|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Aug 24, 2016 12:19:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 27, 2016 10:04:33 GMT -6
The problem is ad revenue isn't what it used to be. So the income can only be what it is, and I'd tend to beleive Spotify that they're paying more or less what they can. They profit, sure, but so do labels.
The issue is the labels gouge the shit out of their artists and the artists are lead to believe that anyone but the label is the bad guy - it's Google, it's Youtube, it's Spotify, , it's iTunes, it's Napster. Everyone has acquiesced to their needs and revenue for artists has still not recovered, even with pirating currently getting much tougher. So what the fuck is the deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 27, 2016 15:42:57 GMT -6
So what the fuck is the deal? "Businesses" without viable business plans. Spotify can't afford it's business model. |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 27, 2016 15:46:38 GMT -6
So what the fuck is the deal? "Businesses" without viable business plans. Spotify can't afford it's business model. Well it sounds like Spotify's business model is being held hostage by grouchs. The thing is that the change in revenue either way won't affect a signed artist much at all. 5% of 40% vs 5% of 80% isn't that big a number. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 27, 2016 16:08:56 GMT -6
Is AT&T a grouch for charging me $100 a month for their service? I don't have to use them if I don't want to. If Spotify doesn't want to use the big record companies, then they shouldn't. Of course, without them, they have nothing. Hence my comment that their business plan does not work. In the USA we live with an open market. People are able to charge what they like for their goods, and consumers are able to buy or not buy depending on whether or not they feel the goods / services are WORTH it.....
Oh wait....Spotify gets to use whatever they like because of a stupid 1940's law..... DOH! Forget the free market stuff.....
As for change of revenue....The change of revenue from 5% of 40% to 5% of 80% is literally life and death to many people struggling to earn a living in the music biz. It might mean the difference of living on $35k a year vs. $70k a year. HUUUGE lifestyle change. Not a great lifestyle, but the difference between affording decent health care and being able to buy quality food vs. not being able to.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 27, 2016 16:19:04 GMT -6
"Businesses" without viable business plans. Spotify can't afford it's business model. Well it sounds like Spotify's business model is being held hostage by grouchs. The thing is that the change in revenue either way won't affect a signed artist much at all. 5% of 40% vs 5% of 80% isn't that big a number. Uhm.. 5% of 80% is twice as much as 5% of 40%. I'm hoping that your point is that 5% of 80% is not a lot to start with. |
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Aug 27, 2016 23:24:08 GMT -6
Why did it take everyone 4 days to find this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 28, 2016 4:22:59 GMT -6
Is AT&T a grouch for charging me $100 a month for their service? I don't have to use them if I don't want to. If Spotify doesn't want to use the big record companies, then they shouldn't. Of course, without them, they have nothing. Hence my comment that their business plan does not work. In the USA we live with an open market. People are able to charge what they like for their goods, and consumers are able to buy or not buy depending on whether or not they feel the goods / services are WORTH it..... Well, it depends. Your view is way oversimplistic - theres anti competition laws there and there's a cost to the continued upkeep to the physical property. We're talking intellectual property that the record label bought out, not created, and we're talking a situation were they're allowed to destroy a smaller business because in the long term it undermines their legitimacy - they essentially become a nuisance when orgs like Spotify do well, as they're now charging artists for services better provided by the 3rd parties they make deals with. If the labels were state owned most Americans would pull their hair out, but crony corporatism seems to always get a free pass. Bizarre. ... Oh wait....Spotify gets to use whatever they like because of a stupid 1940's law..... DOH! Forget the free market stuff..... As for change of revenue....The change of revenue from 5% of 40% to 5% of 80% is literally life and death to many people struggling to earn a living in the music biz. It might mean the difference of living on $35k a year vs. $70k a year. HUUUGE lifestyle change. Not a great lifestyle, but the difference between affording decent health care and being able to buy quality food vs. not being able to. It's not when we're talking the figures - they're very small. Look at every article here where Arianna Grane only made a thousand bucks off a years streams. It's chips to the artist when the label is swallowing so much. The better deal is doing it without the big labels, and getting the whole pie. As for the last part this is a difference in nation. Let's not presume the internet starts and ends in America. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 28, 2016 9:33:48 GMT -6
