this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
1682 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

60106 readers
2413 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Can't even seek through songs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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!

[–] thisNotMyName@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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/

[–] sliels@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] thisNotMyName@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the insights. No holy among the capitalist companies...

[–] CarlsIII@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

It’s also not a new or Spotify-centric problem, either. Labels have been screwing over the artists for decades.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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%

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

As someone who was once a small artist on Spotify, they do actually pay really well. Better than most places.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

oh shit we need to boost the quarterly numbers

It's actually "oh shit we're lighting hundreds of millions on fire every quarter and not even making enough to come close to covering our costs"