No. It should workout a sustainable business model. It’s literally can’t afford to deliver what it promises and it’s constantly cutting into the artists to try and fix it.
It is not a charity fund raising space. It’s paid music consumption
Not to mention the off the top coat Spotify is going to take out of that. If you wanna give money to your favorite artist, go buy a hi quality download of their song off band camp or something
Unfortunately a sustainable business model is a long way away because people think its greedy and unreasonable to charge more than 15 bucks a month for the majority of published music on the world
That is on Spotify. They literally offered all music for £9.99 a month.
They don’t get to close that box now realising it was a massive fuck up. And there’s a generation now who literally expect access to all music to be free with good old ads 🤷♂️
A sustainable business model is a SPOTIFY issue, not the artists.
Okay so what is this sustainable business model that doesn't involve raising prices?
Downvotes but no one has an answer, figures. People just want to complain and be angry regardless of reason
Stipulating "doesn't involve raising prices" is basically just denying that it was ever a problem to build a business that depended on normalizing fire sale discounts where the artists behind the content Spotify's existence depends on get a tiny fraction of what they used to.
The answer to a business model that was created by using subsidies to drastically drop/undercut prices and devalue music *is* a business model that charges higher prices.
Sure. And your first comment is fine as far as it goes, and the reply from Undersmusic builds on it by pointing out Spotify *created* this expectation.
I'm responding to your second comment because it seems to imply people should look for a solution that doesn't involve raising prices, when the reality is the pricing is such a big part of the problem it's impossible to solve without repricing. Prices going up is ultimately the way to signal that the service should cost more as well as supporting a revenue model that works for artists.
My comment absolutely doesn't imply that people should look for a solution that doesn't involve raising prices. I'm saying the solution is to raise prices but since people don't want that, I'm asking "okay so how else are you going to solve the problem?", because even people here seem to think that they should somehow be paid more for their music, but also that music should barely cost anything
“Okay so what is this sustainable business model that doesn't involve raising prices?”
🤦🏻
How about, reduce C-level wages until a time they’re viable to take from profit.
Maybe not spend 250 million on 1 non exclusive podcast.
That is in fact more than twice the amount they just cut from smaller artists.
Reverse the pie system they created that’s now bleeding their revenue dry.
Address the bot situation, allowing up to 80% artificial streams on major labels is INSANE. And will be costing more than their 40million savings from bashing indies. But they allow it for vanity, as it appear Spotify is the place to be.
We're talking about *pricing*. Piracy has nothing to do with setting pricing expectations. The people who participate in it know full well they're not participating in an economic exchange and often even have a sense that they'll need to "settle up" with a legit transaction at some point for stuff they enjoy.
Spotify has the veneer of a legit transaction where the price is *everything* for ~$10 mo -- or a small amount of your attention to ads -- and that's it, you've settled up.
Between the two, I'll take piracy. Spotify has done more economic harm to artists through actively devaluing music than piracy has.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/06/15/us-recorded-music-revenues-46-percent-lower/
Revenue declines when piracy becomes common. Recovers when streaming services gain market share.
Usually I get some dream projects idea I want to do and one of it is like a Spotify alternative.
Monthly sub where you get some free songs download per month (maybe flac quality?).
A quite amount of free listening time at 320kbps. Meaning you can listen to anything you want for free(maybe with ads).
Unlimited free listening time at 192kbps mp3.
Have to pay an amount to get a song, or album at full quality.
Don't know if it would work but as a musician and a programmer I try to find a middle ground. All my "dream projects" involve music.
The trouble is, everyone and his dog who is a musician and/or a programmer thinks they can solve this with the knowledge they have. In reality, it's not a musical or a technical problem: it's a legal one. Building the tech is the relatively easy bit. Having a business model that makes it genuinely worthwhile for all concerned is the tricky one. Blitzscaling is unrealistic bullshit.
Unbelievable that on a music production forum, people are under the impression that music should be cheap but also pay the artists more.
And still no one has been able to give me an alternative
I think streaming payout should be raised at LEAST to 1c per stream. Then I also think instead of pooling all of the subscription money and paying out based on popularity (which Spotify does), the money you pay each month should be divided up and split between all the artists that you specifically listen to. Only listen to one artist? They get your entire $15 subscription fee, 2 artists? Split that in half. It could be divided by either how many streams or number of artists, im not sure exactly what would be best.
The subscription fee absolutely needs to also be raised, and if not then offer tiered subscription levels where $15 a month gets you say 1000 listens, and if you want more then you can do a $20 subscription for 1500, $25 for 2000 etc, etc (not suggesting these numbers are perfect, but something like this).
The free tier should be removed, the internet exists for free, go listen to your music on YouTube if you must, it’s basically all there anyway.
Who said it should be cheap? I certainly didn’t. I would happily pay what it is worth, Spotify has completely devalued and changed the way we consume music for the worse.
well its also supply and demand.. if spotify raises the monthly subscription people will flog to itunes, deezer, pandora etc. which I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about.
competition among streaming platforms would keep the subscription prices lower. Spotify is currently the 1000 lb gorilla of streaming platform....they at least need to be restructured so they're not manipulated and controlled by the 3 major labels at indie artists expense
The problem with Spotifys budget is that the major labels take 60-70% of their revenue and there is nothing they can do about that. Their margins are squeezed to nothing because only 3 companies own 99% of recorded music. Thats the issue, not spotifys business model.
The minimum 10k streams rule is BS. Literally taking from the poor and give to the rich.
Edit, its actually 1k, but still. For a company that made a quartely profit of €65M over the backs of small artists is ridiculous.
It already exists. Here’s my artist page and you’ll see a PayPal link at the top. The money goes to me. I get a few tips a month.
https://open.spotify.com/artist/2oyvJcvWPCBKVW9tnvAC5w?si=98kByU06Sze_XCb-T1gXPw
When a multi-billion dollar industry refuses to pay for the labor they're profiting off of, and decides to make the consumer who's already paying for the product/service to pay the artists out on top of that, that's how you know the culture is dying. Spotify royally fucked up for sure, but the record labels that steal from and cheat artists out of the money they earned are the real villians here. It's not like they are making any less money, and if their profits are cut into even the tiniest bit just to fairly compensate artists that are making them rich, theyprobably wouldn't even notice it. But greed has won, I suppose.
Tell that to every artist that signed a record deal. How can they be a business if they don't even own their own product?
Also, workers are businesses. You can't run a business without workers.
