Poll: 75% Of Hypebot Readers Aren’t Sure Spotify Is A Good Deal For Artists …Yet
A couple of week's ago we asked Hypebot readers a simple question: "Is Spotify A Good Deal For Artists?" The question came after several indie labels had pulled out of the the freemium music service saying that Spotify doesn't compensate rightsholders adequately and discourages music sales. Some Hypebot readers agreed and d.i.y. artist Zoe Keating questioned a lack of transparency and a payment system that may reward major labels – who are Spotify shareholders – more than indie artists. THE POLL RESULTS:
The poll represents the opinions of 500+ Hyepbot readers. Cast your vote now.
MORE:
- "Spotify Responds To Artist Payments Controversy"
- Jay Frank: It's Not Spotify's Fault That You Make So Little Money
Share on:
what a misleading article title.
34.3% aren’t sure about spotify yet.
40% categorically say that it’s bad for artists
Perhaps you could retitle the piece with “Majority of Hypebot readers believe Spotify is bad for artists”?
First they pick on Bruce for his grammar …
Then they pick on Bruce for his math …
Next they’ll make fun of his haircut!
Tough crowd!
i agree
heaven forbid anyone actually comes out and says Spotify is an opportunistic trainwreck riding high on the back of indie artists without paying them anything back.
Im really on the fence on this issue. What frustrates me is that the value of music went from 15 dollars for a CD. To 99 Cents a Download. To now a pennies. If your lucky.
There are two different issues with Spotify:
1. Payment to artists – I’ve thought this from the beginning and emailed blogger Bob Lefsetz about it a few times because he’s the biggest Spotify proponent going. Spotify is a great revenue stream for the major labels and major publishers here in the US, but I don’t think they’ll ever pass on the majority of royalties due to their artists and writers without being audited by same artists and writers. Since none of the streaming services will divulge how they calculate payments to labels and artists, an audit of what the labels get from the services will be very difficult. In a financial respect, streaming is great for the industry but maybe not for the artist–and maybe it never will be.
2. Awareness vs. cannibalizing sales – the jury is out on this. I haven’t seen any conclusive data that provides an argument either way. If you’re a relatively unknown artist without ties to a major, it probably doesn’t hurt to have your music on streaming services for people to discover. If you’re an establish artist who selling well enough and feels fans can discover you other ways, you might want to hold off for a year or so and see how the system reveals itself to really work.
My vote: It’s to early to tell. And why focus on Spotify? The question should be: Is streaming music good for artists.
Here is an overview of what streaming services pay:
http://www.spotidj.com/blog/?p=287
It’s not complete yet. Working on it;) Any help appreciated
Just what I was thinking!
Another thing with streaming services is that it seems they don’t actually pay per stream … and the question is, why not? All the data is there …
Yeah. Exactly.
Are people stupid? Music is not complex at all.
Streaming is a major label model.
Majors take money on the front end and own part of the streaming service.
It’s a fact.
Sure Spotify is a very good deal for Major record companies, simply because they’re making a lot of money from non-recoupable advanced royalties payments.
Then it doesn’t really matter how much is the payout per stream, as it’s all about advertising, marketing and hype…and thanks to the size of their catalogue, billions of very little paid streams still makes something significant.
But for an indie artist or small label, the payout is close to nothing, it’s a matter of size, however it’s good that your friends or fans can find you on Spotify.