Can’t even seek through songs.
https://medium.com/brain-labs/why-spotify-struggles-to-make-money-from-music-streaming-ba940fc56ebd
For anyone wanting to rage at Spotify, I’d remind you that Spotify has never actually turned a profit. They lose money on every single paid user, and even more on free users. Tl;dr of the article (sorry for the account-wall) is that Spotify is contractually obligated to give around 70% of every dollar it makes to the labels, who then eat most of it and give a few crumbs to the artists. If you want to support artists, buy their merch, their physical albums, and go to their shows. If they’re independent, they may actually see some non-trivial revenue from streaming as well.
Spotify may also be contractually restricted in what level of access they can offer for free - licensing can be very messy - and they also do need to create enough incentive to actually make the paid tier worth it. Given that a month of access to essentially all music ever costs about as much as a single CD did back in the day, it feels like pretty incredible value to me, personally. Yes, you can of course always pirate if you want to deal with the hassle of that, but you should at least keep it in the back of your mind that, if everyone did that, we wouldn’t have any music to enjoy at all. If the cost of streaming or buying music is genuinely a burden, I wouldn’t blame you that much for pirating, but if you can afford it, I do think the value really is there, if only to avoid the sheer hassle of pirating and managing a local library. And if you really think that streaming is just uniquely corrupt and terrible, CDs haven’t gone anywhere.
But if you can easily afford to pay for music and you still refuse to, at least have the honesty to just admit that you want to get things for free and you don’t care about anyone involved in creating it getting paid for it, without dressing it up as some kind of morally righteous anti-capitalist crusade. It’s normal to be annoyed about having to pay for things; we all are, and we all want to get things for free. Just admit that instead of pretending your true motivation is anything deeper.
Holy shit, an actually reasonable take on Lemmy regarding subscription services. I genuinely couldn’t believe what I was reading and was waiting for the “LOL, JK! Pirate everything, they don’t deserve my money and fuck every ad and paid service ine the universe.”
Thank you!
ngl, I was expecting to enjoy roasting in downvote hell, so this has been a pleasant surprise haha.
I think a lot this stuff winds up people taking the bad feeling of paying for a thing, which is course completely normal, and twisting it into them somehow being personally wronged rather than simply accepting that yeah, spending money feels bad.
That said, if there is an obvious bad guy in this story, it’s pretty clearly the labels, and given how unimportant radio and traditional music marketing is becoming, I would love to see more and more artists operate independently or with small labels and see the oligopoly of the Big 3 fall apart. They may have been somewhat necessary 80 years ago, but nowadays, they simply don’t provide anywhere near as much value as they suck up.
Some subscriptions make sense for the consumer, or at least justifiable.
IMO a music service like Spotify is absolutely one of them.
Turning heated seats in a subscription? Burn in hell.
For sure. Subscriptions have to have some sort of value add, and in a world where I was king they’d be illegal otherwise. Spotify: songs you don’t own are being delivered to you. Value add. Dropbox: storage you don’t own is being provided to you. Value add. BMW’s heated seat subscription: you already own the heaters, the controls, the vehicle, and are paying for the battery that energizes those heaters and the gasoline that charges the battery. No value add. That’s just rent-seeking.
And speaking of rent…
I would also even say that a show/movie subscription makes sense. Except all of the services have already preenshittified themselves to the point where it’s literally more convient to just pirate everything.
