I have the family premium plan and honestly love it. I haven’t downloaded an mp3 in years because Spotify is so convenient. As far as subscription services go, this one is top tier for me.
Now when we look at movie streaming… well that’s what the music streaming could have been like. What an absolute mess.
Now if only they’d pay the musicians worth a shit. Maybe they should strike next.
Full disclosure I am on Spotify family plan and I love it because
It would be nice if companies didn’t slash features and would offer music for free with features beyond that of broadcast radio.
It would be nice if we didn’t have the mechanisms demanding infinite growth from companies because sometimes that’s just not possible or even necessary.
Imagine if Spotify could just be like ok, yeah we’re good no need to make major changes, everyone is happy, life is good thanks. Versus: oh shit we need to boost the quarterly numbers who can we fuck over to get there? I know, customers and musicians both! Yay!
That article, while not necessarily wrong, is blatant propaganda and overlooks the most important issues until the final paragraph, and even then it only touches on it once.
As someone with expansive knowledge and experience in the indie music industry, with a lot of experience dealing with streaming services and Spotify in particular the biggest problem is not the % of value created paid out, it’s what the actual value is. They don’t touch anywhere on how much you get paid per play, how the value is created, how the money flows once it’s in Spotify’s hands, etc.
As said in the article, artists and indie labels/distributors have basically no ways to reach Spotify to negotiate a price, but Spotify itself paid literal millions to license a few major labels in the beginning. The ‘value’ of a play is extremely skewed, where you’d need upwards of 10.000 plays to equal a single play on a nightly radio show for a big broadcaster like the BBC or at a festival with 500 people. On top of that, if you work hard, network properly and prepare your release you can get quite good exposure through radio, dj and other live plays, whereas with Spotify you have to be lucky that they put your pitch towards the right ‘tastemakers’, they are actively working against user (influencer)-playlists, have piss poor customer service, blatantly favour major label tracks in their algorithms and don’t actual care about their listeners.
On top of that we’ve got the obvious subscription enshittification, classic outlandish manager/director salaries and bonuses, the need to have an ever-rising share price and more.
In this case, it’s a good thing that Spotify is an European and not an US company. Less incentive for enshittification. At the same time, the main reason they fuck over musicians so much is not so much Spotify but because of record labels and ads themselves. The record labels are the ones with the financial power, holding the copyrights. It’s not that Spotify doesn’t pay labels, they do, then in turn the labels keep most of the money and fuck over the artists. At the same time, the record labels came last to the streaming game. Blinded on the madness that was the Napster and peak P2P era, a war they lost, they didn’t want to even sell digital copies. Many awards and labels didn’t considered digital sales, legitimate sales. An many rogue artists sold or gave their digital albums for free to protest this. So they were always behind the curve. When Apple forced the labels to sit at the table for iTunes, they had no bargain leverage and were forced to accept shit terms in exchange for the hope that streaming would stop piracy. As a result, the tech giants got to keep most of the revenue bag and that’s been the status quo ever since.
On the other hand, adverts don’t pay. We tend to forget this because the likes of Google and Facebook are so massive. But the only reason they make any money is because of how massive they’re. Adverts are a shit form of payment. Too expensive and no one wants to advertise with you, too cheap and you can’t cover even the platform maintenance, it’s a delicate balance. The result is you need millions of eyes to make any significant amount of money from an advert. There’s a reason cable and open air TV has devolved into 15 minutes of advertisement per every 20 minutes of entertainment.
Spotify pays a fraction of a cent for every play. It takes 150 plays of a song to make a dollar from advertisement, and most of that dollar is gonna stay with the record label. This is significantly worse for indie and small up and coming artists. They simply can’t make a living out of Spotify unless they are already big and have a massive following. This hurts the whole industry as it becomes harder and harder to nurture new talent.
The up side is that, although they are getting shafted by Spotify and the labels, a subscription play is worth more than a free play. Up to ten times more than a free user play. So your subscription does help pay artists more. The down side is that less than 25% of Spotify users pay for a subscription.
I used to think the same, but these days it seems like most songs from my favorites/liked list are no longer on Spotify, as I hear the same 10 or 20 songs over and over again when I have it on random play, and when I manually try to go through my list it’ll skip over songs and not let me select them.
I guess the competition with the other music delivery companies is coming down to certain companies have exclusives for certain songs and artists.
To each their own. For me, I really like the Discover Weekly/Daily features to discover new music and I can’t see how I would ever “already have MP3s of all the good music” since that’s an ever changing set. Heck, I still have a ton of old mp3s I used to rip and/or download, but I haven’t listened to them in a while.
I would gladly pay for a similar AYCE movie subscription, but I refuse to sign up for a ton of different services and play the “which service is that movie on again?” game. Instead it’s a very different approach for me.
Yeah me and my SO have a Spotify duo account plan. It’s great. I could never use the free version even back in it’s heyday. I don’t know how people still use the free tier to be able to complain about these changes.
Looking forward to when you wake up and realize that you’re just emptily shilling for a company that would happily take your money while refusing features.
