Spotify's Own Math Suggests Musicians Are Still Getting Hosed

Nerval's Lobster writes "Spotify wants to change the perception that it's killing artists' ability to make a living off music. In a new posting on its Website, the streaming-music hub suggests that songs' rights-holders earn between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream, on average, and that a niche indie album on the service could earn an artist roughly $3,300 per month (a global hit album, on the other hand, would rack up $425,000 per month). 'We have succeeded in growing revenues for artists and labels in every country where we operate, and have now paid out over $1 billion USD in royalties to-date ($500 million of which we paid in 2013 alone),' the company wrote. 'We have proudly achieved these payouts despite having relatively few users compared to radio, iTunes or Pandora, and as we continue to grow we expect that we will generate many billions more in royalties.' But does that really counter all those artists (including Grizzly Bear and Damon Krukowski of Galaxie 500) who are on the record as saying that Spotify streaming only earns them a handful of dollars for tens of thousands of streaming plays? Let's say an artist earns $0.0084 per stream; it would still take 400,000 'plays' per month in order to reach that indie-album threshold of approximately $3,300. (At $0.006 per stream, it would take 550,000 streams to reach that baseline.) If Spotify's 'specific payment figures' with regard to albums are correct, that means its subscribers are listening to a lot of music on repeat. And granted, those calculations are rough, but even if they're relatively ballpark, they end up supporting artists' grousing that streaming music doesn't pay them nearly enough. But squeezed between labels and publishers that demand lots of money for licensing rights, and in-house expenses such as salaries and infrastructure, companies such as Spotify may have little choice but to keep the current payment model for the time being."

Comments

Your call

[oldhack]

Pull your tunes out of their service if you don't like it.

Re:Your call

[fermion]

My understanding is that much of this is based on compulsory licensing. This means that if you record music, and sell music, then it fair game for broadcast. This has been the model for a long time. And it has worked. One wonders if the Beatles or Elvis would be successful if the radio did not pay to advertise their music. Yet much of the current issue we have from streaming is because many labels and artist think they left a lot of money on the table when the licensing for radio was established. Many labels and artist seem to believe that radio is stealing money from them, although one wonders how a hit can be generated more cheaply than through airplay. Airplay that depends on broadband owned by the public, BTW.

Here is why internet radio is not stealing money from artist. Because it pays more. My understanding is that it pays directly to artists, not through middlemen who manipulate the numbers to pay royalties to artists based on fictional 'credits'. So if an artist is to get $100 from spotify, that is $100 that they would have never gotten through radio, and part of the money is not being diverted to more 'popular' artists or just not paid at all because you do not meet the quarterly threshold.

I also think that the labels might be making a long term mistake by believing they need to maximize upfront profits in streaming instead of looking at the promotional possibilities. As an example I look at Eminem. He got really pissed off at Napster when his music was on the site back in 2000. However, his music was not playing on the major young peoples stations in 2000. He was playing on some stations I listened to, in particular a hybrid english/spanish/hip hop(ther is fair amount of really good spanish hip top) station, but was not at all what the 'in crowd' listened to. Suburban parents were not comfortable with rap. But kids were hearing the music, and I wonder where from. Could it be they were downloading it to the computers? From Napster. I recall when he broke through to mainstream stations. For instance I was in the gym and the DJ(they still existed back then) was pleading with listeners to stop calling requested 'Stan' as they were going to get it on the air as fast as they could. As I said, most stations were not playing it, it was listener demand.

This has all been rehashed millions of times. That the artists are being robbed by streaming. I don't know. In the US minimum wage is less than $8 and hour, so if you spend 40 hours on a song, and get $300 in royalties, I am not sure who you are behind. If I spend 40 hours coding, and someone uses it once, am I entitled to $300? The reality is that recording music, like coding or anything else, is a speculative enterprise. Unless you create some work for hire, where someone else is going to take the risk and gain the majority of the reward, there is no entitlement to pay.

