Never, ever, ever.
Except that paid streaming doesn’t seem to be a supportable business model.
Within 10 years I predict a growing number of artists will be releasing music for free and supporting themselves with touring. That’s already where the big money is for acts so committing to that won’t be the largest leap they’ve ever made.
The LARGEST artists will have tours that, like today, are corporate sponsored. That removes the risk from the artist and places it on the sponsor. The artist gets paid whether the shows sell or not. It’ll impact merchandise sales, certainly, but a steady check in the tens of millions will probably ease the pain somewhat.
…for artists spotify absolutely sucks. I ran the figures in 2012 (based on what was known at the time) and it is next to impossible for anyone except for the biggest artists to make money on it. A label gets paid 0.005 cents per stream. The artist gets a smaller percentage of that. It takes 140 streams of a song to make the same money as a single ITunes sale. It takes 48 million streams for a label to make $13,000. To make $13,000 you needed to stream more songs in a year than Adele and Lady Gaga, and that song would be ranked in the top 5 of of streaming songs for the year.
Or they could sell 143 self-pressed CD’s every month and get the same amount of money. Which one is a better way for a band to make money? Try and get 48 million streams or sell 143 CD’s?
Cite me: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14727141
And spotify had better start figuring out a way to actually make a profit. Because they’ve been going a while now, and despite paying the artist an absolute pittance they’ve yet to turn a profit. Streaming may be the “future” of music, but I don’t think that spotify will be there at the end.
…not the same at all and as a fellow photographer I have little sympathy for Mr Sheldon. The contract is pretty straightforward and up front: and written consent is required from the original publisher before the images can be reused. Sheldon appears to completely freelance: which means he doesn’t have a guaranteed client at every concert, and from reading the comments it seems he doesn’t understand what the terms of the contract means. But he is a great photographer though, I like his work.
You should run the numbers again, given that the number of premium subscribers are orders of magnitude larger today.
…no thanks. If you feel that that numbers make a significant difference you feel free to run the numbers if you can find them. Spotify still isn’t in profit, and I don’t think that will ever change.
I do feel like an increase of more than 10-fold in profits makes a significant difference, yes.
A tenfold increase in revenue , not profit. It has $1B in revenue, but no profit. Well, apparently the UK arm has made a profit recently, but that’s a particular branch. Spotify as a whole hasn’t made a profit in more than 3 years.
…as MrDribble points out: revenue isn’t profit. When you are spending more money each year than you earn there really isn’t much scope to increase payments to performers. But by all means if you think an increase in revenue has changed substantially the amount to pay out to artists by all means go out and show us the money. It took me days to track down sources when I ran the numbers last time, I’m not particularly interested in doing that again.
The numbers really don’t look good.
Spotify’s losses are growing as it increases its subscriber base.
Pandora has consistently lost money and is sitting on a loss of just under a quarter per share right now. Again, not good.
It may simply be that today’s music buyer isn’t willing to pay fees sufficient to make streaming profitable. If that’s the case it’ll be interesting to see if Apple can make it work. Apple could certainly eat a loss for a long time - or even treat it as a loss leader for some reason - but I don’t think we’re at the point where streaming’s viability is considered a done deal.
Shrug
There are two ways I decide whether to buy an album or not. If I hear their music on the one radio station I can stand to listen to and I like it, or if I hear them on Pandora or Spotify and I like it. I don’t know how many people there are like me out there but I have to think it would make more sense to target people like me, rather than the people who will listen on a streaming service or just torrent the tracks.
…so are you going to run the numbers or not? Because that graph doesn’t tell you anything: you can’t figure out how much an artist makes per stream from those figures at all. Reading down the page you’ve cited it looks like the average payout may have changed from 0.005 cents per stream to 0.006 cents per stream. Yay progress.
More info: in my original cite I used an infographic from “Information is Beautiful” to get the Spotify figures. Here is the updated 2015 version:
Average income per Spotify stream: 0.011 cents signed and 0.007 cents for an unsigned artist. So I’m not seeing a substantial difference at all.
…why are you virtually shrugging your shoulders at my post for exactly?
For whom is it particularly relevant what the payout for a stream is? Isn’t the relevant information how much money you make overall as an artist?
At first, Apple was running iTunes as a loss leader to spur sales of iPods. These days, I doubt iPods are anything more than a distant afterthought for Apple, but they might be continuing iTunes out of inertia. As long are the losses are minor, they can afford to tolerate it.
…of course that’s relevant information. Do you actually have those figures on hand? Feel free to share.
There is a lot more information here:
…and that page really doesn’t contain any information that we haven’t discussed in this thread already. And Spotify are naturally in the business of only displaying positive information about themselves, which is obviously why the graph you posted before did not include “the number of artists” in its metrics. And as my Guardian cite points out:
I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Spotify is a really bad deal for artists. It was bad when they started and it is still bad now. Taylor Swift made a good decision when she decided to stop using Spotify.
My point was that the numbers you quoted were outdated, since the Spotify userbase has grown manyfold in the last few years.
I also don’t think Spotify is a bad deal for artists. If it were, it does not seem likely to me that so many are under a form of shared delusion and sign up anyway. And the figure saying that the average paying US non-spotify music listener spends $55 a year, while the average paying Spotify music listener spends $120 a year is convincing to me.