So far spotify hasn’t done that so I’ll continue happily paying for spotify even though I’m a filthy pirate. Hell, spotify could double in price and I would still be perfectly happy with the service I’m getting.
its not the subscription service that’s bad its the implementation of the subscription services that suck and you 100% should pirate and adblock every piece of media you consume unless its directly profiting a small creator otherwise youre setting a precedent that 18 subscriptions should be required for me to follow a tv show.
pirating was dying down in popularity until this rise of the current shitty corporate media garbage. money is the only thing that matters on this god given earth do you really think your money is better off in a corporations mega stock with a super small portion actually being given to a creator?
and if you say more things in life matter than money then go on without money, youll be completely unable to enjoy anything. solely off the basis of youll starve because low and behold we’ve monetized eating and drinking. two fundamental requirements of survival.
welcome to earth where ur either bombed by powerful people or youre blackmailed by the cost of living (designated by powerful people) enjoy your stay (or die the world doesnt actually care they just want your money, and dying is pretty lucrative for funeral homes anyways)
The difference is that music streaming services actually offer a better experience to most people compared to movie/tv show streaming services for example.
Choose whatever music streaming service you prefer and you get pretty much the same huge selection of songs across the board. You can pick based on features and user experience. With movies and tv shows, most content is exclusive to a single platform. So you have to keep adding/removing subscriptions unless you want to pay north of $100 a month to have all of them at the same time. Every streaming app has a different interface and different features, and some might not work on all your devices. Piracy isn’t only cheaper in this case, but actually more convenient. It’s the better product, even when you leave pricing out of the equation.
Sure, some people will always resort to piracy, but there’s a direct correlation between the quality of service offered and the amount of piracy.
I can completely understand tv content piracy for convenience alone (and sure, it’s cheaper/almost free, that’s definitely a factor), but I never even thought about replacing music streaming with pirated content, because it’s just super convenient.
Yes, you can of course always pirate if you want to deal with the hassle of that, but you should at least keep it in the back of your mind that, if everyone did that, we wouldn’t have any music to enjoy at all.
This is bunk. If people pirated the record labels out of business we would have less music sure, but there will always be people who make music for the love of the craft, rather than just to line an executive’s pocket.
I’m all for directly supporting artists (and I buy albums and merch directly from the band wherever possible), but let’s not pretend like the people pulling the strings aren’t also responsible for the shitty situation they’re in.
Fuck the recording industry and how they treat artists. And I say that as a premium streaming service customer.
The amount of it would still be dramatically reduced. Those people who are making music solely for the love of it already exist today and people are perfectly welcome to listen to them; nothing is stopping them at all.
I think it’s probably safe to say that the vast majority of music that is listened to today would not exist if the artists couldn’t financially support themselves from it. Do you really disagree with that?
I think it’s probably safe to say that the vast majority of music that is listened to today would not exist if the artists couldn’t financially support themselves from it. Do you really disagree with that?
Of course not, and I clearly called out that there would be less music if there wasn’t an monetary incentive to do so. But at the same time, record industry titans falling would leave a massive vacuum that would be filled by more independent artists and labels. In the end, there would be less music overall, but there would still be some way for artists to get their cut.
Industry titans aren’t music, they’re merely the middlemen who craft what they think the public wants to hear and leech money from artists. Them falling would be a boon to the smaller and more niche acts who don’t get the chance to explode because they don’t have the weight of a major label to push them into the spotlight.
If you still have to work a full time job to live, that’s a lot less time available to create art. You sound like you’d expect artistic friends to give you a discount on their work “to get their name out there”
Thank you for calling this out. Also, art is not about volume. What does it matter if I can listen to 10,000 tracks that sound like bunk vs 10 tracks that touch the fabric of your being.
we have a family subscription (12€/mo.?) in our household, and i would probably not go back to pirating music anytime soon. they offer genuinely great features and from your post, they don’t seem to be the bad guy here. anyway, if it’s not shutting down in the next couple of months, i’ll keep using it. but they do neet to get some FLACs onto there soon.
if there existed something like spotify for video streaming, i probably wouldn’t even pirate movies right now.
Yeah, Spotify has supposedly been working on a lossless option, but it’s been in the works for years now. Don’t have a clue what the hold-up is, especially given that other services have it already. Tidal and Apple Music have it already if it’s something particularly important to you.
