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

Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

djmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#161

Post by jonathantf2 »

snailmailman wrote: post #66
input_sh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should know: Apple Music filled that niche to perfection. Hands down, better than it ever was on Spotify. More choices, easier discovery, more collaboration with external brands, etc. https://music.apple.com/us/curator/apple-music-dj-mixes/1441...

Interesting! I’ll definitely take a look. I’ve been meaning to try Apple Music.

It's the reason I use both. Spotify's recommendations and social features are much better than Apple's - but the exclusive DJ sets and recordings of concerts etc are a great value add.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#162

Post by xerox13ster »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #117
dieselgate wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the comic link and enjoy the riff off the book title “steal this book”. Just looked into deleting my Spotify account through the app and appears that’s not an (obvious?) option. Ugh

The comic does not make sense for iTunes, since if you buy music from Apple, you get the non DRM file that is yours to use however you want.

It’s xkcd number 488, it was probably made when iTunes was still selling or just after it stopped selling DRM music.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#163

Post by pydry »

FireInsight wrote: post #138
atoav wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in a small and new band. In 2023 we earned roughly 500 Euros via Bandcamp (digital, physical and merch) 300 Euros selling merch on gigs 2000 Euros playing gigs 20 Cents on Spotify There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked.

This is exactly the reason why my preferred method of music consumption is piracy + Bandcamp. Every Bandcamp Friday (when Bandcamp doesn't take a cut) I buy about 2 to 6 albums I've listened to in the past month or a few. If an artist is not on Bandcamp, I'm less likely to listen to them, but if I do, I eventually pirate their stuff. All the music I buy and pirate is in FLAC and funneled into my local library, where…

These numbers definitely give piracy a shine.

What's better for music as a whole? Boosting Spotify's share price and Taylor Swift's private jet habit? Or putting that $11/month towards some gigs for an artist you really like?

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#164

Post by epolanski »

tgv wrote: post #149
asdof wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd wager the income from playing gigs would be substantially lower if you weren't on Spotify.

Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment. People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Nor to big name concerts. And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays according to the numbers mentioned here.

> People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track

Do you have numbers behind this claim?

I definitely got aware of some unknown artists thanks to Spotify and YouTube, some of them had low hundreds views/listens.

Ended up supporting them, going to concerts and buying merch.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#166

Post by milesjag »

ctenb wrote: post #155

Are there any other comparable (but more ethical) platforms out there that I can switch to?

bandcamp is a bit more of a level playing field - the artists can decide whether they want to use the platform to stream or sell their music, while being given some control over the number of streams per listener before a song will be unavailable to stream (although this does lean on cookies, I think, so not difficult to get around...)

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#167

Post by helsinkiandrew »

tgv wrote: post #149
asdof wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd wager the income from playing gigs would be substantially lower if you weren't on Spotify.

Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment. People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Nor to big name concerts. And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays according to the numbers mentioned here.

> And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays

Unfortunately more like 5000+ plays. People tend go to concerts of music they listen to and for a lot of people that means hearing it on Spotify

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#168

Post by jfoster »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #152
atoav wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in a small and new band. In 2023 we earned roughly 500 Euros via Bandcamp (digital, physical and merch) 300 Euros selling merch on gigs 2000 Euros playing gigs 20 Cents on Spotify There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked.

> There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked. This isn't an excuse for Spotify not paying much for plays, but I bet having music on spotify helps the gig revenue though. In some ways this is also true for Taylor Swift et al - they also make thousands times the amount from playing gigs than 'selling' albums, streaming, and radio plays but that drives ticket sale…

Indie: No one pays you.

Popular: Gigs pay you.

Taylor Swift: Governments pay you millions of dollars for regional exclusivity. (essentially, play 2 - 3 concerts instead of 10+)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/mar/05/taylor-swift-s...

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#170

Post by quitit »

VS1999 wrote: post #8

How much of an issue is this? Does it work like ad revenue on youtube? If something has under 1k streams I have to assume that was only a few dollars hobbyists get occasionally, if even that.

I think that’s a too-narrow way of looking at it.

For an individual artist it’s not much. For Spotify it’s huge, all of those nickels and dimes add up quickly.

It also doesn’t matter if their current plan is to redistribute 100% of the gains to other artists, since this becomes profit they didn’t need to sacrifice to appease big acts. I.e. small artists pay so Spotify doesn’t have to.

Most importantly the artists didn’t sign up for this arrangement when they first joined Spotify, but now due to Spotify’s size they may feel compelled to give away their work for free for the chance at being successful or keeping fans happy.

Post reply on HN