The links and facts have been posted many times. JK has put them up numerous times. If you want to defend Spotify, knock yourself out.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 28, 2016 10:53:05 GMT -6
PS - it may not end here, but the internet was started in America. Just ask Al Gore. After all, he was the one who "invented" it. LOL
We'll let you use it though. You're welcome. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 28, 2016 12:38:03 GMT -6
Well, I'd expect you to have a specific source for a thing you just said. Otherwise it's your word against mine. Not defending Spotify per-se. But labels have been lying sleuthing scumbags for long enough that treating them with suspicion seems like due course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Aug 28, 2016 14:41:46 GMT -6
Spotify's business model, like most of the consumer tech industry, is a Ponzi scheme raking investors over the coals.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 28, 2016 21:14:49 GMT -6
Well, I'd expect you to have a specific source for a thing you just said. Otherwise it's your word against mine. Not defending Spotify per-se. But labels have been lying sleuthing scumbags for long enough that treating them with suspicion seems like due course. I don't have time for it man. Out of town today, sessions first thing in the AM, 10+ minutes to write this week, record and mix by next weekend. This has been covered ad nauseum. Our own JK has posted MANY links about it. If you really want to know, you can easily find it. Oh, and I agree that record companies are often scum, but at least they were scum investing in music. Spotify and the tech industry is just flat out scum TAKING from our creativity and not giving back into the industry or building it. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 28, 2016 21:15:38 GMT -6
Why did it take everyone 4 days to find this thread? Asleep at the wheel..... |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Aug 31, 2016 5:26:50 GMT -6
I think Bandcamp's 15% off what we earn is fine. They facilitate hosting, distribution, statistical analysis, a lot of the SEO shit is done at their end. It's great bang for buck.
So if Spotify take 40% of what I get on streams, and I only pay out 15% on my purchases and I keep all my merch money and gig money: well, you can really see that the rhetoric from the 360-deal labels is. Tech companies have made the old guard obsolete and they struggle to justify contracts where they don't advance the artist, don't offer any services that can't be had cheaper elsewhere. You can quickly see, when they can't seem to cut their overheads and aren't happy to take home less money, that villainizing everyone else is the safest route to go. The consumers to blame! No, wait, tech is to blame! No wait the laws we lobbied for in the 50's are to blame!
The worlds answer to the Big 3 these days is very simple: "Fuck off, dude".
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 31, 2016 20:35:29 GMT -6
Well, I'd expect you to have a specific source for a thing you just said. Otherwise it's your word against mine. Not defending Spotify per-se. But labels have been lying sleuthing scumbags for long enough that treating them with suspicion seems like due course. Oh - they're crooks too...just not as big a crook as Spotify. I would venture to guess that the labels have to renegotiate their contracts because they don't want the rest of the world knowing that they colluded with Spotify, agreed to license their artists for a higher fee to get in on the ipo. It's some dirty shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 31, 2016 20:38:44 GMT -6
And jazznoise, you said it yourself "anti-competition." We aren't able to set our own prices for our OWN intellectual property. That's unheard of. The free market should determine what's viable. Right now, the government is protecting monopolies like Google from songwriters. It's just unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Sept 1, 2016 2:38:35 GMT -6
We can't set the prices on the face of it, but we're entitled to pull the content if we don't like the rate as long as we're the owners of the IP. That gives us some power, the problem is just that Spotify aren't willing to up their rates (or are putting an NDA on anyone that they do up their rates for). That's down to their own inflexibility certainly, but also part of it is their business model. Sympathy for the devil I know, but the service really is innocuous enough to me.
|
|
