Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Spotify Approaching 10M Paying Users, Revenue May Soon Surpass iTunes in Europe

Royalties

Here's a link to a selection of major artists and how many streams were streamed and how much money it netted them:

http://business.time.com/2013/12/03/heres-how-much-money-top-musicians-are-making-on-spotify/

But for those who are lower tier independent artists it can be rather pitiful.

I know that per month I've been getting about anywhere from 2-20 cents. But I'm way below the radar compared to even indie artists.

So, nobody is going to get rich or even buy a sandwich with this new method if they're an indie artist.
 
Shaun said:
Try listening to internet radio when you're on a long drive in the car and see how bad that is. Fact is I only ever listen to the radio when I'm driving and I'm quite happy with the choice of stations available.

I only ever listen to internet radio if I want to listen to foreign radio stations for a change. If I'm going to listen over the internet I'd rather just log into Spotify and listen to a playlist or album I choose.
Click to expand...

Music is incredibly subjective and how and what we listen to is totally dependent on individual tastes and habits. I hate radio mostly because of commercials. I have an older car and listen to an FM rock station which I enjoy, until a commercial comes around. But I keep it on. I'd much rather have my iPhone plugged in and listen to Spotify or iTunes radio--but not enough to retrofit my car. Both music services I pay the no-ad premium. I listen to music 6 to 8 hours a day and at home, none of it is commercial radio. Just do what works best for you--that's the only proper answer.
 
justperry said:
1. It's free.
2. It uses less battery.(On your phone)
3. There are plenty of good stations, that is, where I am.
4. Is greener, no server farm involved.
5. You'll never know what they play next.(Which is a good thing to me)
a.s.o.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if #4 is applicable. I imagine that there's a lot of power used to transmit the radio signal. In my area (Philly), there's at least 2 dozen FM stations transmitting 24/7. That's gotta be a big power hit.
 
EbookReader said:
you used your made-up number against my made-up number. Both of our numbers could be way off.

Here are the actual figures:

114 plays on an on-demand subscription service = 1 Itunes download

70% of the average of $0.99 and $1.29 Itunes purchase = $0.80 royalties.

$0.007 x 114 plays = $0.80 royalties


The average Itunes user purchase $40 worth of music a year.
The average Spotify Premium subscriber purchase $110 worth of music a year.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing more data, but this still doesn't change my viewpoint. If independent artists can make just as much money (or more) from streaming services as they would through downloads I'm all for it. Unfortunately, that's just not the case right now.

I've read countless Twitter and Facebook posts from independent musicians who've stated that they make almost nothing from Spotify compared to iTunes and other download services.

Here are a few examples:

https://www.facebook.com/FreeDominguez/posts/10152720879868084?stream_ref=10

From the comments, "in a couple of years, we got 300,000 plays, to the tune of $1400. our costs per year to keep going are at least double that. when we distribute our music thru all the channels, we pay for that. thousands of dollars a year to distribute thru internet--its not free, keep in contact with our fans and operating costs. one solo show of mine costs minimum $1000 or more if i want it to be promoted and have good sound, help, etc. so explain how someone could tour. the fan base is there, but Spotify won't link to buy or explain we need records bought."


http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012...-best-way-to-support-your-favorite-bands.html

"Buying an album helps a band ten fold over buying a t-shirt, no matter what format. Again, answering questions"

"Not saying spotify doesn't spread the word, but at least radio and venues look at YouTube counts. With spotify, it's nothing"


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/15/thom-yorke-criticises-spotify

"Make no mistake, new artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly begin rolling in it. Simples,"
 
goobot said:
Opinion.
Click to expand...

Most everything on this site is opinion. From the reporting to the comments. It's no different than the BS biased opinion we see and hear on the radio, TV, internet, etc.

----------

I think iTunes radio is great. Only problem I have with it is that it auto stops. I love the song selections, but hate that I can't get it 24/7 without constantly restarting it.
 
Akuratyde said:
Thanks for providing more data, but this still doesn't change my viewpoint. If independent artists can make just as much money (or more) from streaming services as they would through downloads I'm all for it. Unfortunately, that's just not the case right now.

I've read countless Twitter and Facebook posts from independent musicians who've stated that they make almost nothing from Spotify compared to iTunes and other download services.