Why would you talk about how great the features that you pay when we’re talking about how they’re slashing free features then? I’m sure you love paying the same price to rent your music, the same price as just buying it, but that’s not what the conversation is about.
I’m sure you love paying the same price to rent your music, the same price as just buying it, but that’s not what the conversation is about
It’s also complete bollocks. Family plan is £3 a month, let’s say an album costs £10. So in a year I could listen to basically all music for £36, or buy 3.6 albums. Maybe if I live to be a billion then it’ll cost the same price to buy the music rather than renting it, but for us mortals the subscription service is the better deal. It’s fine to not like people shilling for a profit-seeking company, but don’t make up nonsense to try and prove it’s not a good deal.
The Spotify Family plan is increasing by two euros, to £16.99 ($20.52).
This is as of 2021, where are you getting that it’s £3 a month? That’s £203.88 a year.
Where are you buying your albums? How is it that they’re all new releases, are you not recognizing that most of your music is not a release? How often do you listen to a full, new album? You likely don’t listen to more than 20 new songs a month anyways, unless you’re discovering a new genre. However, again, that’s not what this post is about, it’s about lowering the quality of the free features.
Not sure how this is emptily shilling though. Am I paying for a service? Yes. Will I stop paying for a service if they start “refusing features?” Also yes.
Like I said in another comment, I was happy with Netflix back in the day, but now, nope. I have self hosted alternatives.
If a service is not worth it for me, I stop paying. Different people have that line at different levels, and for me, today’s Spotify Premium is worth it. In the future it may not be.
They go wherever the people are at, so they can train, inflate user population, and influence opinions.
It costs them almost nothing to be at multiple places, at the end of the day it’s all text to be parsed and people to manipulate.
Actually, usually when I see someone questioning if bots exist I think of that as an actual bot trying influence people away from thinking about bots, considering that bots are all over the place at this point, it’s weird to see someone deny/question that.
I have the family premium plan and honestly love it. I haven’t downloaded an mp3 in years because Spotify is so convenient. As far as subscription services go, this one is top tier for me.
Now when we look at movie streaming… well that’s what the music streaming could have been like. What an absolute mess.
Now if only they’d pay the musicians worth a shit. Maybe they should strike next.
Full disclosure I am on Spotify family plan and I love it because
It would be nice if companies didn’t slash features and would offer music for free with features beyond that of broadcast radio.
It would be nice if we didn’t have the mechanisms demanding infinite growth from companies because sometimes that’s just not possible or even necessary.
Imagine if Spotify could just be like ok, yeah we’re good no need to make major changes, everyone is happy, life is good thanks. Versus: oh shit we need to boost the quarterly numbers who can we fuck over to get there? I know, customers and musicians both! Yay!
afaik that’s mainly the fault of the music labels, they charge quite good money, but they don’t give it to the artists: https://blog.groover.co/en/tips/loud-clear-spotify-2/
That article, while not necessarily wrong, is blatant propaganda and overlooks the most important issues until the final paragraph, and even then it only touches on it once.
As someone with expansive knowledge and experience in the indie music industry, with a lot of experience dealing with streaming services and Spotify in particular the biggest problem is not the % of value created paid out, it’s what the actual value is. They don’t touch anywhere on how much you get paid per play, how the value is created, how the money flows once it’s in Spotify’s hands, etc.
As said in the article, artists and indie labels/distributors have basically no ways to reach Spotify to negotiate a price, but Spotify itself paid literal millions to license a few major labels in the beginning. The ‘value’ of a play is extremely skewed, where you’d need upwards of 10.000 plays to equal a single play on a nightly radio show for a big broadcaster like the BBC or at a festival with 500 people. On top of that, if you work hard, network properly and prepare your release you can get quite good exposure through radio, dj and other live plays, whereas with Spotify you have to be lucky that they put your pitch towards the right ‘tastemakers’, they are actively working against user (influencer)-playlists, have piss poor customer service, blatantly favour major label tracks in their algorithms and don’t actual care about their listeners.
On top of that we’ve got the obvious subscription enshittification, classic outlandish manager/director salaries and bonuses, the need to have an ever-rising share price and more.
Thanks for the insights. No holy among the capitalist companies…
It’s also not a new or Spotify-centric problem, either. Labels have been screwing over the artists for decades.
In this case, it’s a good thing that Spotify is an European and not an US company. Less incentive for enshittification. At the same time, the main reason they fuck over musicians so much is not so much Spotify but because of record labels and ads themselves. The record labels are the ones with the financial power, holding the copyrights. It’s not that Spotify doesn’t pay labels, they do, then in turn the labels keep most of the money and fuck over the artists. At the same time, the record labels came last to the streaming game. Blinded on the madness that was the Napster and peak P2P era, a war they lost, they didn’t want to even sell digital copies. Many awards and labels didn’t considered digital sales, legitimate sales. An many rogue artists sold or gave their digital albums for free to protest this. So they were always behind the curve. When Apple forced the labels to sit at the table for iTunes, they had no bargain leverage and were forced to accept shit terms in exchange for the hope that streaming would stop piracy. As a result, the tech giants got to keep most of the revenue bag and that’s been the status quo ever since.
