The implication here is that people as a whole don't value streaming music very much at all, right? I'm not much of a music listener, I've followed the whole evolution inattentively, why is online music of such low value?
Perhaps Spotify overheads are too high, perhaps that 70% goes to the wrong people.
Certainly in my view the disbursement is very wrong. I spend £20 a month and listen for one hour a day. if I listen to 4 artists equally (either by number or by seconds) then each of those 4 artists should get 70% of £5 a month each.
That’s not how it works though, and I fund artists I’m not interested in and never listen to, who are listened to for 8 hours a day by others
Its says 70% of revenues, so even if they reduced overheads and their profit to zero artists would only get 42% more.
> perhaps that 70% goes to the wrong people.
Possibly. Who are the wrong and right people? Some people get a lot:
If you spent £10 and listen to only Taylor Swift I’d expect her to also get £7
Howver I believe if I listen to Lily for 10 hours in the month and you listen to Taylor for 90 hours, then instead Taylor gets 90% of the £14 (£12.80) and Lily gets 10% (£1.40)
That doesn’t seem right.
Partly because it's such low cost to produce.
A single episode of television requires hundreds of people working for a couple weeks minimum and costs from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions.
How much does effort does it take to write and record a song? It's closer to a handful of people. And it's usually measured in thousands of dollars, not hundreds of thousands or millions.
A few hit artists spend more because they can afford to, but even that still doesn't compare at all with hit TV/movies.
It’s far from the only way people listen to music. I listen to music on FM radio way more than I do free streaming services (mostly Amazon music’s free tier) for the overwhelmingly majority (essentially all) of my music consumption, and have no user-paid subscriptions. Both are ad-supported and probably pay little to artists, similar to paid streaming.
You're being pedantic. Most people do not consume FM radio as their main source of music.
Granted, not all radio is music (nor is streaming), but (assuming I didn’t get the research wrong) radio is larger, making it at least slightly weird to call it a pedantic argument that the larger of the two markets even exists as a source of music for people.
Not really.Other services exist, like Youtube music.
Music has been very cheap to consume for many many years.
I think the value of music and books will soon go to 0 though because of AI.