Here are a few examples:

https://www.facebook.com/FreeDominguez/posts/10152720879868084?stream_ref=10

From the comments, "in a couple of years, we got 300,000 plays, to the tune of $1400. our costs per year to keep going are at least double that. when we distribute our music thru all the channels, we pay for that. thousands of dollars a year to distribute thru internet--its not free, keep in contact with our fans and operating costs. one solo show of mine costs minimum $1000 or more if i want it to be promoted and have good sound, help, etc. so explain how someone could tour. the fan base is there, but Spotify won't link to buy or explain we need records bought."


http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012...-best-way-to-support-your-favorite-bands.html

"Buying an album helps a band ten fold over buying a t-shirt, no matter what format. Again, answering questions"

"Not saying spotify doesn't spread the word, but at least radio and venues look at YouTube counts. With spotify, it's nothing"


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/15/thom-yorke-criticises-spotify

"Make no mistake, new artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly begin rolling in it. Simples,"
Click to expand...

artists don't get the full 70%. last i read if you want to sell music via itunes you have to go through a distributor and pay another 30% on top of apple's cut.

even then 300,000 plays should not equal $1 per play. if i buy a song for $1, chances are i will play it more than once so the cost is way less than $1

the era of making money of recorded music is over. just like before it, artists will have to make money by touring
 
alent1234 said:
artists don't get the full 70%. last i read if you want to sell music via itunes you have to go through a distributor and pay another 30% on top of apple's cut.

even then 300,000 plays should not equal $1 per play. if i buy a song for $1, chances are i will play it more than once so the cost is way less than $1

the era of making money of recorded music is over. just like before it, artists will have to make money by touring
Click to expand...

Digital distribution isn't another 30%, it's a flat fee. Tunecore (the most popular service) has an annual renewal fee of $50 per album.

Of course artists won't keep the full 70% when there are record labels involved. I was simplifying things for the sake of the argument. Not to mention there are plenty of independent artist out there who've self-released music and aren't tied to labels.
 
I've been a Spotify subscriber for almost four years now. By now, I've probably spent more money on the subscription fee than I've spent on all the LP and CD record purchases of my entire lifetime put together.

Yeah, I'm not a big spender on music. Like most other people, I assume. I just don't have the cash for such pursuits, however the €10 sub fee per month isn't much, even for a guy like me. Compared to the size of the full Spotify library, it represents huge value for money, unlike the €1+ per track price on the iTunes store (or other emusic stores for that matter.)

This is the future of music. Everybody needs to get onboard, artists and copyright holders alike, because the only other way most people are going to enjoy music is to pirate it.
 
iPhone7s said:
Spotify has totally changed the way I listen to music. Let's hope they can continue the great work!
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

I honestly can't remember the last time I actually purchased a song or album from iTunes or Amazon. Now when new albums are released, I launch the Spotify app and listen away.

That probably also explains why I still have $60 balance left in my iTunes account from unused gift cards.

Bravo, Spotify!
 
justperry said:
It's just ridiculous the iPhone doesn't have normal radio built in, actually it has but Apple chooses not to use the radio which is on the chip, all Apple needs to do is switch on this radio and built an App for it.

We had/have 'normal' radio since ages, why do we need it over the internet.:confused:
Click to expand...

Lol. What year do you think it is?

And FM/AM music quality is ass compared to streaming.

Unless there is a natural disaster, or no coverage at all, terrestrial radio is never used in my home or car.

Tunein app is way better for broadcast listening.

----------
i-John said:
Got to agree here. If there was ever a game changing music listening experience since the iPod, Spotify is it. True innovation in how to open music to the world.
Click to expand...

Spotify changed everything. Though it had been largely replaced by Google play music because it comes with your own library. Quite a few of my songs are rare enough to not be found on streaming services.
 
That's great.

NOW GIVE US FAMILY ACCOUNTS ALREADY!!

Seriously, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes - all have this nominally figured out to varying degrees. Spotify just screws families with lame excuses. I'm not paying $10/mo, per family member. That's just ridiculous.
 
justperry said:
1. It's free.
2. It uses less battery.(On your phone)
3. There are plenty of good stations, that is, where I am.
4. Is greener, no server farm involved.
5. You'll never know what they play next.(Which is a good thing to me)
a.s.o.
Click to expand...

There are over 15,000 radio stations in the US alone. Given the sheer extent of duplication with this, each individual station's equipment needs, and the fact that they aren't using existing infrastructure (i.e. the internet, which compared to individual station transmitters, is still going to be there regardless of streaming), I can't imagine any possible interpretation where they're magically 'greener' than even large server farms for the (by comparison) relatively few streaming services available.
 
Technarchy said:
Lol. What year do you think it is?

And FM/AM music quality is ass compared to streaming.

Unless there is a natural disaster, or no coverage at all, terrestrial radio is never used in my home or car.
Click to expand...

FM is pretty much CD quality dependent upon reception. Most streaming services and online radio stations transmit compressed media. New isn't always better.
 
Bluestrike2 said:
There are over 15,000 radio stations in the US alone. Given the sheer extent of duplication with this, each individual station's equipment needs, and the fact that they aren't using existing infrastructure (i.e. the internet, which compared to individual station transmitters, is still going to be there regardless of streaming), I can't imagine any possible interpretation where they're magically 'greener' than even large server farms for the (by comparison) relatively few streaming services available.
Click to expand...

most of these are owned by a few companies and the content is streamed to the station from a server farm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back