Economy/Ecology of Streaming

[barfle]

Spotify openly declares it will squeeze anyone who's not a mega-artist even more than it already does:
https://www.therestisnoise.com/2023/11/new-hatefulness-from-spotify.html

Makes me glad that I’ve never given them a nickel.

 

[humprof]

A former exec at Google (and policy advisor at the FCC) explains how streaming services make money and why their model is terrible for all but a tiny minority of musicians--and now, as streamers move into audiobooks, authors. (She cites Rolling Stone's analysis that in 2020, "90 percent of . . . royalties . . . went to the top 0.8 percent of artists . . . That leaves a vast majority--including many in even that small group--struggling to earn a living.")

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/audiobooks-spotify-streaming-algorithm.html
(Here's a "gift" version for non-subscribers who have used up their monthly allotment of free articles.)

 

[par4ken]

One thing that I hate about streaming is that it gives information about what people are listening to and how often. What is wrong with that is that it gives the streamers licence to pay the already popular "superstars" even more while screwing over the little guy.

With the model of selling physical media or downloads there is no further data supplied regarding how often a title is being actually played, just that it sold a copy. I'm a champion of privacy, what I do or listen to is my business only and should not be shared with either big brother or big business!

 

[humprof]

I guess this is already sort of a "vanity" thread, so let me add links to a few related posts (#31-33) in a thread about the acquisition of the Yes catalog, while I still remember where they are.

And on a related note: here's an Op-Ed by music writer Marc Hogan in today's Times on the economic logic of the current music business, "Same Old Song: Private Equity Is Destroying Our Music Ecosystem." (Gift link for non-subscribers who have used up their allotment of free articles; it's good for 30 days.)

 

[pat bateman]

No musician I know expects to make a living from streaming royalties. (For that matter, no touring musician I know expects to making a living from touring, either--it's a losing proposition.) The point isn't about making a living from streaming, but about fairness and equity. The streaming services are making tons of money, but the vast majority of musicians aren't.

I don't necessarily agree with picking on the streaming services. I don't have a rock hard opinion on this, but hear me out. I think it's the modern day version of picking on Tower Records because they needed to sell CD's at $20.00 ($31.00 inflation adjusted from 2000 - wow) to make a profit and made basically nothing on the $13.99 new releases. We all knew and heard anecdotally that 95% of the money went to the record company, and it's no different than today with streamers.

1. Spotify - took in 12 BILLION in revenue in 2023, but they are not profitable. They hope to be this year finally with 236M paid subscribers and something like another 450M ad supported users. Think about that - 600M people can subscribe/use a service and the retailer (Spotify) cannot be profitable - incredible. So, we can deduce the the lions share is going to the record label, as it should IMO, however how the label distributes to the Artists - that is a whole other conversation, and we all know its peanuts.

2. Apple Music - impossible to know if they're profitable, since Apple Music - and all of their services - are more about keeping the customer in their ecosystem, and quite possibly (probably) operates at a loss if looked at independently.

3. Tidal - made 7M in gross profit, which is a worthless # to know. Who knows what the bottom line is after expenses, but they are failing.

4. Quboz - who knows, the company is private.

 

[humprof]

Tangential. (Slightly. He does critique the streaming industry--Spotify in particular.) But I love Charlie Hunter:
https://jacobin.com/2024/06/guitarist-charlie-hunter-music-industry/

 

[kfbkfb]

I wonder why Netflix and/or Hulu don't start a Spotify type music/audio streaming service, I don't know the compensation that made for Netflix/Hulu movies/TV shows have, maybe a Netflix/Hulu audio streaming service could compensate musical acts more than Spotify does.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Petr Kropotkin]

Tidal - made 7M in gross profit, which is a worthless # to know. Who knows what the bottom line is after expenses, but they are failing.

I would think that "expenses" (whatever they are) have already been taken into account, otherwise it wouldn't be "gross" profit. I'd've thought "gross" in that context would mean total profit before tax. But maybe some accountant-type person could clarify?

 

[pat bateman]

I would think that "expenses" (whatever they are) have already been taken into account, otherwise it wouldn't be "gross" profit. I'd've thought "gross" in that context would mean total profit before tax. But maybe some accountant-type person could clarify?

Cost of goods are taken into account in the gross profit #, but not operating expenses. Example, you sell 100M of goods/year, and the goods cost 70M. 30M gross profit. Then you deduct all operating expenses. Payroll, rent, insurance, everything else required to run the business, to get net profit. Since Tidal is a private company, owned by a parent company, they don't legally need to report net profit.

 

[humprof]

Pianist/composer/educator Vijay Iyer posted this to BlueSky today:

--then followed up with two posts, one adding that Qobuz is better than any of the above, at a little over 2 cents (US) per stream, and another with a link to more recent figures:
https://www.lalal.ai/blog/how-much-streaming-services-pay-artists-in-2024/amp/

(By the way: I noticed that the title of this thread has had the word "Political" removed. Okay...I know that we try to avoid controversy here on QQ, as do lots of other hobbyist discussion forums: no politics, no religion, no racism/sexism/homophobia, etc. I'm down with that. And I guess in that light, "Economy/Ecology" might sound more neutral to the untrained ear. So I don't really object to the renaming. But I do want to point out that the "Political" in Political Economy has nothing to do with party politics. Rather, it's a long-established subfield of both Economics and Political Science. Political Ecology, meanwhile, is a newer academic discipline that brings ecological concerns to bear on Political Economy.)

 

[par4ken]

This is "Political Correctness" gone amuck! Who the HELL is responsible for this recent *********! By changing the name of this thread it changes the whole concept, the whole purpose! Moderators and especially management please back off! I have long been critical of this type of control and censorship. It is totally unwarranted and unnecessary. I could give a rats *** if you "don't like my tone"!

As for profanity most of us don't use it, or use it sparingly, it has never been a problem. There is no reason for any filtering, again please back off!

I didn't even know that Napster still existed, obviously it's not the sharing site that it once was. Interesting that they pay more than all the others, still not a whole lot. Napster might actually be worthwhile checking out, they offer lossless and Atmos! Look at Youtube it's at the bottom of the pile for payouts!

 

[par4ken]

responsible for this recent *********!

Are you kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!