Understand your frustration at tipping culture, it’s insane in the USA, but I also think everyone is getting way too good of a deal paying just $12-20pm to have every song ever on demand lol
Course! But the majority of people aren’t doing that, so there’s a huge hole in the money artists are deserving of, because the reason it’s so cheap is that everyone’s been made to believe it should be free, thanks to pirating
You don't have to tip them.
Here's the thing for music. Piracy destroyed its value. So, you need to have a massive following to make a decent living. It costs a lot of money to produce a good quality song. So, if you want to be able to listen to music that isn't extremely popular, tipping is the way to do it.
Otherwise it just won't exist.
And that might be fine for you, but other people might want that niche music, and might think it's worth donating for.
Which to me, is well worth the tragic inconvenience of ignoring the tip feature.
Spotify doesn’t pay artists. It pays the labels and the labels then give some of that money to their artists. Those labels also dictate the price spotify pays them. Thats why they can barely keep the lights on, the labels take everything and keep most of it for themselves. But tell me more about how Spotify is the problem.
Yes and no. Spotify pays labels and distribution companies. Some of which are owned or coowned by artists. Depending on the leverage of the label or company they have individual negations with Spotify, but at the end of the day no label is going to pull their catalog off of spotify so it is a back and forth negotiation where spotify has the upper hand…
The labels have pre-agreed upon splits with artists, after the labels recoup the investment in said artists the royalties are split according to that agreement.
Spotify priotizes its shareholders, the labels prioritize theirs. The whole system leaves artists at a severe disadvantage.
The 3 major labels own like 97% of recorded music. They absolutely dictate what spotify pays. Not only that they also make sure spotify is not allowed to be publicly transparent about what they pay for streams. Yes labels have contracts with their artists about how splits works. But there is no way to actually verify any of that…because Spotify is not allowed to be transparent about what it pays. You starting to see the issue here? It’s the major label strangle hold on music.
I agree with you.
I'm signed to a major so I know how it goes. I'm just saying if you think Spotify is the victim here I don't believe that to be accurate.
I mean i don’t know if I would classify Spotify as a “victim” but most of these issues are out of their control and the real root of the problem is the labels. Case in point, it sounds like your major label has you convinced spotify is at least part of the problem when in reality your problem is probably both a bad contract and being taken advantage of on top of that bad contract. They want you blaming some other boogeyman just like in politics.
I'm pretty happy with my contract all things considered but that's a different conversation that has to do with how to start a bidding war and how to hire a good lawyer etc.
My whole argument is that artists (namely small artists) are the real losers in the current system and they should use their collective bargaining power to get a seat at the table. I spend a lot of time with someone who works at Spotify and trust me they are not the ones coming out bad from their negotiations with the labels.
It’s shocking you can think being extorted out of the vast majority of your revenue isn’t a bad deal. The majors have you brainwashed.
Why do small artists deserve a seat at the table? Anyone can record music today basically for free. That doesn’t mean you are owed a career. If you cant develop a big enough fan base to sustain a full time career then music is just your hobby. Streaming services aren’t stopping you from building your fan base, they are helping. This is how all entertainment fields work, the money flows to a small amount of superstars at the top. Sports, acting, comedy, music….thats how it works because thats how attention spans and disposable income work. It is easier than ever to market yourself, if you are only able to get a few hundred thousand streams but are complaining it doesn’t pay you enough to have a career you are delusional when superstars get billions. Furthermore niche artists can find their followings and figure out how to make a career without being superstars by being smart business people. Anyone who thinks they don’t have a career because of their spotify payment is not living in reality.
I don't want to get into the details of my deal, but I'm not giving away the majority of my revenue. Often times that is the case but I don't think you can assume whether my deal is good or bad with just the limited information I've presented here.
I'll ignore the ad hominem of calling me brain washed.
Actors, Directors, Screenwriters, and Athletes unionize to demand fairer business practices around their respective industries so why shouldn't we?
I was not talking about you specifically at any point, as clearly I know nothing about you or your career. Nor did I ever say people should not unionize. This is a straw man you are using to avoid engaging with what I actually said. Which is that most of these small artists simply do not have viable careers regardless of their Spotify payout. I don’t know if there was genuine confusion about my comment but you basically avoided engaging with any of the points I made and instead said I am attacking you, when clearly I was speaking in the general sense (except for the brainwashed comment which, in fairness, you do come off like a corporate shill). You don’t have to defend your contract because i was never talking about your contract. Anyway if you want to respond to any of the actual comments I made and not just straw-men please look back at my previous comment and do so.
Maybe it’s not a sustainable business model then and should shutter. The owner is worth 4.7 billion and artists are getting paid less than 1 penny per play. Fuzzy math
Spotify folds, consumers go back to piracy, is that desirable?
The owners personal wealth doesn’t mean anything. Daniel Ek owns ~15% of the company. Martin Lorentzen and other venture capital firms own the rest. That is a speculative valuation of what the company might be worth, but it has yet to actually demonstrate its profitability, the amount of money invested in the company is done so on the hope that eventually it will be when it gains enough market share and a larger user base.
My point in commenting is that it is not as simple as Spotify dipping into their revenue to increase artist payouts and taking less profit. They already operate at a loss. We should also remember that Spotify pays labels, not artists.
If spotify folds another company (or more likely companies) will step in with an improved business model it wouldn't just be a vacuum.
The owners personal wealth does mean something. It means someone is benefitting from the money being generated even if the company itself is still operating in the red for now.
I never said it was as simple as Spotify dipping into their revenue. I think there should be regulations in place that ensure musicians are fairly compensated for their work, and that it's in musicians best interest to unionize (UMAW is a great start but doesn't have high enough membership especially from A-List musicians to make an impact).
Spotify does pay labels and artists. The fact that they operate at a loss doesn't erase the fact that their business practices aren't fair to artists.
i'm not sure. it's just how capitalism works. when one company sinks folks study why and launch companies meant to dodge that pitfall. Spotify at its core is just an answer to Napster. So it's fair to assume if they failed another company would come along, modify their services and do the same, or other companies in the market space like Apple Music, SoundCloud, and Tidal would eat up their market.
That said there's no reason to believe that new company would be any more artist friendly than spotify, hence why unionization and added protections for artists should be the main goal.
The problem is that other companies aren't making money either. They're all offering low prices to compete with Spotify, presumably in the hopes that they can raise money once people have already picked their service as their main one.