Supposedly they have a hifi service on the way that will offer lossless streaming, potentially pretty expensive though - https://www.techhive.com/article/790882/spotify-hifi-release-date-when-is-spotifys-lossless-tier-coming.html
These aren’t the only options. I’ve gotten into Bandcamp and it’s great because I can listen to an album multiple times before deciding if I want to buy it. Then when I do, I get a DRM-free FLAC copy to keep forever, and a much larger portion of money goes to the artist.
Sure it doesn’t have the extreme catalog of Spotify or things like social playlists. It’s very album-based (which I like personally) and takes a little more effort to choose what you listen to. But I’ve had no difficulty discovering new artists and great tunes.
Of course the company has problems too. The new buyer just laid off half the staff and says they won’t recognize the union, so we’ll see how it fares. But even if it goes under, I keep the music I bought.
Can you elaborate? I can find articles that say there have been layoffs but what does that mean for the platform and how it supports the artists? Is it basically dead and not worth using anymore? I want the large majority of my money to go to the artist not the label or platform shareholders, is there something similar to bandcamp in that regard? Don’t suggest physical media please a lot of artist either don’t make any or are extremely difficult to find and buy.
I seriously do not believe that companies running major online services continuously for over a decade have not made a profit. This must be Hollywood accounting.
It’s not at all a coincidence that this happened at the same time interest rates were rock bottom. Lyft has never had a profitable quarter, nor has Spotify. I think Uber has had a few, but they’ve also heavily struggled. Netflix does well, but no other video streaming service has been profitable. Disney+ has already started to dial back on production as a way to cut costs. Reddit has been around for a long time and isn’t profitable.
Capitalism isn’t actually as easy as a lot of people think it is. To make sense of this, you have to realize that in extremely low interest environment like we had, the primary business objective is not profit, but rather, growth. Especially in the tech world, you’re trying to sell a story to investors that you’re creating an entirely new market that you’re poised to absolutely dominate, and that if they simply give you money now, rather than getting some profit in the short-term, they’re going to wind up owning a lot of extremely valuable shares in the next Microsoft, or Netflix, or whatever. Debt is very cheap, and so tapping into that stream of investor money doesn’t cost you much at all, and you can build some cool new thing that people like a lot. The problem comes when the chickens finally come home to roost, and the investors expect to get something for their money. That is currently happening, now that debt is much more expensive and investors are much less willing to take big risks, which means that those services that were living off of investment money now need to either establish that they can actually make the numbers work or perish.
Spotify, for instance, is sitting on nearly two billion dollars of debt. Now, they’re not in the worst position, because for better or for worse, the labels need some streaming services because that’s simply how people consume music today, so the labels will have to keep it alive on way or another. But it doesn’t change the fact that the numbers need to add up eventually. Reviewing Spotify’s sheets, they’re not in a terrible position though. They lost $453 million in 2022, but they also spent $1.48 billion on research and development. They’ve been doing a lot of development on podcasts and ML-based recommendations, which is probably where a lot of that went, and the kinds of engineers that work at Spotify don’t come very cheap at all.
Now, you’d probably say that they could simply not do that and content themselves with being a perfectly adequate music streaming service, but if they announce that they’re doing that, it opens a huge opportunity for a competitor to go guns a’ blazing to try to develop a bunch of flashy new features to steal customers. Additionally, the labels, and indeed musicians as well, don’t want music to be cheap. They want it to be valuable and so desirable that people are willing to pay a decent amount for it. Musicians aren’t exactly selfless saints either; no one really is. Plenty of artists, of all genres, could easily make their music completely free to access, play free concerts, and personally cover all associated costs with doing that. But they don’t, because at the end of the day, everyone wants a slice of the pie.
So they would rather take in more debt at an unfavorable time than to maintain a profitable leading business or even to limit research investment to a sustainable level? That really makes it sound like being unprofitable is a choice rather than an inevitable reckoning with a fundamental unsustainability of the business.
Yet ultimately they make up for those excesses by squeezing the customers more.
