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

331–340 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#331

Post by bitcharmer »

yreg wrote: post #297
gcr wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this desirable? Wouldn’t it be more desirable to pay artists for everything? The implied comparison is with the status quo, and both Spotify’s and your proposals frankly kinda suck

Well, because at some point the processing fees are so high it makes no sense to distribute the earnings. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to get "peanuts" paid out. Google AdSense is the same; you have to earn at least $100 to get it paid out, until then the earnings just accumulate in your account. Same goes for YouTube. I don't see it as unreasonable. To be honest, I wouldn't care as a creator/a seller, unl…

What processing fees? This is a digital platform. It's not like there are dozens of bureaucrats stamping tonnes of papers here.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#332

Post by rightbyte »

joshuamorton wrote: post #154
rightbyte wrote: post #6

"Additionally, Spotify now requires a minimum number of unique listeners for royalties to apply. This attempt to stop "further manipulation by bad actors"" What a load of manure. The only reason manipulation of royalties even works is that they pool the streams such that the consumer wont pay the artist he listens too. Just tie the royalties to what each user listens to and what they pay. Solved. No abuse possible. B…

Something like 15% of spotify's revenue is from ads, and so even if you do that you have to address the ad-fraud problem. You also aren't even addressing one of the issues here, which is functionally "listen-time" related fraud on Spotify, but simple solutions don't really work, since yt has the same issue in reverse. As a general rule, if you think something like "No abuse possible.", you are unfamiliar with the pro…

> As a general rule, if you think something like "No abuse possible.", you are unfamiliar with the problem space.

Ok. The gains for the abuse is capped at the subscription fee minus Spotifys fees, per account.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#333

Post by BowBun »

Manheim wrote: post #216

Paying a nominal amount for each stream is one matter; however, compensating nothing for smaller quantities while you pay for larger amounts presents a fundamentally different issue. This scenario is akin to an author not receiving royalties for the first 1,000 books sold in a bookstore, or a manufacturer not being paid for the first 1,000 candy bars sold at a grocery store. Such practices can be equated with theft.…

You could try to equate it with theft, but you'd make a poor argument. It's typical for licensing and other contracts to include provisions for minimums (in either direction, depending on who the bigger company is). Spotify isn't paying for an inventory of 1000 plays to give to its users, it has licensed the songs for unlimited (I assume) use within the platform from the publihers. Artist streaming payouts are a small line item in the contract.

> manufacturer not being paid for the first 1,000 candy bars sold at a grocery store

This happens, in any case. People set up deals with grocery stores for 100k units. The store changes its mind. You're left with a huge inventory to either sell to them at a discount or find a new buyer.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#335

Post by fuzzfactor »

worble wrote: post #263
anentropic wrote: post #172

> Since going public on the stock market in 2018, the company has lost money every year they don't even have a business model the whole thing is a massive scam that devalues music just to earn some VCs a big payout it's like if I said I was going to "disrupt the supermarket industry" by giving away free food

> it's like if I said I was going to "disrupt the supermarket industry" by giving away free food Please don't give investors any ideas...

Too late.

There's a current TV commercial showing real customers' reactions to a promotional pop-up sample-tasting booth set up in a grocery store with all the little half-ounce cups for customers to try for themselves and see if they like it. These are sometimes like a marketing study for new products or variations.

Now in each little cup is a toothpick sticking up from a rolled-up dollar bill, like it was a piece of artisan cheese or something.

It's a commercial that candidly filmed a live promotion for a cashback app.

Even then the customers were mostly hesitant.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#336

Post by rchaud »

anentropic wrote: post #172

> Since going public on the stock market in 2018, the company has lost money every year they don't even have a business model the whole thing is a massive scam that devalues music just to earn some VCs a big payout it's like if I said I was going to "disrupt the supermarket industry" by giving away free food

They made losses every single year, not just from 2018 on.

Financialization of businesses has unmoored it even further from capitalism. You can be a billionnaire without ever turning a profit, as long as you can convince investors that the real money in a music streaming is acshually going to come from podcasts.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#337

Post by alexcannan »

fundatus wrote: post #299
orangesite wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue this would be a lot simpler and cheaper to setup than the byzantine distribution system we currently have in place. It would also make the economics of streaming viable for the majority of artists rather than the small pool of folk raking in the bulk of the money.

How? The current system is super simple: revenue * 0.7 = total payout total payout / no. of streams = payout per stream payout per stream * streams of an artist = payout for artist In the proposed system you'd have to calculate the payout per stream on a per-account basis and have additional complexities like how to handle family accounts etc.

Computers are very good at doing these calculations

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#338

Post by rchaud »

egeozcan wrote: post #200

Can someone ELI5: Why is it so hard to just split my monthly subscription money on all the artists that I listened to, proportional to their air time to the total listening time? I really don't get it

It's not hard. The company would simply prefer to take your money and spend it on whatever they want.

If people could decide how their money would get split up, they couldn't give Harry and Meghan $25m, let alone Joe Rogan $250m.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#340

Post by peapicker »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #167
tgv wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually, the spotify rate is 0.003 cents per track, which reflects my 83 plays ‘earning’ $0.25 on Spotify before this.
Post reply on HN