858
Google admits Spotify pays no Play Store fees because of a secret deal | TechCrunch
(techcrunch.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
858 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
59666 readers
3401 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Spotify pays 70% of its profits to artists. Not revenue. Almost all your subscription money and ad revenue goes to spotify. They just at some point decide that's enough to take to spend on spotify, then give a tiny tiny amount to artists.
Not strictly correct. Spotify pays out from its net revenues (revenues when billing costs and tax are removed) and it pays to the various industry rights holders who then distribute the money. There are lots of complex deals in place and big rights holders are likely to have better deals than ad hoc users, plus it's different in different countries.
The 70% figure is a PR thing Spotify pushes about as part of its constant battles with rights holders on exactly how much it will pay them. It's trying to claim most of the money goes to artists but it's opaque how much goes where.
That's patently false, it's 70% of revenue that goes to rights holders.
Seriously, why lie like this?
70% of Spotify profits is a 'tiny tiny amount'?
Their last quarterly financial statements shows $65 million profit on $3.36 billion in revenue. So, yes.
70% of profits would be miniscule, but the figure is not true so you can safely disregard everything they said.
Say they have 1 billion in potential profits.
Wow heey look at all those CEOs, let's use 900.000.000 to raise their salaries, or use it to buy up some competitor!
Uh oh, nothing left for the artists... except some well known ones who'll get a sweet deal.
I like how in a thread discussing how Spotify had been lying about their cost structures you're continuing to take their word for how fairly they compensate artists.
They're a public company, they're required by law to share financial info.
Do you perhaps have better data though?
From what I understand that 70% they're paying artists is from "profit."
And from another comment in this thread:
And then you have stuff like this:
https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/20/spotify-to-spend-1b-buying-its-own-stock/
So lets assume they make $65 million in profit every quarter between when that article came out and April 21 2026 (the period the article states they were doing buybacks). I count 18 quarters in that period. So if my math is correct that is $1.17 billion in "profit" in the same period of time they plan to do $1 billion in stock buybacks. But artists are only getting 70% of said profits. So that's about $819 million to artists in the same period of time Spotify is doing $1 billion in stock buybacks.
So we have a mega corporation playing creative accounting and doing stock buybacks instead of paying artists more. Classic.
Where do you get this number from?
Hasn't Spotify been operating at a loss for most of its existence? Wouldn't that mean they paid 0€ to its creators most quaters (if it was actually calculated off profit)?
The real problem with the way Spotify distributes the money, is that they distribute it per play. This seems reasonable on the surface, but I think it's pretty shit. I want my subscription fee to go to the artists I listen to. Right now they're going to what most people listen to. This effect is worsened by the per-label deals: imagine if Beyonce wasn't on Spotify, that would be bad for Spotify right? This gives her label (and by extension all major labels) massive leverage over how this works. It massively favors big artists.
The per-play model also enables playfarming as an economically viable scam.
Huh? If you listen to obscure music, they are paid for that, if you don't they don't. They base it of what people listen to, in the exact same way it would work if it was watermarked like you want it to be
My understanding is that they don't split your subscription fee up to the people you listen to. They base it on who all of their subscribers are listening to. So even if you listened to your favorite obscure artists 24/7, they might not get a dime if nobody else is listening. However, a sizeable chunk of your subscription will go to whoever is most popular on the platform even if you didn't listen to them at all.
No it wouldn't. Imagine a hyper-small version of Spotify with two artists and two subscribers. The fee is 10$ per user, distributed fully to the artists (to make the math easy).
User A only listens to artist A, user B only listens to artist B. BUT: user A listens to artist A 30 times a month, while user b only listens to artist B 10 times a month. Artist A gets paid 15 of the 20 total dollars - user B is paying for some of artist A's fee, even though they've never listened to them.
My Spotify subscription is paying for the artists most put on large playlists, the ones most played by fitness centers and cafes, and for botfarms. I want it to pay the artists I listen to.
While sure, there is leverage, but it's not like Spotify is being arbitrary about their content. I can listen to obscure stuff, and I do. Also don't forget that big artists are often big for a reason and it's usually not for a lack of talent, taste just varies but certainly there always is a market for 'pop music'.
There’s a reason I use Tidal
The site you linked says YouTube pays "$0.0.00069 per view" lol