If investors, knowing all that you do for this long, continue to approve this approach, then it seems like it’s itself a mechanism to try to extract more out of a market that could have been stable. In which case referring to it as an inevitability to be blamed on customers who aren’t really paying its worth doesn’t seem quite accurate. After all, if they were, the investors would be seeking to expand in some manner, right? Which means these businesses aren’t allowed to simply be profitable, and customers will always be on the hook for that.
But still they can’t be quite so unprofitable to be unsustainable or they would just fall apart. If hollow hype was enough to keep investors in, we wouldn’t see tech fads come and go so quickly. Seems to me that most tech companies don’t get to survive their “unprofitability” for so long.
It’s still not a good justification for making the free version completely useless. Those limitations are just ridiculous; I miss the days where paying for a product only meant getting rid of ads and gaining some exclusive features. Maybe they should also reduce the label share instead of always making the customers pay more. I refuse to pay a subscription for non-trivial things like music; they can still make money off me with ads when I use the free version. They can increase their profits with other features like they are already doing by allowing people to buy merch from Spotify.
Those days were built on the backs of venture capital. They were never sustainable. Now you’re on the other end, and it’s either deal with more ads and more restrictions, or pay up and get rid of all of that (or use something else).
I assure you, Spotify would love nothing more than to reduce the label share - it’s not as if they love giving away almost all the money they make - but they also have next to no real leverage, since the labels have all the power here.
Again, Spotify loses money with every single free user. There may exist some balance point where they can actually reach financial stability by converting a large chunk of them into paying users, and I don’t think can really blame them for doing what they can to achieve that.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck to lose features you liked, but an individual not liking something doesn’t make in immoral.
I doubt major labels can live without Spotify as much as Spotify need major labels. They can push users to pay for Spotify by adding more cool features for payed users instead of removing fundamental features of the free version. Forcing people to pay is never the right solution
This is ridiculous. Spotify has been effectively doing dumping as an economic policy, and now that they have a sizeable portion of the market share, they’re turning to enshittification to make a profit. I see nothing defensible in that. The fact that they can’t turn a profit means that they’re trying to drive out competitors with less VC money.
We as consumers are not obligated to ensure healthy profit margins for random megacorps, and especially not ones engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, and it’s embarrassing to defend that. I’ve never used Spotify and I never will, but the idea that they lose money on every user tempts me. I second the other guy in the comments: If it isn’t economically viable, it shouldn’t exist. It’s just wannabe monopolism otherwise
Fundamentally, no industry can survive on VC money forever, so there simply has to be some kind of crunch eventually, either by reducing the product, increasing the price, or both.
We as consumers are not obligated to ensure healthy profit margins for random megacorps
I mean, this is a nice sentiment in the abstract, but in actuality, we kind of are if we want the product to continue to exist. Spotify is not going to be able to operate at a loss forever, and while there is a discussion to be had about what level of profit is warranted, I don’t think it’s a particularly wild thing to say that the answer is at least non-negative profit.
If it isn’t economically viable, it shouldn’t exist.
What I genuinely don’t understand is how you can simultaneously say that Spotify shouldn’t exist if it’s not economically viable, and at the same time, you’ll also criticize them for any attempt to make it economically viable. If Spotify shouldn’t offer the free tier because it’s not viable, and you’ll also attack them if they stopped offering it, what do you actually want them to do?
I mean, this is a nice sentiment in the abstract, but in actuality, we kind of are if we want the product to continue to exist
Except what made the product attractive to the consumer are the very things making it unprofitable. Minimal ads, unlimited streaming of any and all music you want. Without that might as well stick to terrestrial radio, at least that doesn’t use up your mobile data.
What I genuinely don’t understand is how you can simultaneously say that Spotify shouldn’t exist if it’s not economically viable, and at the same time, you’ll also criticize them for any attempt to make it economically viable. If Spotify shouldn’t offer the free tier because it’s not viable, and you’ll also attack them if they stopped offering it, what do you actually want them to do?
