Spotify pays less than 1 penny to artist per stream

[AlphaMale]

Was reading earlier about an unnamed artist that had over ten million (10,000,000) streams of their songs on Spotify and they ended up with just $4,000 in revenue. That's .0004 cents per stream.

 

That's a damn travesty.

 

Has this been discussed before and what are your thoughts?

[simo]

True, there's been a discussion bout a year ago not sure if their model has changed since then but it definitely is still very little. Some say it's still better than nothing, prevents privacy, others think it's unfair...

 

Here's the topic and somewhere there's a breakdown of what artists, labels, publishers make:

 

http://heavyharmonies.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=26038&page=3&hl=spotify&do=findComment&comment=727216

[DaHun72]

I won't use it for that reason. It's helped kill the industry but it was going to happen anyway due to the quality and convenience of the digital age.

I deliberately avoid using it and check out YouTube if I'm on the fence about purchasing an album so that Spotify gets nothing from me. Sure the bit of spit they send down to the artist is lost but I don't think it's relevant because I'll either not purchase it, or will buy the physical media.

These types of services are just too convenient, cheap and entrenched. They won't go away and I imagine artists will just get less and less over time as Spotify have to keep growing an ever larger catalog.

[simo]

I won't use it for that reason. It's helped kill the industry but it was going to happen anyway due to the quality and convenience of the digital age.

I deliberately avoid using it and check out YouTube if I'm on the fence about purchasing an album so that Spotify gets nothing from me. Sure the bit of spit they send down to the artist is lost but I don't think it's relevant because I'll either not purchase it, or will buy the physical media.

These types of services are just too convenient, cheap and entrenched. They won't go away and I imagine artists will just get less and less over time as Spotify have to keep growing an ever larger catalog.

Haha, respect for having beliefs and sticking to them sir!

[Silverkin]

I had no idea it was so little the artists got! Maybe it'd be better if Spotify were only allowed to put part of an album on their site - a bit like radio stations who play a few tracks from an album if they are having it as 'Album of the week'. Then if someone listened and loved the bits they heard they may be encouraged to go buy the full album.

It does seem that slowly the wheel is turning and other platforms are gaining ground which do want to see artists getting their fair share though. Or at least, the problem is getting more discussion and recognition lately.

[AlphaMale]

Thanks for the original thread link.

 

I think it's outrageous to pay that little for an artist's work. Sad really.

[Glen]

Thanks for the original thread link.

 

I think it's outrageous to pay that little for an artist's work. Sad really.

I cant believe you were moaning about me typing v for very?? Weirdo

[CureTheSane]

One day there will be a documentary made on how the music industry managed to take massive advantage of all artists, then allow itself to implode by failing to react to new technologies.

The loser throughout is the artist who, unless they struck it big, never received what they deserved.

 

Likely the most stable throughout were local pub cover bands etc who had 3 to 4 gigs per weeks and made a decent living doing what they loved.

[Silverkin]

One day there will be a documentary made on how the music industry managed to take massive advantage of all artists, then allow itself to implode by failing to react to new technologies.

The loser throughout is the artist who, unless they struck it big, never received what they deserved.

 

Likely the most stable throughout were local pub cover bands etc who had 3 to 4 gigs per weeks and made a decent living doing what they loved.

Good point re local pub bands etc. Maybe more artists could use that route temporarily eg play covers to get booked but include plenty of their own material in each gig too and have their CDs for sale so at least their music is getting out there.

 

I suggested to HMV that they have local talent play live gigs in their stores (or have them playing on a big screen in the store) to encourage footfall and new artists. Then they could have a nationwide competition where the 'best' artists actually get played on the screens (or invited to gig live) in stores across the country - and have their CDs for sale too of course. They said they were considering it.

 

There are great forums like this one and networks like the Creative Arts Federation which are worth joining plus the Indie Music Newsletter which is full of suggestions and routes to get your music played or self released so you can cut out the middle man a bit. But that sure= a lot of work so maybe there is a major gap in the market for some middle men with a more ethical and 'fairplay to the artists' mindset?

 

Don't you think the tide is slowly turning though with the help of social media etc?

[KarpetRydOFunk]

 

Thanks for the original thread link.

 

I think it's outrageous to pay that little for an artist's work. Sad really.

I cant believe you were moaning about me typing v for very?? Weirdo

I don't know how this is related to anything in this thread, but, yeah, I always laugh when you simply type 'v.'

