• Spotify's CEO responds to Taylor Swift pulling her album, apparently $6 million a year isn't enough
    75 replies, posted
Spotify is good for big-name artists, not so much for tiny indie bands who get like 0.001p a listen or something.
[QUOTE=Netsc;46472751]Spotify is good for big-name artists, not so much for tiny indie bands who get like 0.001p a listen or something.[/QUOTE] I might be completely wrong, but for me the problem with Spotify seems to be that labels are still a middleman. Spotify has made it a lot easier for artists to get their music publicly available without labels, but as long as the labels keep grabbing most of the income I can understand that the remaining profit for the artist can be less than they deserve.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;46472172]Tbh I haven't spent a cent on music until I discovered Spotify and I decided to subscribe to Premium so I could use Spotify on my iPod without being having to be connected to the internet. Spotify is great for people that want to listen to music with ease, but terrible for the artists that make the music apparently. That's unfortunate, but it's definitely better than artists having all their music pirated. What do you guys think of Pandora?[/QUOTE] pandora is even worse
Mindless drama-stirring. Youtube: Has advertisements. Spotify: Has advertisements. Youtube: Can be used to listen to music. Spotify: Can be used to listen to music. Youtube pays less than Spotify, yet TSwift still uploaded everything to YT without problem.
tl;dr: at least we pay, unlike piracy. Piracy is bad, yeah. On your knees now.
[QUOTE=Swilly;46472213]This just reminded me.. Are all of Taylor Swift's songs about being an angry ex?[/QUOTE] most of her hits are since that's what sells
You realise the $6 million doesn't go to her right? There are so many walls of studios and distributors between her and that money that in the end it's probably a negligible amount in comparison to what successful album sales would give. Besides, she's not pulling it because she doesn't think she's getting enough. She's pulling it because she thinks it devalues music, and she's kind of right. Spotify's better than piracy yeah, but don't pretend that it's a service that is actually good for artists financially. This whole thing is far more complicated than "Taylor Swift is greedy" or "Spotify doesn't pay enough". Spotify's good in the sense that it curbs piracy, but it's bad in the sense that for the artists themselves (as opposed to the labels) it's not much better than piracy.
[img]http://puu.sh/cOwNS/73ab1541df.jpg[/img] This is what her artwork is on her Spotify page now. Spotify 1 - Taylor Swift 0.
[URL="http://time.com/3581487/taylor-swift-spotify-borchetta/"]Apparently her record label is saying she only got $500,000 in the year[/URL] However it does just say her, not her label, so it's possible she's a real small portion of it. If the label is getting $6m, then Swift is only seeing 8% of the spotify money.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;46472513]Who the hell is Taylor Swift?[/QUOTE] You should learn not to post things like this; all you achieve, really, is announcing to the world that you never get outside in the least.
Spotify just came to Canada and now everybody is leaving :( This is really lame.
[QUOTE=Monkah;46474842]Mindless drama-stirring. Youtube: Has advertisements. Spotify: Has advertisements. Youtube: Can be used to listen to music. Spotify: Can be used to listen to music. Youtube pays less than Spotify, yet TSwift still uploaded everything to YT without problem.[/QUOTE] Wait where did you get that information? YT can pay more than spotify, depending on the ads. Spotify has like one audio ad per like 4-5 songs. YT can have a preroll, overlay, and sidebar ads for each video. YT can bring in significantly more revenue for an artist, but it wouldn't be as user friendly.
[QUOTE=Monkah;46474842]Mindless drama-stirring. Youtube: Has advertisements. Spotify: Has advertisements. Youtube: Can be used to listen to music. Spotify: Can be used to listen to music. Youtube pays less than Spotify, yet TSwift still uploaded everything to YT without problem.[/QUOTE]You also can't adblock on Spotify, at least I don't think so. I have a subscription though so I don't give a fuck about ads.