The point you dismissed as a “nice sentiment in abstract” applies here: it’s completely irrelevant to the consumer. If Spotify dies we will just go to Apple/Amazon/Youtube Music, and if they all die that’s then iTunes and MP3s get to make a comeback.
Spotify’s profitability is Spotify’s problem, no-one else’s.
If it isn’t economically viable, it shouldn’t exist.
If you’re claiming this as an axiom, I disagree. Public transit isn’t economically viable. Homeless shelters and soup kitchens aren’t economically viable. Increasingly in the modern world unbiased news isn’t economically viable. If you’re handicapped in some way you’re probably not economically viable. Honestly the human race isn’t really economically viable. Some things are objectively good and should exist at any price.
Now, I’m not under any delusion that Spotify is one of those things. Lol nope. But the statement on its own isn’t really a defensible one, and I think only the most strident Randian libertarians would try.
If you’re not claiming this as an axiom, and just saying that if Spotify in particular isn’t economically viable it shouldn’t exist, then I can probably get on board with that. But for my family’s mental health, I think a service like Spotify should. Or the return of a plurality of online mp3 storefronts.
Who would have thought that good old dumping at a large scale and inadequate economic regulation would lead to companies basically “starving” themselves in a Mexican standoff?
And it’s not just Spotify it’s a major chunk of the tech companies, because no one learned anything from the dotcom crash.
Yeah this isn’t Spotify’s fault really. It’s a cringe over prostitution of the industry with increased server cost, record studios asking more in premiums, and growing pains from increased salaries. It’s unfortunate we can’t ever just let something exist for the sake of general good without the greedy asking for their take when it becomes popular.
Yes, you can of course always pirate if you want to deal with the hassle of that, but you should at least keep it in the back of your mind that, if everyone did that, we wouldn’t have any music to enjoy at all.
That is probably the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
This is such a lame excuse. If the company never turned a profit - they shouldn’t exist anymore. Not shittify their service till nobody uses it.
But their service is great if you pay for premium. Which is fine in my book.
The point is they haven’t turned a profit even with people having premium. So what’s the reason for them to exist
Well, if you don’t pay with money, you’re paying with your attention. Do you think they create this huge service just for funsies?
Tbf, out of all media streaming services across movies, series, and music, Spotify has the highes bang-for-your-buck. It’s still like Netflix at that time when there was only Netflix and you could watch almost everything on one platform. I still buy records that I like on physical media like vinyl, but Spotify is such a great deal for convenient listening to all music out there.
Man these people forget the days when a month of Spotify would afford you 1 CD. I remember cause I would spend half my paycheck on music. I’m just sitting here happy for services like Spotify and YouTube in my life. I remember a time when music and information was much harder to obtain (even illegally).
But if you bought the CD you actually owned something. Stop paying for the services and you have nothing if all you used was spotify/YouTube/pandora. I gave up on paying for streaming years ago and spend the same amount monthly on purchasing music. I get CDs, either new or used. I’ve amassed a collection and I don’t need Internet or monthly charges to play them.
But I don’t want to own it. I don’t want to amass a collection of CDs taking up space somewhere. Been there, done that. I have a large collection of ripped mp3s from CDs I bought in the 90s and early 2000s (I’ve long since disposed of the physical media). I haven’t clicked on a single one of them in years, I just keep them for nostalgia sake and because they take relatively little space.
I just occasionally want to listen to music sans commercials or annoying DJs wasting my time. For the cost of 1 CD a month my entire family can listen to almost anything they desire, at any time, without hassles (on Pandora in our case but I assume the economics are similar).
Same thing with movies, honestly. I watch them once and move on. There’s a small handful I like enough to rewatch and I do own those.
I get the whole, we don’t own anything anymore, argument and I mostly agree with it (see my massive Steam library). I just want both options to be viable. Streaming for ephemeral entertainment and actual ownership for the things I choose to keep.