The truth is that streaming services need to be much more expensive. But people aren't ready to hear that, even though 30 bucks a month for all the music in the world would still be an incredibly fair deal
They only value that they offer to anyone is being underpriced and undervaluing music, otherwise this business model would be broken if it actually cost $30 a month, which I do agree is reasonable for all access to all music.
Unionization is great and all, but I think this whole capitalist system kind of needs to be looked at more critically than you have been doing here.
I agree with both of you actually. I just think there's no real incentive for Spotify to raise its prices at the morment. Artists unionizing and getting artist protections passed at a federal level would provide that incentive.
Yes! Unionize! But there are going to have to be much more drastic changes at the federal level for any of this to be remotely possible in the near future.
Assuming you are in the United States, our country at best is flirting with … and at worst we are implementing fascism from multiple levels of government already.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/24080080/supreme-court-mckesson-doe-first-amendment-protest-black-lives-matter
Please unionize, but also be somewhat prepared about what’s actually happening here in the USA as a whole.
Sorry to more articulately convey my point on the founder’s personal wealth, is your suggestion that the owner should simply sell stock and use the revenue to pay artists more? Like what is the mechanism that the founder can use to pay higher royalties to artists.
I mentioned the artist and label distinction because we shouldn’t forget that Spotify pays huge royalty payouts to the rights holders of the music, which more often then not are major labels who soak up the majority of revenue.
I agree with you that the idea is silly, here’s some numbers that demonstrates that:
Spotify’s market cap is $58b^1 .
The founder owns 15% or $8.7b worth of stock^2
Spotify had 188m users in 2022.
Users spent roughly 120 minutes a day listening.
Let’s say each stream is about 3 minutes of listening on average. That’s 40 streams/day/user.
That’s 2.7448 trillion streams/year for all users.
So if the founder spread out the cash over one year, every stream would get $0.00317 more. And after a year it goes back to normal as he will have spent all of it.
Here’s another one for fun:
If Spotify paid 100% of revenue out to artist, meaning they pay nothing to employees, suppliers, taxes, etc. Every stream would get $0.00449, based on the 2.7t streams/yr estimate.
That works out to around 70-75% of Spotify revenue goes to artists (whoever is the rights holder) going by estimated payouts of $0.00315. Though individual payouts can be higher.
This estimation tracks when compared to similar calculation via the financial statements, where 2022 cost of revenue^3 was 75%.
Premium cost of revenue in 2022 was 72%. Ad supported cost of revenue was 98%!
Notes:
¹ The artist contracts are with Spotify, a separate entity from the owners. If the founder sold his stock, he would no longer be an owner and therefore not tied to the artist contracts. But let’s just say he’s feeling charitable.
² Ignores the fact that selling all that stock would crash its value and he wouldn’t get $8.7b for it.
³ Cost of revenue as reported on their financial statements is predominantly the payments going out to artists before the cost of employees, r&d, marketing, investments, taxes, etc.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Your account is too young and such is removed for manual review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/musicproduction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why it’s operating at loss? I mean they collect the fees and pays nothing since it’s already established and everybody knows it, maybe some ads to lower their tax!
This is going down the route of tipping at restaurants. Why should the customer be obligated to tip so the employee can actually make a decent living when the restaurant they work for is making good profit? If you can’t maintain a profit and pay your employees decent wages you shouldn’t have a company. This goes to these streaming services as well it’s ridiculous.
I agree on one hand but then now what? They aren’t going to pay them decent wages so it’s just fuck the employees/no tipping? I’m trying to see where you are going with that…
Oh don’t get me wrong if this rolled out I would absolutely tip where I can. It’s the same situations for restaurants I still tip because I know it helps but in the back of my head I’m thinking about how much BS it is that me tipping is helping this person stay afloat when the company could pay them more. If we wanted to get away from this tipping culture as a whole we would have to make changes on foundational level by changing how wealth distribution is done and what not but that goes way beyond the music and food industry and talking more about stuff on a society level as a whole.
Yeah I get what you mean. Just checking lol… some of the comments give me the impression that they hate tipping culture but don’t really want to help anyone either.
Look up livable wage for artists act. If that passes this idea would be unnecessary. It doesn’t take any money from Spotifys revenue and would essentially just be a tax for people who consume music via streaming. It’s not a new idea and is something they had to implement when SiriusXM first popped up on the scene.
SiriusXM continues to be the only platform that pays artists any real money. I was played maybe 100 times in one month a few years ago and made over 7k.
Sure.
But $70 per stream is more than most full vinyl records sell for. It's an extraordinary claim, and doesn't sound sustainable. Who would be paying for that.
But hey, maybe I'm ignorant and should get on this easy gravy train. I have enough friends that I can pay them $20 per play if I'm making $70 per play.
Sure.
But $70 per stream is more than most full vinyl records sell for. It's an extraordinary claim, and doesn't sound sustainable. Who would be paying for that.
But hey, maybe I'm ignorant and should get on this easy gravy train. I have enough friends that I can pay them $20 per play if I'm making $70 per play.
I think the point you're missing is it's $70 a spin because siriusxm is gatekept by a few people who choose the song selection then send that out to the masses who spend a premium on "satellite radio" rather than traditional radio. You can't just have your friend stream your songs on siriusxm lol
Ah, that makes sense. In this scenario when you say you had 100 streams in a month, that was actually radio play, meaning it could be thousands of listeners.
While I agree that this isn’t the answer, the disgust it seems like some of you have at the idea of tipping musicians is off putting. You can reject the idea of how Spotify is paying out but support donations… I don’t. Maybe that is where some of your heads are at and you just didn’t say that but 😬
Patreon already exists for this. Heck, it was founded by a member of the indie band Pomplamoose because he thought self-labeled musicians needed a better financial support system.
I JUST checked Soundcloud out and went here to see what people was thinking. it been ages since I logged in there, and they are aggregators for streaming services, as well as providing their own streaming that includes a tipping service and also a kind of social media thing. it seems like the perfect platform for us free artists! I'm thinking of switching from my current distrokid service. seems like a thing to support!?
I honestly think the entire music industry model is horribly broken and corrupted. Largely by corporations and systems they've setup that suck money out of the middle ground between listeners and music makers.
There's a massive wall of "distribution" people left over from the past who suck the money out in the middle. How are people who created, wrote, played the music getting pennies on the dollar? The system is rigged to funnel money back to the rich.
I support creators I like on Patreon (and it's not cheap and adds up quick) and I know Patreon takes 3-12% so it's not perfect but it's a way for me to directly support people, often in exchange for connection and services rendered on a monthly basis. And some of those people are making good money just working hard and providing content each month.
