Major Record Labels Keep 73% of Spotify Payouts

journovampire sends this report: New record company figures out of France suggest that artists are being paid just 68 cents from every €9.99 monthly music streaming subscription – as major labels keep hold of 73% of payouts from the likes of Spotify. They’re followed by writers/publishers with a 16% share, and then artists – mostly paid by their labels – who get 11%.

Comments

First grab

[zoefff]

mine, mine! ;)

Re:First grab

[Gobelet]

It's written plain as day in the article, on the SNEP chart.

For every 9.99€ monthly subscription:

Spotify or other streaming platforms ("Plateformes") get 2.08€
Labels ("Producteurs") get 4.56€
Performers (or artists) ("Artistes interprètes") get 0.68€
Composers and writers ("Auteurs compositeurs éditeurs") get 1€
And VAT is 1.67€

Profit, pre-tax, is as follows:
Composers and writers ("Auteurs compositeurs éditeurs"): 0.6€
Performer (or artists) ("Artistes interprètes"): 0.68€

Labels ("Producteurs"): 0.26€*
Platforms: 0.1€*

*Net profit margin estimated at 5% of revenue.

But if you read the rest of the study, you'll see streaming represents 55% of digital music revenue in France in 2014 (16% total revenue for the industry).

The music industry market is tanking a bit says the study, but the royalty payouts are stable.

You'll find the full study here.

so?

[SuperDre]

It's the 'artist' that signed a contract with the company, so he/she knows what he/she gets or doesn't get..
An artist working for a record company is nothing more than a regular employee..

Re:so?

[sjames]

Not to mention that it informs the citizens who the labels have repeatedly told that they are charging these fees and getting tough on infringement for the benefit of the artists.

Re:so?

[TheRaven64]

The granparent said 'anti-monopoly' and 'anti-oligopoly' (although an oligopoly is more commonly referred to as a cartel these days). The big five record labels definitely count as an oligopoly.

Re:so?

[The Rizz]

A cartel implies collusion - got any evidence of that going on?

Yup. They even named it themselves: The RIAA.

Re:so?

[hweimer]

Well, that's similar to raising awareness among burger flippers so that they negotiate better and refuse offers if necessary. If you want to get your first record deal, then you will have to accept pretty much anything. There are thousands of equally eager and talented musicians round the corner who don't ask such nasty questions. Guess who will get signed in the end?
Also, note that the reported sums are averages. This means that a handful of top artists actually get a decent cut, while the huge majority of artists actually gets nothing because they first have to pay back the label for recording costs, marketing, any advances the artists have received, etc.

Artists often get little

[toejam13]

Music artists have often received little from broadcasting. Historically, they've received the bulk of their money from live performances and merchandise. Most of that broadcast money goes to the studios, the producers, the managers, the studio, the songwriter, agents and lawyers. Singers (if they're not also songwriters) usually come dead last.
My understanding is that many new artists have come to realize this scam and are starting to avoid the major labels, using alternate channels of distribution instead. It may not sell as much music, but they get a much larger slice of the pie

Re:Artists often get little

[itzly]

Note that the word "artist" usually refers to the autotune operator, not the singer.

Re:Artists often get little

[bledri]

personally I find it somewhat insulting calling many of them artists. yes without a doubt many have a gifted voice or work hard to produce excellent sounds, but they aren't artists. The artists are those that actually write the songs and the music (yes sometimes that is also the singer, but that seems to be a rarity nowadays). most singers are little more than performing puppets.

Those that can do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't do or teach, become critics. Performing is an art, no matter how bitter you are.

You wouldn't steal...

[91degrees]

You wouldn't steal an an artist's royalties.

You wouldn't dodge taxes

You wouldn't install a rootkit on a customer's computerl

But the Record industry would.

And just to get the joke out of the way, "You wouldn't shoot a policeman. And then steal his helmet. You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet. And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow. And then steal it again!"

See also "Spotify Artists" page

[Wootery]

Spotify explain their revenue-model and payout-model here.

Re:All about the contract.

[gstoddart]

Well, one can point out that the record companies have been pushing predatory contracts on artists for decades, and giving them little choice.

Seriously, if the *AAs are going to heavily run this "listening is theft" crap campaign and then keep all of the damned money .. then as much as it screws the artists even more, it's almost a moral imperative to rip off the record companies even more.

The theft is by major corporations who act like they've done something to earn this money and should be earning it in perpetuity.

And one of the problems with these contracts is at the time they were signed nobody had even THOUGHT of how the royalties for streaming would work -- or thought of streaming at all in many cases. The record companies defined that to be the one which gets the artists the least possible money.

Essentially the record companies have stacked the deck so badly that the game is unwinnable.

Re:Reading comprehension is important

[ShanghaiBill]

Sure, but the artist keeps 100% of the label's payout to the artist.

Dinosaurs will die

[bulled]

NoFX said it best live even