royalties are calculated per-play-per-user or per-play-per-all-users, I don't see any evidence there's any meaningful difference at all. Most people who subscribe to Spotify listen to lots of different stuff -- that's the entire point of streaming. Virtually nobody is listening to one song a month, or 2 albums per month. They listen to playlists and radio and their 8,000 lik…

"Rounding errors" like these always favour the larger players. It's a form of slowly extracting money that should have gone to smaller artists and instead gets funnelled into the pockets of major label artists who arguably don't need it, at the expense of smaller artists and especially niche genres that don't have the same mass appeal as pop music. That's a group that's severely lacking representation in the discussions around how to pay fairly.

Another way they're screwing smaller artists is next year they'll be requiring each song to have 1k streams _per year_ before qualifying for monetization. They estimate that'll steal another ~$40M/year from smaller artists to help line the pockets of majors. It's actually sickening to watch from the sidelines.

Post reply on HN