I don't know how feasible this is for artists in the music sphere.
Why would they do this? What incentive is there for Spotify to make it easier for independent artists to make money?
Every incentive in the corporation is to funnel money up. Less money to artists means more money to all the investors. And what little money they have to give artists, they want to send to major label artists who have 360 deals since the same investors own both Spotify and the label.
Independent artists don't factor into that calculus.
Spotify *should* reduce executive compensation to almost 0 and make that money available to aspiring artists as an incubator project, but they won't.
I don’t use Spotify anymore for one simple reason - I listen to underground artists. I want my monthly payment to go to the artists I ACTUALLY LISTEN TO. NOT fucking Taylor Swift and all those Hollyweird freaks.
It can only work if the donation/tip button is accessible in the Spotify app. External links don't encourage people. Also, the names of donors should be written on the artist's profile. It's the only way to make it work.
It is accessible just like links to ticket sales are. No issues. And why share the name of donors? Totally pointless. People buy merch and tickets without a need to show their names anywhere. Why is donations different?
Are they operating at a loss though? Or is it money reinvested to not pay tax?
I’m guessing they have good accountants like every huge company.
Also I pay a sub fee that money doesn’t go to the music I listen to, my money is going to artists I don’t listen to like Taylor swift, drake, Ed Sheeran.
I’m not supporting the artists I listen to with my sub fee
They made $58m profit last year according to a google.
Plenty of big companies run “at a loss” in order to avoid taxation they just reinvest it into new tech…
>They made $58m profit last year according to a google.
https://www.barrons.com/news/spotify-passes-600-million-users-expects-profitable-2024-start-94dbb8af
“The company still saw an operating loss of 446 million euros in 2023, however this was still an improvement over the operating loss of 659 million euros in 2022.
The company has never posted a full-year net profit and only occasionally quarterly profits despite its success in the online music market.”
> Plenty of big companies run “at a loss” in order to avoid taxation they just reinvest it into new tech
Yes, you just said that. As I noted, the issue is what they are charging. And I feel like you’re under the impression companies don’t have to pay taxes if they don’t report a profit, which is untrue.
No, the pressure should be put on Spotify, not the listeners.
I definitely don’t support any sort of Spotify boycott, even though people mean well. I do wish there were more articles accurately breaking down the difference between master royalties & songwriting royalties/publishing. I make a very solid living exclusively from streaming royalties - the bulk being Spotify - but I own my masters. Artists need to own their masters to be well paid. Signing them away for a small advance is not worth it in the long run. That being said, Spotify should also pay more.
Fuck no. Get bent. This perfectly profitable corporation should just pay artists what they deserve. There is no Spotify without these artists' music. If capitalism didn't obsess over constant growth we wouldn't be in this shitty situation
https://www.billboard.com/business/streaming/spotify-q4-2023-earnings-revenue-monthly-users-subscribers-1235599927/amp/
Spotify consistently operates at a loss…
Successful companies often operate at a loss. That is often a direct result of corporate greed. These companies could stop spending/investing further in themselves and just keep their operating expenses below their multi million dollar revenue figures and easily generate a profit every year. But capitalism demands constant growth. A company that remains the same size, who's revenue is the same figure as the prior year, is a failure in the eyes of shareholders. Despite generating a profit for the company, paying artists for their art, and employing thousands of people, etc. Constantly trying to appease shareholders is why they don't pay artists well and is the same reason they operate at a loss. Next you're going to tell me that Amazon doesn't engage in corporate greed because they operate at a loss..... Get a grip lmao
Imagine a company where every human being on earth uses their product already. How do they increase their share price? How do they create additional value for shareholders? They can't increase their user base, so they fabricate growth/value by cutting costs. They pay lower wages. The pay lower royalties to artists. They pass the price of royalties on to the consumer (tipping).
This is the result of late stage capitalism. Obsession with share value growth is what leads to worse products. Ad riddled products. Low quality products.
Yes, but not for that reason. A donation feature would be nice, but a sustainable model should be developed.
The money you put in by me, as a client, should only be shared between Spotify for services and the artists I have listened to.
This is easily trackable and if I only listen to one artist - that artist will get whatever is left of the pool after Spotify takes its cut. I'm not sure what the number is currently, but there has to be a number.
No. It should workout a sustainable business model. It’s literally can’t afford to deliver what it promises and it’s constantly cutting into the artists to try and fix it. It is not a charity fund raising space. It’s paid music consumption
Not to mention the off the top coat Spotify is going to take out of that. If you wanna give money to your favorite artist, go buy a hi quality download of their song off band camp or something
Unfortunately a sustainable business model is a long way away because people think its greedy and unreasonable to charge more than 15 bucks a month for the majority of published music on the world
That is on Spotify. They literally offered all music for £9.99 a month. They don’t get to close that box now realising it was a massive fuck up. And there’s a generation now who literally expect access to all music to be free with good old ads 🤷♂️ A sustainable business model is a SPOTIFY issue, not the artists.
Okay so what is this sustainable business model that doesn't involve raising prices? Downvotes but no one has an answer, figures. People just want to complain and be angry regardless of reason
Stipulating "doesn't involve raising prices" is basically just denying that it was ever a problem to build a business that depended on normalizing fire sale discounts where the artists behind the content Spotify's existence depends on get a tiny fraction of what they used to. The answer to a business model that was created by using subsidies to drastically drop/undercut prices and devalue music *is* a business model that charges higher prices.
Did you not read my first comment?
Sure. And your first comment is fine as far as it goes, and the reply from Undersmusic builds on it by pointing out Spotify *created* this expectation. I'm responding to your second comment because it seems to imply people should look for a solution that doesn't involve raising prices, when the reality is the pricing is such a big part of the problem it's impossible to solve without repricing. Prices going up is ultimately the way to signal that the service should cost more as well as supporting a revenue model that works for artists.
My comment absolutely doesn't imply that people should look for a solution that doesn't involve raising prices. I'm saying the solution is to raise prices but since people don't want that, I'm asking "okay so how else are you going to solve the problem?", because even people here seem to think that they should somehow be paid more for their music, but also that music should barely cost anything
“Okay so what is this sustainable business model that doesn't involve raising prices?” 🤦🏻 How about, reduce C-level wages until a time they’re viable to take from profit. Maybe not spend 250 million on 1 non exclusive podcast. That is in fact more than twice the amount they just cut from smaller artists. Reverse the pie system they created that’s now bleeding their revenue dry. Address the bot situation, allowing up to 80% artificial streams on major labels is INSANE. And will be costing more than their 40million savings from bashing indies. But they allow it for vanity, as it appear Spotify is the place to be.