We all have our preferences and I enjoy the quantity of music I can get in a heartbeat. It really sucked when you were 16 and spent $15 on a CD that sucked because there was no way to hear it ahead of time.
Valid point, but commuting with my turntable to listen to my sick vinyls on the go is a pain in the ass. Also moving sucks ass when you have a metric fuckton of sensitive vinyl to move. Owning stuff also has its downsides. Also no way I’m digitizing my vinyls and cutting them and shit to listen to them on the go, ain’t nobody got time fo dat.
I gave up on CDs roughly 15 years ago because I don’t like the format compared to vinyl (small album art, plasticy jewelcases, …).
You owned the music when you buy it. With multiple backups the risks of losing it it very minimal but with spotify or other streaming services, if you have to reduce your expenses you completely lose the access to the music till you pay again. Spotify always grey out songs too so even when you pay you may not have access to the some of the music you want to listen to
Surely you have a better explanation for why Spotify isn’t giving you the full service for free.
Spotify is not profitable nor ever has been. It accrued $4B in additional debt last year. The business is subject to high royalty fees. As a competitor, I just leave free Spotify running all day on mute since they lose money from every subscriber. The royalties are the same whether they make money or not on the customer. It is wise of them to more aggressively convert people to paid plans, but I’m sure that their margins are razor thin.
I know not everyone will agree, but I think YouTube premium is the better bang-for-buck service. $3 more per month than Spotify and includes YouTube Music premium and YouTube Premium. So all the music and ad-free YouTube.
Only so long as Google decides to continue serving content for free to people who contribute nothing to their bottom line, which isn’t guaranteed to last.
An argument could easily be made for Spotify as well. There are plenty of options for streaming music for free to your device with download support. Just about anything can be done for free if people are willing.
I’m currently in a three month trial due to the value (music streaming and ad free you tube), but coming from Pandora YT Music’s radio algorithm sucks sooooo bad. One of my first plays was a foo fighters album and now all the stations I create have alt/grunge in them. It’s making it really hard to consider staying.
Surprising to see any suggestions on here for YouTube Premium. I have been lucky enough to be on a family plan for years and it’s honestly great. Sometimes, it’s just easier not to deal with having to hack around things to make them usable.
I did not agree when I had both premium, I did not agree when I had YT light and Spotify premium, and I do not agree today.
Context: I only use YT for its main service; streaming video. I never tried YT music because I already had music streaming set up in a way that worked for me.
I’d rather vote for Deezer. Costs the same, but you also get lossless (16-bit 44.1kHz FLAC) audio.
By the way, free-mp3-download.net rips songs from Deezer. And if you don’t like spending storage, you could self-host your own Navidrome server, though I get that may not be convenient.
You’re not hurting the companies, you’re hurting the artists. I’m not saying don’t pirate at all, especially from artists like Taylor swift. But maybe if you’re listening to a small artist, especially if they’re independent, consider buying their cd.
If the option is Spotify or pirating, you’re really not hurting indie artists. They don’t make shit from streaming.
According to this blogpost or whatever it is Spotify basically doesn’t pay artists, so if there’s a niche/local/whatever band you like, the best way to show support is by buying their tracks/records directly from them.
I think for smaller artists, Spotify is less for revenue and more for exposure, hoping that your music can reach new listeners.
Spotify is not actually profitable, not that I imagine you actually care about discussing such annoyances as facts. I imagine you probably wouldn’t personally love the idea of working while actively losing money for the privilege?
I guess Kbin is getting a reputation for having such wild takes as “Stealing isn’t exactly great,” so I’m glad to see I chose a Fediverse home wisely.
What a shame it would be if this drove more people into using those awful cracked versions of the Spotify apk that give you most of the premium features without a premium account. Truly the godless heathens over at xManager (https://github.com/Team-xManager/xManager) must be rejoicing over this.