[Glen]

 

 

Thanks for the original thread link.

 

I think it's outrageous to pay that little for an artist's work. Sad really.

I cant believe you were moaning about me typing v for very?? Weirdo

I don't know how this is related to anything in this thread, but, yeah, I always laugh when you simply type 'v.'

Weirdo

[Nightrain]

This isn't shocking at all, after all Spotify as a company of course need to maximize their profit where they only charge like a small $5 a month per user to access those hundreds of thousand songs. It's not their fault at all, but artist should realize that Spotify and streaming isn't gonna cover their production cost or make them rich, they should consider it as merely a portal for promotion where the real money should be made either by concert or crowdfunding-type of business.

 

Selling a $10 CD will give artist at least $1 or $1.5 (or maybe more if they cut off the distributor) where you have to get a 2500 stream for that kind of money, of course it's much easier for artist to sell 500 CDs worldwide rather than get a million stream, not everybody can be Iron Maiden, Metallica, Katy Perry, or Justin Bieber

[CureTheSane]

 

One day there will be a documentary made on how the music industry managed to take massive advantage of all artists, then allow itself to implode by failing to react to new technologies.

The loser throughout is the artist who, unless they struck it big, never received what they deserved.

 

Likely the most stable throughout were local pub cover bands etc who had 3 to 4 gigs per weeks and made a decent living doing what they loved.

Good point re local pub bands etc. Maybe more artists could use that route temporarily eg play covers to get booked but include plenty of their own material in each gig too and have their CDs for sale so at least their music is getting out there.

 

I suggested to HMV that they have local talent play live gigs in their stores (or have them playing on a big screen in the store) to encourage footfall and new artists. Then they could have a nationwide competition where the 'best' artists actually get played on the screens (or invited to gig live) in stores across the country - and have their CDs for sale too of course. They said they were considering it.

 

There are great forums like this one and networks like the Creative Arts Federation which are worth joining plus the Indie Music Newsletter which is full of suggestions and routes to get your music played or self released so you can cut out the middle man a bit. But that sure= a lot of work so maybe there is a major gap in the market for some middle men with a more ethical and 'fairplay to the artists' mindset?

 

Don't you think the tide is slowly turning though with the help of social media etc?

 

 

I think there is obviously more awareness of the issues.

Sadly I think it will have to progress further, wih less bands making new music, and the variety of good music diminishing before things really change for the better.

To a degree it's in the hands of governments (mainly the US) who will eventually get to sorting out file sharing more.

My kids generation simply don't buy music, it's all just downloaded. Soon enough making new music will only be for the passion rather than what little money is currently around.

[KarpetRydOFunk]

The crazy thing is it's been a couple decades since music sales actually made an artist a substantial amount of money. $1-1.5 is even being generous. I'd have to dig up the articles -- 'cause it's been 10+ years since I read them -- but I believe it was closer to $0.10 a CD, with maybe massive artists like Madonna, at one point, managing to negotiate $1.00 a CD. Obviously each label could be different, and the influence of one's manager might affect those numbers. Touring and merchandise is where it's at. So, we can argue the injustice being done to the artists, but you notice why it's the labels that are the first to cry bloody murder. It's why I go to every show I can, and I always buy a shirt when I'm there.

[Silverkin]

Karpetface, you put me to shame! I shall be more proactive in paying to go watch live gigs of good bands+buying their merchandise in future B-)

[Silverkin]

(whoops, karpetrydofunk)

[Glen]

The crazy thing is it's been a couple decades since music sales actually made an artist a substantial amount of money. $1-1.5 is even being generous. I'd have to dig up the articles -- 'cause it's been 10+ years since I read them -- but I believe it was closer to $0.10 a CD, with maybe massive artists like Madonna, at one point, managing to negotiate $1.00 a CD. Obviously each label could be different, and the influence of one's manager might affect those numbers. Touring and merchandise is where it's at. So, we can argue the injustice being done to the artists, but you notice why it's the labels that are the first to cry bloody murder. It's why I go to every show I can, and I always buy a shirt when I'm there.

I argued this in the original thread about cds. The only way an artist earns well from a cd sale is if u buy directly from them.

 

Otherwise the government earns more in VAT than the artist does.