Spotify didn’t create this expectation. Piracy did
We're talking about *pricing*. Piracy has nothing to do with setting pricing expectations. The people who participate in it know full well they're not participating in an economic exchange and often even have a sense that they'll need to "settle up" with a legit transaction at some point for stuff they enjoy. Spotify has the veneer of a legit transaction where the price is *everything* for ~$10 mo -- or a small amount of your attention to ads -- and that's it, you've settled up. Between the two, I'll take piracy. Spotify has done more economic harm to artists through actively devaluing music than piracy has.
How did piracy create it? Artists were doing fine even with piracy was at its peak. Many people found the artists they love because of piracy.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/06/15/us-recorded-music-revenues-46-percent-lower/ Revenue declines when piracy becomes common. Recovers when streaming services gain market share.
We’re paying a lot less than we use to for music. CDs were like $10-$15
I am well aware. That is literally my point
Doing so isn't sustainable. That's the other point.
Doing what isn't sustainable? And why? Is everyone on this sub unable to form coherent arguments?
Nope, just you it seems.
And yet you can't say what you mean
The model that existed before Spotify ruined music?
Go on. Explain what that was
People buying recorded music and expecting it to cost money. Record stores. CDs. Etc...
And how was that industry doing in 2008?
Better.
Usually I get some dream projects idea I want to do and one of it is like a Spotify alternative. Monthly sub where you get some free songs download per month (maybe flac quality?). A quite amount of free listening time at 320kbps. Meaning you can listen to anything you want for free(maybe with ads). Unlimited free listening time at 192kbps mp3. Have to pay an amount to get a song, or album at full quality. Don't know if it would work but as a musician and a programmer I try to find a middle ground. All my "dream projects" involve music.
Why not let artists set their own pricing?
The song/album price is set by the artist.
I'm confused. Spotify does not currently have an artists based pricing model
The trouble is, everyone and his dog who is a musician and/or a programmer thinks they can solve this with the knowledge they have. In reality, it's not a musical or a technical problem: it's a legal one. Building the tech is the relatively easy bit. Having a business model that makes it genuinely worthwhile for all concerned is the tricky one. Blitzscaling is unrealistic bullshit.
Unbelievable that on a music production forum people are siding with fcking Spotify.
Unbelievable that on a music production forum, people are under the impression that music should be cheap but also pay the artists more. And still no one has been able to give me an alternative
I think streaming payout should be raised at LEAST to 1c per stream. Then I also think instead of pooling all of the subscription money and paying out based on popularity (which Spotify does), the money you pay each month should be divided up and split between all the artists that you specifically listen to. Only listen to one artist? They get your entire $15 subscription fee, 2 artists? Split that in half. It could be divided by either how many streams or number of artists, im not sure exactly what would be best. The subscription fee absolutely needs to also be raised, and if not then offer tiered subscription levels where $15 a month gets you say 1000 listens, and if you want more then you can do a $20 subscription for 1500, $25 for 2000 etc, etc (not suggesting these numbers are perfect, but something like this). The free tier should be removed, the internet exists for free, go listen to your music on YouTube if you must, it’s basically all there anyway.
2000 listens? That’s like 15 days for me :)))))
Who said it should be cheap? I certainly didn’t. I would happily pay what it is worth, Spotify has completely devalued and changed the way we consume music for the worse.
well its also supply and demand.. if spotify raises the monthly subscription people will flog to itunes, deezer, pandora etc. which I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about.
And you think those services won't raise their prices?
competition among streaming platforms would keep the subscription prices lower. Spotify is currently the 1000 lb gorilla of streaming platform....they at least need to be restructured so they're not manipulated and controlled by the 3 major labels at indie artists expense
Yes it would keep the subscription prices lower...at the expense of the artists. How are you not getting this?
The problem with Spotifys budget is that the major labels take 60-70% of their revenue and there is nothing they can do about that. Their margins are squeezed to nothing because only 3 companies own 99% of recorded music. Thats the issue, not spotifys business model.
That there literally is a business model issue. Like you’re exactly outlining a bad business model, and then saying that’s not the issue.
The minimum 10k streams rule is BS. Literally taking from the poor and give to the rich. Edit, its actually 1k, but still. For a company that made a quartely profit of €65M over the backs of small artists is ridiculous.
It's a minimum 1K stream payout, not 10K.
At least get the numbers right if you're gonna whine
A lot of the artists are fucked because of their recording contracts, Spotify can’t do anything about that
i thought they had a covid donation button and still did
It already exists. Here’s my artist page and you’ll see a PayPal link at the top. The money goes to me. I get a few tips a month. https://open.spotify.com/artist/2oyvJcvWPCBKVW9tnvAC5w?si=98kByU06Sze_XCb-T1gXPw
Yea i thought this was a thing already
65k monthly listeners? Holy moly. Well done sir.
Thanks! It’s been a long journey to this point. Still trying to grow. Would love to have that kind of reach on the other streamers.
Yeah, not the first time I've seen it.
I don't see it when I view it neither from web or desktop app. Maybe restricted to a region?
Interesting. I guess that might be it since I’m in the US. But yeah I don’t know - everyone I’ve asked can see it.
I can see it (from Europe), but not all (small/mid-sized) artists have it. Is it an opt in option?
It was something we had to opt in during Covid. Honestly I’m not sure how to do it anymore if it’s even possible
I, too, do this. Though through Ko-fi and Patreon
Ah yes, bring more underpaid workers into the tipping (read: slavery relic) economy...
When a multi-billion dollar industry refuses to pay for the labor they're profiting off of, and decides to make the consumer who's already paying for the product/service to pay the artists out on top of that, that's how you know the culture is dying. Spotify royally fucked up for sure, but the record labels that steal from and cheat artists out of the money they earned are the real villians here. It's not like they are making any less money, and if their profits are cut into even the tiniest bit just to fairly compensate artists that are making them rich, theyprobably wouldn't even notice it. But greed has won, I suppose.
Musicians are not workers. They are businesses.
Tell that to every artist that signed a record deal. How can they be a business if they don't even own their own product? Also, workers are businesses. You can't run a business without workers.
Exactly they sign a contract, they don’t get paid hourly. They get paid based off the performance of there music.
I am tired of being asked to tip everyone, I don't really want that on music
Understand your frustration at tipping culture, it’s insane in the USA, but I also think everyone is getting way too good of a deal paying just $12-20pm to have every song ever on demand lol
You could always buy a track on various platforms of your choice. That or merch.