Who tf uses Spotify without a premium account?
I’d rather pirate that shit that use it for free (I like to hit next all the way).
IMHO Spotify is one of the few services that it is worth to pay.
I have the family premium plan and honestly love it. I haven’t downloaded an mp3 in years because Spotify is so convenient. As far as subscription services go, this one is top tier for me.
Now when we look at movie streaming… well that’s what the music streaming could have been like. What an absolute mess.
Now if only they’d pay the musicians worth a shit. Maybe they should strike next.
Full disclosure I am on Spotify family plan and I love it because
It would be nice if companies didn’t slash features and would offer music for free with features beyond that of broadcast radio.
It would be nice if we didn’t have the mechanisms demanding infinite growth from companies because sometimes that’s just not possible or even necessary.
Imagine if Spotify could just be like ok, yeah we’re good no need to make major changes, everyone is happy, life is good thanks. Versus: oh shit we need to boost the quarterly numbers who can we fuck over to get there? I know, customers and musicians both! Yay!
if only they’d pay the musicians worth a shit<
afaik that’s mainly the fault of the music labels, they charge quite good money, but they don’t give it to the artists: https://blog.groover.co/en/tips/loud-clear-spotify-2/
That article, while not necessarily wrong, is blatant propaganda and overlooks the most important issues until the final paragraph, and even then it only touches on it once.
As someone with expansive knowledge and experience in the indie music industry, with a lot of experience dealing with streaming services and Spotify in particular the biggest problem is not the % of value created paid out, it’s what the actual value is. They don’t touch anywhere on how much you get paid per play, how the value is created, how the money flows once it’s in Spotify’s hands, etc.
As said in the article, artists and indie labels/distributors have basically no ways to reach Spotify to negotiate a price, but Spotify itself paid literal millions to license a few major labels in the beginning. The ‘value’ of a play is extremely skewed, where you’d need upwards of 10.000 plays to equal a single play on a nightly radio show for a big broadcaster like the BBC or at a festival with 500 people. On top of that, if you work hard, network properly and prepare your release you can get quite good exposure through radio, dj and other live plays, whereas with Spotify you have to be lucky that they put your pitch towards the right ‘tastemakers’, they are actively working against user (influencer)-playlists, have piss poor customer service, blatantly favour major label tracks in their algorithms and don’t actual care about their listeners.
On top of that we’ve got the obvious subscription enshittification, classic outlandish manager/director salaries and bonuses, the need to have an ever-rising share price and more.
Yeah I work at a label we pay our artists about 30% of what we make off them, but that isn’t actually that bad considering the amount of overhead there is at a record label and the amount of services we provide for them. Just advertising alone makes up about 1/3 of a big label and we will spend more on advertising, distributing and actually allowing them to make music than we actually pay them, so in terms of end value it’s probably closer to 60 or 70%
In this case, it’s a good thing that Spotify is an European and not an US company. Less incentive for enshittification. At the same time, the main reason they fuck over musicians so much is not so much Spotify but because of record labels and ads themselves. The record labels are the ones with the financial power, holding the copyrights. It’s not that Spotify doesn’t pay labels, they do, then in turn the labels keep most of the money and fuck over the artists. At the same time, the record labels came last to the streaming game. Blinded on the madness that was the Napster and peak P2P era, a war they lost, they didn’t want to even sell digital copies. Many awards and labels didn’t considered digital sales, legitimate sales. An many rogue artists sold or gave their digital albums for free to protest this. So they were always behind the curve. When Apple forced the labels to sit at the table for iTunes, they had no bargain leverage and were forced to accept shit terms in exchange for the hope that streaming would stop piracy. As a result, the tech giants got to keep most of the revenue bag and that’s been the status quo ever since.