[KarpetRydOFunk]

Karpetface, you put me to shame! I shall be more proactive in paying to go watch live gigs of good bands+buying their merchandise in future B-)

Hey, I'm not about to tell anyone what to do. Just sharing my personal convictions. ;}

[Mr. M]

This is interesting:

 

 

More info here:

 

http://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/RIAA-2016-Year-End-News-Notes.pdf

 

and here:

 

https://medium.com/@RIAA/2016-a-year-of-progress-for-music-4e9b77022635

 

Of all the physical based music sales in 2016, LP/EP are up according to the PDF. Pretty cool

[CureTheSane]

If only Apple didn't suck....

[Geoff]

Sadly I think it will have to progress further, with less bands making new music, and the variety of good music diminishing before things really change for the better.

 

 

Soon enough making new music will only be for the passion rather than what little money is currently around.

 

The thing is, for me, less bands making new music is not a bad thing. And hopefully this doesn't necessarily mean that the variety of good music will diminish. I'd love to see it weed out poor bands that just shouldn't bother.

 

Listening only to artists passionate about their craft sounds ideal to me.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's sad to see what's happened to music and the state of the entire industry now. But the impression I got from so many of the last "gigs" I went to was that the artists almost kind of "accept" that this is the way it is now, and that their album will be downloaded and that they thrive, and love earning their living playing live music. It's almost like the album is just released to have something to play live. And that's not to say they don't care about these albums, of course. Because to get people to your shows you need good songs to play... so it's a beautiful circle of life.

 

But yeah, I just look at it from my perspective and think it would apply to any musician passionate about music. I would absolutely, completely love to have the opportunity to get an album out there with songs I created and was truly passionate about. Of course I'd love to earn masses of money from it, but creating music that people heard, loved and that it meant something to... that shit's priceless, and I'm sure it's what drives most artists.

[CureTheSane]

My friend Ralph is in a band called Thrash Or Die.
Here is a post he made this morning.

"Don't know if its fake or real. I got an email from a well known label showing interest in Thrash Or Die. I replied that I am not interested. Now this email could be fake. But regardless I am not gonna owe anybody anything plus give them the rights. Those rights belong to everybody involved in writing those songs and only they can press and release those albums if they like."

 

I bought his first album, just because it was cool that a friend had started a band and done so well, but not really my kind of music.

But I'm glad what I paid went to him and his band.

[Silverkin]

I reckon the more bands/artists you can have whose main motivation is creating great music and getting it heard (as opposed to trying to get famous or rich) the better. Was watching an old interview with Bette Davis yesterday and she was saying how she would turn down shitty scripts even though it got her into trouble with the studios because she recognised that if she stuck to producing good quality movies then people would WANT to pay to go see them which would make her box office gold over time which increased her power with the studios when negotiating her fee, so in the long term the financial rewards followed naturally.

 

I really wish we could see some more record labels who would offer a decent cut to the artists and show more belief in those they represent. My husband got a couple of label offers but when you looked closely at what they were offering it was ridiculous. He'd paid for and produced the product (ie the album) and it was almost like they were asking him to pay them to sell it too rather than the other way round. He set up his own label in the end and though it's a helluva lot of work at least we have the satisfaction of knowing that any returns we see will go to the artists and we have control over what happens with it to some extent.

[Glen]

Billboard reports that streaming is up massively in 16/17. No surprise. Cd sales slump 20%.

 

Making overall music revenue up on the previous slump.

 

Average royalty paid per stream is $0.0072.

 

So an average album is $0.072

 

I still think on this basis an artist gets more out me if i stream

 

Ive bought the Eclipse cd but if i stream the album say 15 times on Spotify that generates at the same revenue.

[Geoff]

I reckon the more bands/artists you can have whose main motivation is creating great music and getting it heard (as opposed to trying to get famous or rich) the better. Was watching an old interview with Bette Davis yesterday and she was saying how she would turn down shitty scripts even though it got her into trouble with the studios because she recognised that if she stuck to producing good quality movies then people would WANT to pay to go see them which would make her box office gold over time which increased her power with the studios when negotiating her fee, so in the long term the financial rewards followed naturally.

 

I really wish we could see some more record labels who would offer a decent cut to the artists and show more belief in those they represent. My husband got a couple of label offers but when you looked closely at what they were offering it was ridiculous. He'd paid for and produced the product (ie the album) and it was almost like they were asking him to pay them to sell it too rather than the other way round. He set up his own label in the end and though it's a helluva lot of work at least we have the satisfaction of knowing that any returns we see will go to the artists and we have control over what happens with it to some extent.

 

What type of music does your husband do, out of curiosity? Stuff we'd find on these pages?