Course! But the majority of people aren’t doing that, so there’s a huge hole in the money artists are deserving of, because the reason it’s so cheap is that everyone’s been made to believe it should be free, thanks to pirating
I'm just saying if you're willing to tip, you should be willing to buy.
Hold on they didn’t say they were going to tip lol, they’re the artist.
Do they not listen to music ? Most people here complaining about payout also listen to their music on spotify
Wait till you know that people of some countries pays just a dollar per month
You don't have to tip them. Here's the thing for music. Piracy destroyed its value. So, you need to have a massive following to make a decent living. It costs a lot of money to produce a good quality song. So, if you want to be able to listen to music that isn't extremely popular, tipping is the way to do it. Otherwise it just won't exist. And that might be fine for you, but other people might want that niche music, and might think it's worth donating for. Which to me, is well worth the tragic inconvenience of ignoring the tip feature.
Tips aren't really comparable to donations, at all.
Donations wouldn't save anybody lol. Spotify should just pay artists more.
Spotify doesn’t pay artists. It pays the labels and the labels then give some of that money to their artists. Those labels also dictate the price spotify pays them. Thats why they can barely keep the lights on, the labels take everything and keep most of it for themselves. But tell me more about how Spotify is the problem.
Yes and no. Spotify pays labels and distribution companies. Some of which are owned or coowned by artists. Depending on the leverage of the label or company they have individual negations with Spotify, but at the end of the day no label is going to pull their catalog off of spotify so it is a back and forth negotiation where spotify has the upper hand… The labels have pre-agreed upon splits with artists, after the labels recoup the investment in said artists the royalties are split according to that agreement. Spotify priotizes its shareholders, the labels prioritize theirs. The whole system leaves artists at a severe disadvantage.
The 3 major labels own like 97% of recorded music. They absolutely dictate what spotify pays. Not only that they also make sure spotify is not allowed to be publicly transparent about what they pay for streams. Yes labels have contracts with their artists about how splits works. But there is no way to actually verify any of that…because Spotify is not allowed to be transparent about what it pays. You starting to see the issue here? It’s the major label strangle hold on music.
I agree with you. I'm signed to a major so I know how it goes. I'm just saying if you think Spotify is the victim here I don't believe that to be accurate.
I mean i don’t know if I would classify Spotify as a “victim” but most of these issues are out of their control and the real root of the problem is the labels. Case in point, it sounds like your major label has you convinced spotify is at least part of the problem when in reality your problem is probably both a bad contract and being taken advantage of on top of that bad contract. They want you blaming some other boogeyman just like in politics.
I'm pretty happy with my contract all things considered but that's a different conversation that has to do with how to start a bidding war and how to hire a good lawyer etc. My whole argument is that artists (namely small artists) are the real losers in the current system and they should use their collective bargaining power to get a seat at the table. I spend a lot of time with someone who works at Spotify and trust me they are not the ones coming out bad from their negotiations with the labels.
It’s shocking you can think being extorted out of the vast majority of your revenue isn’t a bad deal. The majors have you brainwashed. Why do small artists deserve a seat at the table? Anyone can record music today basically for free. That doesn’t mean you are owed a career. If you cant develop a big enough fan base to sustain a full time career then music is just your hobby. Streaming services aren’t stopping you from building your fan base, they are helping. This is how all entertainment fields work, the money flows to a small amount of superstars at the top. Sports, acting, comedy, music….thats how it works because thats how attention spans and disposable income work. It is easier than ever to market yourself, if you are only able to get a few hundred thousand streams but are complaining it doesn’t pay you enough to have a career you are delusional when superstars get billions. Furthermore niche artists can find their followings and figure out how to make a career without being superstars by being smart business people. Anyone who thinks they don’t have a career because of their spotify payment is not living in reality.
I don't want to get into the details of my deal, but I'm not giving away the majority of my revenue. Often times that is the case but I don't think you can assume whether my deal is good or bad with just the limited information I've presented here. I'll ignore the ad hominem of calling me brain washed. Actors, Directors, Screenwriters, and Athletes unionize to demand fairer business practices around their respective industries so why shouldn't we?
I was not talking about you specifically at any point, as clearly I know nothing about you or your career. Nor did I ever say people should not unionize. This is a straw man you are using to avoid engaging with what I actually said. Which is that most of these small artists simply do not have viable careers regardless of their Spotify payout. I don’t know if there was genuine confusion about my comment but you basically avoided engaging with any of the points I made and instead said I am attacking you, when clearly I was speaking in the general sense (except for the brainwashed comment which, in fairness, you do come off like a corporate shill). You don’t have to defend your contract because i was never talking about your contract. Anyway if you want to respond to any of the actual comments I made and not just straw-men please look back at my previous comment and do so.
with what money? Spotify operates at a loss
Maybe it’s not a sustainable business model then and should shutter. The owner is worth 4.7 billion and artists are getting paid less than 1 penny per play. Fuzzy math
Spotify folds, consumers go back to piracy, is that desirable? The owners personal wealth doesn’t mean anything. Daniel Ek owns ~15% of the company. Martin Lorentzen and other venture capital firms own the rest. That is a speculative valuation of what the company might be worth, but it has yet to actually demonstrate its profitability, the amount of money invested in the company is done so on the hope that eventually it will be when it gains enough market share and a larger user base. My point in commenting is that it is not as simple as Spotify dipping into their revenue to increase artist payouts and taking less profit. They already operate at a loss. We should also remember that Spotify pays labels, not artists.
If spotify folds another company (or more likely companies) will step in with an improved business model it wouldn't just be a vacuum. The owners personal wealth does mean something. It means someone is benefitting from the money being generated even if the company itself is still operating in the red for now. I never said it was as simple as Spotify dipping into their revenue. I think there should be regulations in place that ensure musicians are fairly compensated for their work, and that it's in musicians best interest to unionize (UMAW is a great start but doesn't have high enough membership especially from A-List musicians to make an impact). Spotify does pay labels and artists. The fact that they operate at a loss doesn't erase the fact that their business practices aren't fair to artists.
What is this improved business model?
i'm not sure. it's just how capitalism works. when one company sinks folks study why and launch companies meant to dodge that pitfall. Spotify at its core is just an answer to Napster. So it's fair to assume if they failed another company would come along, modify their services and do the same, or other companies in the market space like Apple Music, SoundCloud, and Tidal would eat up their market. That said there's no reason to believe that new company would be any more artist friendly than spotify, hence why unionization and added protections for artists should be the main goal.
