←back to thread

Ghost artists on Spotify

(harpers.org)
556 points greenie_beans | 2 comments | 19 Dec 24 14:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.421s | source
Show context
dools ◴[20 Dec 24 03:31 UTC] No.42468039[source]▶
Isn't this just like how supermarkets have their "house brands" that compete with name brands? If your consumption of music amounts to "whatever Spotify tells me to listen to" then chances are you were the type of person who used to just have the radio on for background noise anyway.

EDIT: If you think about this "scandal" in reverse, that is that Spotify was started as a background, inert restaurant playlist app that paid session musicians to record 50 songs a day for lo-fi chill ambient jazz playlists, and later tried to expand their reach by allowing musicians to upload their songs, it wouldn't be a scandal at all.

replies(2): >>42468128 #>>42473405 #
insane_dreamer ◴[20 Dec 24 18:21 UTC] No.42473405[source]▶
> Isn't this just like how supermarkets have their "house brands" that compete with name brands? I

1) A supermarket does not bill itself as a neutral discovery platform. It's not comparable to Spotify.

2) A supermarket can't make up fake information about the provenance of its products. The information on the cereal box is regulated to be truthful (well, we hope).

3) Most importantly, this is about discovery. The store has its brand of cereal next to some other non-store brands on the shelf, the customer has the opportunity to discover both. What Spotify is doing is taking the non-store-brand cereals off the shelf and putting them in the stocking room where you only get them if you happen to ask one of the store employees.

replies(4): >>42476294 #>>42477614 #>>42478381 #>>42480496 #
1. mehwoot ◴[21 Dec 24 04:50 UTC] No.42477614[source]▶
Supermarkets sell promotional space and in some cases access to have products even appear in store, either through discounts on the wholesale price or straight up charging for it. They absolutely tilt things in favour of their own brands, and in some supermarkets in some categories don't stock any non house brands.

Spotify has discovered there is a big market for music where the quality isn't that important and they can serve it themselves. Same as supermarkets do with many products.

replies(1): >>42478594 #
2. gregw2 ◴[21 Dec 24 09:41 UTC] No.42478594[source]▶
You are right about supermarkets charging for shelf space in various ways, and to add to that I think it's even worse. I've heard the supermarkets and other retailer dub certain brands for certain products as "category leaders" and basically give them control of the entire shelf space of their category, including that brand's competitors. Which products and varities get stocked, how much, and placement. That brand is then in charge of maximizing profitability of "its" section. I'm not sure how that isnt an antitrust problem, but...