[QUOTE=Jays2Kings;46477012][URL="http://time.com/3581487/taylor-swift-spotify-borchetta/"]Apparently her record label is saying she only got $500,000 in the year[/URL] However it does just say her, not her label, so it's possible she's a real small portion of it. If the label is getting $6m, then Swift is only seeing 8% of the spotify money.[/QUOTE] [quote]A Spotify spokesperson told TIME that the total payout for Swift’s streaming over the past 12 months globally was $2 million.[/quote] [quote]According to Borchetta, the actual amount his label has received in return for domestic streams of Swift’s music—$496,044—is drastically smaller than the amount Spotify has suggested the artist receives.[/quote] [quote]Taylor Swift has been paid less than $500,000 in the past 12 months for domestic streaming of her songs, Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Taylor Swift’s record label, the independent Nashville-based Big Machine, told TIME Wednesday.[/quote] Ok, so I'm a bit confused now, what's actually going on? Did Spotify give the label $2mil and they kept three quarters of it for themselves, giving only $500,000 to Swift Or did Spotify just give $496,044 to the label and Swift received an unspecified portion of that (Which would also mean they've lied about how much they actually paid out)?
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;46476132]You realise the $6 million doesn't go to her right? There are so many walls of studios and distributors between her and that money that in the end it's probably a negligible amount in comparison to what successful album sales would give. Besides, she's not pulling it because she doesn't think she's getting enough. She's pulling it because she thinks it devalues music, and she's kind of right. Spotify's better than piracy yeah, but don't pretend that it's a service that is actually good for artists financially. This whole thing is far more complicated than "Taylor Swift is greedy" or "Spotify doesn't pay enough". Spotify's good in the sense that it curbs piracy, but it's bad in the sense that for the artists themselves (as opposed to the labels) it's not much better than piracy.[/QUOTE] This is a problem with traditional record sales as well.
I think she should take up her issue with her record label. Spotify, or any service like it, is only going to pay what they have to pay for licensing. So for instance if I had a deal with my record label where I get 10% of the licensing, then I'd get 10% of the Spotify money. If I, as the artist, felt I should get more money off Spotify then i'd need to renegotiate my deal with my record label. I can't go to Spotify and say "Hey, you should pay me more" since they are paying what is required, how it's divided between me and the record label is not up to them.
[QUOTE=kitthehacker;46476132]You realise the $6 million doesn't go to her right? There are so many walls of studios and distributors between her and that money that in the end it's probably a negligible amount in comparison to what successful album sales would give. Besides, she's not pulling it because she doesn't think she's getting enough. She's pulling it because she thinks it devalues music, and she's kind of right. Spotify's better than piracy yeah, but don't pretend that it's a service that is actually good for artists financially. This whole thing is far more complicated than "Taylor Swift is greedy" or "Spotify doesn't pay enough". Spotify's good in the sense that it curbs piracy, but it's bad in the sense that for the artists themselves (as opposed to the labels) it's not much better than piracy.[/QUOTE] the music industries bloated corpse being in the way isn't really a problem with spotify, but more for it.
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;46472172]Tbh I haven't spent a cent on music until I discovered Spotify and I decided to subscribe to Premium so I could use Spotify on my iPod without being having to be connected to the internet. Spotify is great for people that want to listen to music with ease, but terrible for the artists that make the music apparently. That's unfortunate, but it's definitely better than artists having all their music pirated. What do you guys think of Pandora?[/QUOTE] I haven't used either service. But if you're an artist in this day and age wouldn't you go completely independent and tell the labels to get fucked when you can directly access money your music generates? Oh wait that's right, Taylor Swift probably doesn't write that much of her music, nor puts that much towards getting it recorded. She is a product of the music industry, not the other way around. She is too mediocre of an artist to stand on her own two feet. There are artists out there who do own 100% of the rights to their music.