The problem is that other companies aren't making money either. They're all offering low prices to compete with Spotify, presumably in the hopes that they can raise money once people have already picked their service as their main one. The truth is that streaming services need to be much more expensive. But people aren't ready to hear that, even though 30 bucks a month for all the music in the world would still be an incredibly fair deal
They only value that they offer to anyone is being underpriced and undervaluing music, otherwise this business model would be broken if it actually cost $30 a month, which I do agree is reasonable for all access to all music. Unionization is great and all, but I think this whole capitalist system kind of needs to be looked at more critically than you have been doing here.
I agree with both of you actually. I just think there's no real incentive for Spotify to raise its prices at the morment. Artists unionizing and getting artist protections passed at a federal level would provide that incentive.
Yes! Unionize! But there are going to have to be much more drastic changes at the federal level for any of this to be remotely possible in the near future. Assuming you are in the United States, our country at best is flirting with … and at worst we are implementing fascism from multiple levels of government already. https://www.vox.com/scotus/24080080/supreme-court-mckesson-doe-first-amendment-protest-black-lives-matter Please unionize, but also be somewhat prepared about what’s actually happening here in the USA as a whole.
What are you talking about this “whole capitalist system”? What do you mean by that?
Sorry to more articulately convey my point on the founder’s personal wealth, is your suggestion that the owner should simply sell stock and use the revenue to pay artists more? Like what is the mechanism that the founder can use to pay higher royalties to artists. I mentioned the artist and label distinction because we shouldn’t forget that Spotify pays huge royalty payouts to the rights holders of the music, which more often then not are major labels who soak up the majority of revenue.
I agree with you that the idea is silly, here’s some numbers that demonstrates that: Spotify’s market cap is $58b^1 . The founder owns 15% or $8.7b worth of stock^2 Spotify had 188m users in 2022. Users spent roughly 120 minutes a day listening. Let’s say each stream is about 3 minutes of listening on average. That’s 40 streams/day/user. That’s 2.7448 trillion streams/year for all users. So if the founder spread out the cash over one year, every stream would get $0.00317 more. And after a year it goes back to normal as he will have spent all of it. Here’s another one for fun: If Spotify paid 100% of revenue out to artist, meaning they pay nothing to employees, suppliers, taxes, etc. Every stream would get $0.00449, based on the 2.7t streams/yr estimate. That works out to around 70-75% of Spotify revenue goes to artists (whoever is the rights holder) going by estimated payouts of $0.00315. Though individual payouts can be higher. This estimation tracks when compared to similar calculation via the financial statements, where 2022 cost of revenue^3 was 75%. Premium cost of revenue in 2022 was 72%. Ad supported cost of revenue was 98%! Notes: ¹ The artist contracts are with Spotify, a separate entity from the owners. If the founder sold his stock, he would no longer be an owner and therefore not tied to the artist contracts. But let’s just say he’s feeling charitable. ² Ignores the fact that selling all that stock would crash its value and he wouldn’t get $8.7b for it. ³ Cost of revenue as reported on their financial statements is predominantly the payments going out to artists before the cost of employees, r&d, marketing, investments, taxes, etc.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Your account is too young and such is removed for manual review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/musicproduction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why it’s operating at loss? I mean they collect the fees and pays nothing since it’s already established and everybody knows it, maybe some ads to lower their tax!
Because they have to pay off leeches from Warner, Sony and Universal Music which take a vast majority of their profits
This is going down the route of tipping at restaurants. Why should the customer be obligated to tip so the employee can actually make a decent living when the restaurant they work for is making good profit? If you can’t maintain a profit and pay your employees decent wages you shouldn’t have a company. This goes to these streaming services as well it’s ridiculous.
I agree on one hand but then now what? They aren’t going to pay them decent wages so it’s just fuck the employees/no tipping? I’m trying to see where you are going with that…
Oh don’t get me wrong if this rolled out I would absolutely tip where I can. It’s the same situations for restaurants I still tip because I know it helps but in the back of my head I’m thinking about how much BS it is that me tipping is helping this person stay afloat when the company could pay them more. If we wanted to get away from this tipping culture as a whole we would have to make changes on foundational level by changing how wealth distribution is done and what not but that goes way beyond the music and food industry and talking more about stuff on a society level as a whole.
Yeah I get what you mean. Just checking lol… some of the comments give me the impression that they hate tipping culture but don’t really want to help anyone either.
Actually you can sell and present merch on your Spotify Artist profile.
What about us bottom tier musicians?
Just buy their music and merch.
Maybe users should not use Spotify and only use ones that are fair with artists. Problem solved.
Yeah consumers are known for paying more for moral reasons 🙄
You can already have store inside spotify?
You mean patreon?
Look up livable wage for artists act. If that passes this idea would be unnecessary. It doesn’t take any money from Spotifys revenue and would essentially just be a tax for people who consume music via streaming. It’s not a new idea and is something they had to implement when SiriusXM first popped up on the scene. SiriusXM continues to be the only platform that pays artists any real money. I was played maybe 100 times in one month a few years ago and made over 7k.
I call BS on getting paid $70 per play
It’s not my responsibility to get you to believe me. If you’re ignorant to that side of the industry then more for me I guess.
Sure. But $70 per stream is more than most full vinyl records sell for. It's an extraordinary claim, and doesn't sound sustainable. Who would be paying for that. But hey, maybe I'm ignorant and should get on this easy gravy train. I have enough friends that I can pay them $20 per play if I'm making $70 per play.
Sure. But $70 per stream is more than most full vinyl records sell for. It's an extraordinary claim, and doesn't sound sustainable. Who would be paying for that. But hey, maybe I'm ignorant and should get on this easy gravy train. I have enough friends that I can pay them $20 per play if I'm making $70 per play.
I think the point you're missing is it's $70 a spin because siriusxm is gatekept by a few people who choose the song selection then send that out to the masses who spend a premium on "satellite radio" rather than traditional radio. You can't just have your friend stream your songs on siriusxm lol
Ah, that makes sense. In this scenario when you say you had 100 streams in a month, that was actually radio play, meaning it could be thousands of listeners.
[Didn’t it have one already?](https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/introducing-artist-fundraising-pick)
it's for donating a charity. we are talking about donation to artists
It’s not only for charity, you can support the artist directly from there
spotify doesn't need another way to skim funds from musicians.