On the other hand, adverts don’t pay. We tend to forget this because the likes of Google and Facebook are so massive. But the only reason they make any money is because of how massive they’re. Adverts are a shit form of payment. Too expensive and no one wants to advertise with you, too cheap and you can’t cover even the platform maintenance, it’s a delicate balance. The result is you need millions of eyes to make any significant amount of money from an advert. There’s a reason cable and open air TV has devolved into 15 minutes of advertisement per every 20 minutes of entertainment.
Spotify pays a fraction of a cent for every play. It takes 150 plays of a song to make a dollar from advertisement, and most of that dollar is gonna stay with the record label. This is significantly worse for indie and small up and coming artists. They simply can’t make a living out of Spotify unless they are already big and have a massive following. This hurts the whole industry as it becomes harder and harder to nurture new talent.
The up side is that, although they are getting shafted by Spotify and the labels, a subscription play is worth more than a free play. Up to ten times more than a free user play. So your subscription does help pay artists more. The down side is that less than 25% of Spotify users pay for a subscription.
because Spotify is so convenient.
I used to think the same, but these days it seems like most songs from my favorites/liked list are no longer on Spotify, as I hear the same 10 or 20 songs over and over again when I have it on random play, and when I manually try to go through my list it’ll skip over songs and not let me select them.
I guess the competition with the other music delivery companies is coming down to certain companies have exclusives for certain songs and artists.
I’ve never paid for any streaming music plan and I love it. I never have to pay to listen to music because I already have MP3s of all the good music
To each their own. For me, I really like the Discover Weekly/Daily features to discover new music and I can’t see how I would ever “already have MP3s of all the good music” since that’s an ever changing set. Heck, I still have a ton of old mp3s I used to rip and/or download, but I haven’t listened to them in a while.
I would gladly pay for a similar AYCE movie subscription, but I refuse to sign up for a ton of different services and play the “which service is that movie on again?” game. Instead it’s a very different approach for me.
Looking forward to when you wake up and realize that you’re just emptily shilling for a company that would happily take your money while refusing features.
Why would you talk about how great the features that you pay when we’re talking about how they’re slashing free features then? I’m sure you love paying the same price to rent your music, the same price as just buying it, but that’s not what the conversation is about.
Not sure how this is emptily shilling though. Am I paying for a service? Yes. Will I stop paying for a service if they start “refusing features?” Also yes.
Like I said in another comment, I was happy with Netflix back in the day, but now, nope. I have self hosted alternatives.
If a service is not worth it for me, I stop paying. Different people have that line at different levels, and for me, today’s Spotify Premium is worth it. In the future it may not be.
No need to be so hostile.
We are all here on Lemmy because we see the value in self hosting and free & open source software.
However even here, people have the need to antagonize each other and call each other corporate shills.
Maybe a peek behind the curtain of human nature.
See how they down vote you.
Let me try to give a voice to the people down voting.
I hope that in the future they make a separate subscription model for each of these services.
$2/month I get the pause feature.
$5/week I get to control my own volume.
$4/month I don’t have to loudly shout the brand name of the commercial to go back to my podcast.
This is how websites keep the lights on and you shouldn’t be so ungrateful. We all know the pursuit of infinite profits means all these companies will continue to find more ways to squeeze customers. So I’ll go down with this ship even though just 5 years ago it was crazy to see a 2 minute unskippable ad but now there’s 3 of them and you’re an asshole for wanting to remove that.
What would the internet look like if we got rid of how companies advertise to us.
In the future you should consider what you’re saying before speaking out against enshitificatin and encroachment of mass marketing into our lives. It feeds. It never stops feeding and I am meat.
Perhaps, and this may be a crazy thought, there is some middle ground to be found between a company actively hemorrhaging money and it demanding infinite profit.
Now, I’m sure you do your job for no pay just out of the goodness of your heart, and that you even put your own money into it because you just love it so much. And that’s very very good of you. But I just don’t think I can really make the same demand of everyone, though I assure you, we all are looking up to you as an example, truly the absolute paragon of morality.
