←back to thread

275 points starkparker | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cortesoft ◴[] No.45133347[source]
So the author talks about how little money per stream artists make... but how much SHOULD they be making? What is fair compensation for writing a song?

In the old days, artists would join a label and put out an album. The artist would earn about 10% of sales or so (varies of course, but on average). So a $15 CD would earn an artist $1.50.

The article lists the 'price per stream' as about $0.005. So it would take about 300 streams of a song to earn the same amount as selling a CD used to make.

I feel like that isn't categorically less money than artists used to make per song listen? There are many albums I own that I have listened to way more than 30 times, which is what it would take for a 10 song album to get 300 song 'streams'

Is that a fair compensation? Why or why not?

I think artists should be able to earn money from creating music, but I don't know how we decide how much they actually deserve if we aren't just going based on the price the market sets.

replies(26): >>45133369 #>>45133399 #>>45133409 #>>45133428 #>>45133431 #>>45133438 #>>45133449 #>>45133951 #>>45134199 #>>45134553 #>>45134767 #>>45134905 #>>45135002 #>>45135123 #>>45135321 #>>45135900 #>>45135940 #>>45136005 #>>45136506 #>>45136530 #>>45136544 #>>45138425 #>>45140193 #>>45140370 #>>45141747 #>>45146960 #
probably_wrong ◴[] No.45133951[source]
Without giving specific numbers, I think the following situation is inherently unfair:

I pay Spotify $20. They take their cut (say, 50%) and there's $10 left for the artists. I've only listened to one small artist throughout the entire month. The artist does not get $10 but much less despite Spotify knowing precisely which artists I listened to.

replies(4): >>45134037 #>>45134190 #>>45134222 #>>45135259 #
benoau ◴[] No.45134037[source]
They on average pass approximately 70% on, but the record labels also eat heavily into that before the artists get their share.

I'm reminded of an effort a few years ago to legislate the creators getting 50% - which of course meant the "platforms" and the "labels" would collectively share only the other 50%. Which is presumably why the initiative failed.

> The three major labels - Sony, Universal and Warner Music - faced some of the toughest questioning of the inquiry, and were accused of a "lack of clarity" by MPs.

> They largely argued to maintain the status quo, saying any disruption could damage investment in new music, and resisted the idea that streaming was comparable to radio - where artists receive a 50/50 royalty split.

> "It is a narrow-margin business, so it wouldn't actually take that much to upset the so-called apple cart," said Apple Music's Elena Segal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57838473

These days Spotify has hundreds of millions for Joe Rogan and podcast investments, and Apple reports a 75% profit margin on services, so I guess it is quite profitable for everyone except the actual artists.

replies(4): >>45134393 #>>45134861 #>>45135546 #>>45135863 #
1. sniffers ◴[] No.45135546[source]
If I pay Spotify $20 and listen to one song one, surely they don't send that artist $14...
replies(1): >>45137866 #
2. yladiz ◴[] No.45137866[source]
They don’t. What happens is that your listen is pooled with all listens of all songs, and every payout the artist/label gets a check for the percentage of that total listening pool. For small artists that have relatively few listens, they don’t get almost any money.

So it doesn’t matter if Spotify passes on 70%, most artists aren’t going to see any substantial portion of that, label or not.