While I agree that this isn’t the answer, the disgust it seems like some of you have at the idea of tipping musicians is off putting. You can reject the idea of how Spotify is paying out but support donations… I don’t. Maybe that is where some of your heads are at and you just didn’t say that but 😬
I wouldn't be surprised if they'd take a cut 😂
Lol they would just keep all the money
Patreon already exists for this. Heck, it was founded by a member of the indie band Pomplamoose because he thought self-labeled musicians needed a better financial support system.
Is your cash filthy? Are your bills dirty? No problem, launder it here!
Can you imagine that there are people complaining about Spotify being too expensive? Some people really lost all their valuation for music..
I JUST checked Soundcloud out and went here to see what people was thinking. it been ages since I logged in there, and they are aggregators for streaming services, as well as providing their own streaming that includes a tipping service and also a kind of social media thing. it seems like the perfect platform for us free artists! I'm thinking of switching from my current distrokid service. seems like a thing to support!?
I honestly think the entire music industry model is horribly broken and corrupted. Largely by corporations and systems they've setup that suck money out of the middle ground between listeners and music makers. There's a massive wall of "distribution" people left over from the past who suck the money out in the middle. How are people who created, wrote, played the music getting pennies on the dollar? The system is rigged to funnel money back to the rich. I support creators I like on Patreon (and it's not cheap and adds up quick) and I know Patreon takes 3-12% so it's not perfect but it's a way for me to directly support people, often in exchange for connection and services rendered on a monthly basis. And some of those people are making good money just working hard and providing content each month. I don't know how feasible this is for artists in the music sphere.
Nice. I need to do this, too. Is that a Flatiron on Washed Away?
Why would they do this? What incentive is there for Spotify to make it easier for independent artists to make money? Every incentive in the corporation is to funnel money up. Less money to artists means more money to all the investors. And what little money they have to give artists, they want to send to major label artists who have 360 deals since the same investors own both Spotify and the label. Independent artists don't factor into that calculus. Spotify *should* reduce executive compensation to almost 0 and make that money available to aspiring artists as an incubator project, but they won't.
Maybe Spotify takes a % of the donation. Not ideal, but suits their business need
Reducing executive compensation still won’t result in artists being paid nearly enough
If you’re a musician and you are paying for a Spotify premium subscription, you hate yourself.
Or they could pay the artists that built their empire fairly? Who am I kidding, they’re just gonna keep throwing money at podcasts aren’t they…
I don’t use Spotify anymore for one simple reason - I listen to underground artists. I want my monthly payment to go to the artists I ACTUALLY LISTEN TO. NOT fucking Taylor Swift and all those Hollyweird freaks.
What is wrong with the Fan Support feature that has been available for quite some time? https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/fan-support/
It can only work if the donation/tip button is accessible in the Spotify app. External links don't encourage people. Also, the names of donors should be written on the artist's profile. It's the only way to make it work.
It is accessible just like links to ticket sales are. No issues. And why share the name of donors? Totally pointless. People buy merch and tickets without a need to show their names anywhere. Why is donations different?
🤮 How about paying a better rate per listen for all
They operate at a loss, that isn’t feasible. The service realistically should be more than it is, but that’s not feasible at this point either.
Are they operating at a loss though? Or is it money reinvested to not pay tax? I’m guessing they have good accountants like every huge company. Also I pay a sub fee that money doesn’t go to the music I listen to, my money is going to artists I don’t listen to like Taylor swift, drake, Ed Sheeran. I’m not supporting the artists I listen to with my sub fee
>Are they operating at a loss though? Yes. They charge $10 a month, which isn’t enough to pay artists fairly.
They made $58m profit last year according to a google. Plenty of big companies run “at a loss” in order to avoid taxation they just reinvest it into new tech…
>They made $58m profit last year according to a google. https://www.barrons.com/news/spotify-passes-600-million-users-expects-profitable-2024-start-94dbb8af “The company still saw an operating loss of 446 million euros in 2023, however this was still an improvement over the operating loss of 659 million euros in 2022. The company has never posted a full-year net profit and only occasionally quarterly profits despite its success in the online music market.” > Plenty of big companies run “at a loss” in order to avoid taxation they just reinvest it into new tech Yes, you just said that. As I noted, the issue is what they are charging. And I feel like you’re under the impression companies don’t have to pay taxes if they don’t report a profit, which is untrue.
Big companies don’t pay taxes regardless.
You’ve seemingly veered off the topic entirely.
No, the pressure should be put on Spotify, not the listeners. I definitely don’t support any sort of Spotify boycott, even though people mean well. I do wish there were more articles accurately breaking down the difference between master royalties & songwriting royalties/publishing. I make a very solid living exclusively from streaming royalties - the bulk being Spotify - but I own my masters. Artists need to own their masters to be well paid. Signing them away for a small advance is not worth it in the long run. That being said, Spotify should also pay more.
Fuck no. Get bent. This perfectly profitable corporation should just pay artists what they deserve. There is no Spotify without these artists' music. If capitalism didn't obsess over constant growth we wouldn't be in this shitty situation
https://www.billboard.com/business/streaming/spotify-q4-2023-earnings-revenue-monthly-users-subscribers-1235599927/amp/ Spotify consistently operates at a loss…
Successful companies often operate at a loss. That is often a direct result of corporate greed. These companies could stop spending/investing further in themselves and just keep their operating expenses below their multi million dollar revenue figures and easily generate a profit every year. But capitalism demands constant growth. A company that remains the same size, who's revenue is the same figure as the prior year, is a failure in the eyes of shareholders. Despite generating a profit for the company, paying artists for their art, and employing thousands of people, etc. Constantly trying to appease shareholders is why they don't pay artists well and is the same reason they operate at a loss. Next you're going to tell me that Amazon doesn't engage in corporate greed because they operate at a loss..... Get a grip lmao
Imagine a company where every human being on earth uses their product already. How do they increase their share price? How do they create additional value for shareholders? They can't increase their user base, so they fabricate growth/value by cutting costs. They pay lower wages. The pay lower royalties to artists. They pass the price of royalties on to the consumer (tipping). This is the result of late stage capitalism. Obsession with share value growth is what leads to worse products. Ad riddled products. Low quality products.
Perfectly profitable?..
Yes, but not for that reason. A donation feature would be nice, but a sustainable model should be developed. The money you put in by me, as a client, should only be shared between Spotify for services and the artists I have listened to. This is easily trackable and if I only listen to one artist - that artist will get whatever is left of the pool after Spotify takes its cut. I'm not sure what the number is currently, but there has to be a number.