[QUOTE=Monkah;46474842]Mindless drama-stirring. Youtube: Has advertisements. Spotify: Has advertisements. Youtube: Can be used to listen to music. Spotify: Can be used to listen to music. Youtube pays less than Spotify, yet TSwift still uploaded everything to YT without problem.[/QUOTE] [U]Spotify[/U]: 4,000$ to 8,000$ per 500,000 listens. [U]Youtube[/U]: 500$ to 1,000$ per 500,000 views. [I]"Spotify doesn't pay enough".[/I] [editline]13th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Brt5470;46477130]Wait where did you get that information? YT can pay more than spotify, depending on the ads. Spotify has like one audio ad per like 4-5 songs. YT can have a preroll, overlay, and sidebar ads for each video. YT can bring in significantly more revenue for an artist, but it wouldn't be as user friendly.[/QUOTE] Many sources mention YT doesn't bring good revenue for ads and it's only getting worse.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;46477346][U]Spotify[/U]: 4,000$ to 8,000$ per 500,000 listens. [U]Youtube[/U]: 500$ to 1,000$ per 500,000 views. [I]"Spotify doesn't pay enough".[/I][/QUOTE] She made $55 million in a year, if only $0.5 million was from spotify despite it giving a huge amount of people full access to all her music I can see how she'd be a bit dubious about it? I think vevo has some kind of deal with youtube though so who knows maybe they're making more money from youtube than it seems like
[QUOTE=Elspin;46477766]She made $55 million in a year, if only $0.5 million was from spotify despite it giving a huge amount of people full access to all her music I can see how she'd be a bit dubious about it? I think vevo has some kind of deal with youtube though so who knows maybe they're making more money from youtube than it seems like[/QUOTE] How is Spotify responsible for how the money is distributed once they pay the publisher? It's not their purview, they just need the rights to the songs.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46477227]the music industries bloated corpse being in the way isn't really a problem with spotify, but more for it.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, but I'm saying that people are throwing bullshit around here and not really understanding her reasoning for doing it and assuming (as the misleading title says) that 6 mil isn't enough for her. Hell one of the first replies to this is literally just "what a selfish cunt" with like 100 agrees.
To me it sounds more like the drug dealer method. First one is always free. Give people a little while to listen to it, then take it away and make them go actively pay for it to keep listening.
[QUOTE=Netsc;46472751]Spotify is good for big-name artists, not so much for tiny indie bands who get like 0.001p a listen or something.[/QUOTE] I have discovered quite a few bands through spotify and I bought albums because i liked them and I visited concerts. Annecdote of course.
[QUOTE=Killuah;46478652]I have discovered quite a few bands through spotify and I bought albums because i liked them and I visited concerts. Annecdote of course.[/QUOTE] A lot of the lesser known artists I like only have one or two songs or nothing at all. I'm guessing for this reason but who knows. Same thing with Pandora because I've heard that pays pretty shit as well.
[QUOTE=Jays2Kings;46477012][URL="http://time.com/3581487/taylor-swift-spotify-borchetta/"]Apparently her record label is saying she only got $500,000 in the year[/URL] However it does just say her, not her label, so it's possible she's a real small portion of it. If the label is getting $6m, then Swift is only seeing 8% of the spotify money.[/QUOTE] God forbid she makes $500,000 by doing nothing. I wish I had that kind of income
[QUOTE=Askaris;46470950]He has worded this somewhat carefully; he didn't say "money paid to Taylor Swift", he said "payouts for a top artist like Taylor Swift". While they may well have changed things around since I last heard about this, Spotify's business model doesn't actually give a whole lot of their revenue to the artists themselves (I recall Daft Punk only made ~$20,000 from Get Lucky on Spotify, despite it becoming the most listened to song on the service in a matter of weeks). While Spotify may well have paid six million to Swift's label for her discography, there's a good chance that her actual earnings from it were far, far lower.[/QUOTE] That's not Spotify's fault - Spotify can't pay anything directly to Swift for her music because her label owns her music and dictates the terms.
Spotify could greatly benefit both their service and artists if they added optional buy song/album feature. If you buy song you get drm free mp3 for download/stream even if you're a free user. Sounds like a blast to me. Spotify should expand beyond simply streaming service.
If an artist as well-known and popular as Taylor Swift makes only $500,000 from one of the largest streaming services in the world, what on earth are more minor artists earning? It'd be an achievement to be even a hundredth as popular as Swift, and yet that'd be just $5k/yr. Not saying Swift is necessarily in the right here, but that's really not a lot of money considering how much revenue her work brings in.
[QUOTE=catbarf;46479916]If an artist as well-known and popular as Taylor Swift makes only $500,000 from one of the largest streaming services in the world, what on earth are more minor artists earning? It'd be an achievement to be even a hundredth as popular as Swift, and yet that'd be just $5k/yr. Not saying Swift is necessarily in the right here, but that's really not a lot of money considering how much revenue her work brings in.[/QUOTE] You are assuming all music has equal value. Someone like her, being extremely popular right now, will bring listeners to a service like Spotify. Someone unknown will not. That's added value and why they'd pay more for her music. It's the same principle that governs how much actors get paid. If Robert Downey Jr brings fans to the theaters, he's going to cost you more to hire than a no name actor even if that no name actor can deliver a better performance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.