Frankly, if all the big talent that wouldn't work for less than a million dollars a year, I am sure that we would be back to days where most work was done 'for hire' and the artists were paid the absolute minimum possible.

Money Paid != Artist Paid

[elmer at web-axis]

Lots of middle men still exist between a artist and the end listener. All with very sticky fingers handling the money.

Are they really being hosed?

[Runaway1956]

What is there that dictates that an artist should be compensated every time a song is played? The rest of us are paid by the hour, by the job, under contract, or whatever. What is so special about artists, that they should be paid in perpetuity for having done a performance?

The REAL problem is, the artists get such a small piece of the pie, in comparison to the major labels. When a song becomes a global hit, the label makes billions, the artist gets a few million as a reward for enriching the label. And, all the REST of the artists are left believing that entertainment should pay big.

Dude - if you love music, play your music. If you love money more than you love music, maybe you should lay your guitar aside, and learn how to make a living. Musicians are cool and all, but FFS, we don't owe you a living for singing and playing.

Re:Are they really being hosed?

[ApplePy]

This is absurd. Do you not value music? Maybe you don't listen to music. How is an artist supposed to go on about creating music and making a living with no financial support.

Try local music for a change. Really local. Like those guys you never heard of down at the corner pub on Friday night. They're not U2 or Garth Brooks, but hey, for a $5 cover charge and $3 beers, who's complaining?

Those guys aren't in it for the money. They have real day jobs (mostly) and play on weekends because they love music. They know they are never going to play to a stadium, and they don't care.

Do you get what you pay for? Maybe. Can you have a beer with the band after the gig? Yep! Try that with the stars.

Thing is, people who really love to play music don't care about money for it. Sure, it's nice to keep them in beer and guitar strings, and they get that. But I just don't go along with your premise that good music can only come from people who are *lucky* enough to make a living at it.

Re:Are they really being hosed?

[russbutton]

There are a lot of scientists and engineers who are also very fine musicians. The difference is that they are capable of doing something other than music. I'm one such person. I've been playing trumpet all my life. I've just never had any illusions about doing it for a living. I make my money as a Linux sysadmin. Been in the UNIX/Linux biz since '89.

People who make their living in music do so because they really aren't cut out to do anything else. I know. I'm married to one. She owns about $100,000 in instruments and makes about $45,000/year as a professional violinist.

I don't know ANY musicians who think they are due Great Wealth. They just want to make a living and pay the rent like the rest.

What's kind of funny in this discussion is that in the San Francisco area, the general population is complaining about all the techies at companies like Twitter, Zynga, etc who have taken over much of the city. Rents are going through the roof. $2500/month gets you a 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment these days. More in better neighborhoods. Folks here are talking about how the techies are all self-indulgent and act entitled. Pretty much the same way you talk about artists.

So what you gonna do?

[future assassin]

> (Grizzly Bear and Damon Krukowski of Galaxie 500) who are on the record as saying that Spotify streaming only earns them a handful of dollars for tens of thousands of streaming plays?

So why don't you pull your songs from Spotify? Why not put them where you'll make bags of money? Wait you probably can't as you don't own the rights/distribution rights to your music?

Seriously you'd thin by now, and by that I mean ( its not 1997 and the technology has been there for years) the artists as a collective would have created their own distribution service and raked in the dough.

Ben Folds on the issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ben Folds, one of my favorite artists, spoke on the issue and said essentially... "I think people are going to look back on this time 50 years from now and say, wow, people could become millionaires just by playing music".

It is really only the last 50 years or so that groups became enormously wealthy based on the music they perform, and now things are returning back to normal.

Re:Hosed compared to what?

[radarskiy]

a) Radio pays 0 performance royalties, only publishing royalties.

b) The publishing rights clearinghouses distribute royalties based on sampling, despite the fact that radio stations are required to submit their complete logs books. So if you're far enough down the long tail they may never recognize your play count.