On the other hand, adverts don’t pay. We tend to forget this because the likes of Google and Facebook are so massive. But the only reason they make any money is because of how massive they’re. Adverts are a shit form of payment. Too expensive and no one wants to advertise with you, too cheap and you can’t cover even the platform maintenance, it’s a delicate balance. The result is you need millions of eyes to make any significant amount of money from an advert. There’s a reason cable and open air TV has devolved into 15 minutes of advertisement per every 20 minutes of entertainment.
Spotify pays a fraction of a cent for every play. It takes 150 plays of a song to make a dollar from advertisement, and most of that dollar is gonna stay with the record label. This is significantly worse for indie and small up and coming artists. They simply can’t make a living out of Spotify unless they are already big and have a massive following. This hurts the whole industry as it becomes harder and harder to nurture new talent.
The up side is that, although they are getting shafted by Spotify and the labels, a subscription play is worth more than a free play. Up to ten times more than a free user play. So your subscription does help pay artists more. The down side is that less than 25% of Spotify users pay for a subscription.
As someone who was once a small artist on Spotify, they do actually pay really well. Better than most places.
I used to think the same, but these days it seems like most songs from my favorites/liked list are no longer on Spotify, as I hear the same 10 or 20 songs over and over again when I have it on random play, and when I manually try to go through my list it’ll skip over songs and not let me select them.
I guess the competition with the other music delivery companies is coming down to certain companies have exclusives for certain songs and artists.
I’ve never paid for any streaming music plan and I love it. I never have to pay to listen to music because I already have MP3s of all the good music
To each their own. For me, I really like the Discover Weekly/Daily features to discover new music and I can’t see how I would ever “already have MP3s of all the good music” since that’s an ever changing set. Heck, I still have a ton of old mp3s I used to rip and/or download, but I haven’t listened to them in a while.
I would gladly pay for a similar AYCE movie subscription, but I refuse to sign up for a ton of different services and play the “which service is that movie on again?” game. Instead it’s a very different approach for me.
Yeah me and my SO have a Spotify duo account plan. It’s great. I could never use the free version even back in it’s heyday. I don’t know how people still use the free tier to be able to complain about these changes.
Looking forward to when you wake up and realize that you’re just emptily shilling for a company that would happily take your money while refusing features.
Deep.
Why would you talk about how great the features that you pay when we’re talking about how they’re slashing free features then? I’m sure you love paying the same price to rent your music, the same price as just buying it, but that’s not what the conversation is about.
The amount of different genres I listen to means that the cost of the subscription is nowhere near what I would have to pay if I had to buy it.
It’s also complete bollocks. Family plan is £3 a month, let’s say an album costs £10. So in a year I could listen to basically all music for £36, or buy 3.6 albums. Maybe if I live to be a billion then it’ll cost the same price to buy the music rather than renting it, but for us mortals the subscription service is the better deal. It’s fine to not like people shilling for a profit-seeking company, but don’t make up nonsense to try and prove it’s not a good deal.
This is as of 2021, where are you getting that it’s £3 a month? That’s £203.88 a year.
Where are you buying your albums? How is it that they’re all new releases, are you not recognizing that most of your music is not a release? How often do you listen to a full, new album? You likely don’t listen to more than 20 new songs a month anyways, unless you’re discovering a new genre. However, again, that’s not what this post is about, it’s about lowering the quality of the free features.
A family plan is shared between 6 accounts, I pay 1/6 of the cost. I probably listen to hundreds of new songs every month.
Not sure how this is emptily shilling though. Am I paying for a service? Yes. Will I stop paying for a service if they start “refusing features?” Also yes.
Like I said in another comment, I was happy with Netflix back in the day, but now, nope. I have self hosted alternatives.
If a service is not worth it for me, I stop paying. Different people have that line at different levels, and for me, today’s Spotify Premium is worth it. In the future it may not be.
No need to be so hostile.
We are all here on Lemmy because we see the value in self hosting and free & open source software.
However even here, people have the need to antagonize each other and call each other corporate shills.
Maybe a peek behind the curtain of human nature.
Well, to be fair, sometimes the “people” here are corporate shills.
Are bots actually prevalent here? I love me some Lemmy, but boy are they scraping the bottom of the barrel by targeting us and not reddit.
Yeah, they’re here, they’re also on Reddit.
They go wherever the people are at, so they can train, inflate user population, and influence opinions.
It costs them almost nothing to be at multiple places, at the end of the day it’s all text to be parsed and people to manipulate.
Actually, usually when I see someone questioning if bots exist I think of that as an actual bot trying influence people away from thinking about bots, considering that bots are all over the place at this point, it’s weird to see someone deny/question that.
Ah, when you put quotation marks around “person” I’d assumed you implied they were bots.
Yeah, sorry, I mean it both as bots as well as shills. Basically a bad actor and not an honest participant, human or otherwise.
deleted by creator
/Iam14andThisisDeep