<i>>Of all the money Spotify receives, 70 percent goes to the right holders.</i><p>So Spotify only takes a 30% cut, that seems reasonable. Could be lower with more competition but it seems they have a lead over other services.<p><i>>How does that work? All the money is split across all streams. But the system also concerns the share of one artist within all those streams. So let's say Drake is responsible for five percent of all streams, then five percent of all money has to go to Drake.</i><p>And it seems like it's proportional to the usage.<p><i>>Is it unfair?</i><p><i>>Of course, that's okay if you enjoy listening to Drake. But what if you never do? Then it's actually a bit weird since your money goes to Drake while you never listen to his music. That's why some artists think that you should only pay for the artists you actually stream. And not that everything is lumped together and then distributed.</i><p>And then this seems to try and contradict that? What's unfair here? Are they giving a bigger share to artists that are played across more users and not more streams?
Subscriber Share[1] is the solution. Envato has done it, SoundCloud is doing it. It will never arrive for large music streaming platforms. It's not the platforms' fault. It's the rights holders'.<p>[1] <a href="https://medium.com/made-by-elements/subscriber-share-on-envato-elements-c3aac873657c" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/made-by-elements/subscriber-share-on-enva...</a>
I thought Spotify shifted away from paying per-stream after Sleepify?<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepify</a>
>The most generous streaming platform is Napster. The online music store pays the artist $1 for every 53 streams, followed by Tidal<p>>[...]<p>>If you are a listener and it's vital for you to support artists, you can start using TIDAL instead of another music streaming platform<p>Why TIDAL and not Napster? Weird plug
Then they honestly loose money with me.
I listen probably whole work day (in reality more). That is 8 hours, cca 4 minutes per song = 120 songs a day. That means they pay out about 0.5 USD per day for me. Let's say not all days, but just 25 days a month (i listen weekends too) would mean 12.5 USD paid out.<p>I pay 9.99 EUR for family (11.8 USD). There are other people on my account.
That sees crazy high? I assume this is one of those things where a massive amount of subscribers barely stream anything and that's how they can justify such a large payout?
Isn't is total subscription revenue divided by number of songs played?<p>How is that coming to $0.004 per stream spotifies fault? What are they supposed to do?
The source of those stats is not clear enough in my opinion.<p>Is the "per-stream" measure a result to try and have a comparable basis between the various actors, or is it really the only underlying factor in the calculation (beside the country which is mentionned as another factor)?<p>My guess would be that services would pay per minute-stream, not per stream. Otherwise, artists that tend to have longer form would not be willing to participate (I'm a big fan of Keith Jarrett, for instance, whose solo concerts mostly consist of tracks of around 40 minutes). You could also imagine hybrid models with bounds that de-linearize certain factors.<p>Looking at a very aggregate average is a recipe for erroneous conclusions...
During heydays of CD sales in 2000's the artist/band used get $7.68 per CD.<p>Merch and concerts has always been the money maker but obviously the last 2 years put paid to that.
Jack Stratton's Vulfpeck 2018 “To understand their artist payout, you need a new currency. I call it the ‘The Pity.’ There are a hundred pennies in a dollar and a hundred pitties in a penny. On a given play the artist will make about 60 pitties and that rate seems to be dropping”<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1sTH7bUQ4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB1sTH7bUQ4</a>
How about production cost for music? I have no figures for that but I can imagine that producing (most) music has become cheaper.<p>Further, I would put the hypothesis into the room that the revenue mix has also shifted. From selling music to selling tickets, merch, etc.<p>Any ideas on those two things?
The most interesting takeaway for me from this article is that Apple Music doesn't actually pay 1ct per stream unlike what is often suggested. Also that it is closer to Spotify than it is to Napster or Tidal when it comes to payouts per stream.
Doesn’t the article seem to contradict itself in YouTube paying the most?<p>I’d love to see a comparison with what artists we’re getting paid from iTunes before this streaming model.
$400k for only just 100M streams? that's a lot of money<p>only people with $AAPL in their portfolio can be against this<p>Playing your music in the metro doesn't automatically give you money, a stream shouldn't automatically give you money<p>Music is art, you offer your art, and it's up to the person to choose to support you<p>If you can't get your art to people, you can't expect people to support you<p>Stream != engagement