Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewDucker | Hacker News Reader

Seems like a fair amount. If a track gets plenty of play over your lifetime then you'll listen to it _way_ more than 99 times. If you only listen to it once, then it probably doesn't deserve more than that.

View on HN

I seem to recall having this conversion on a previous HN article (maybe it was reddit) where an artist was blasting Spotify for paying them a fraction of a cent per song play. But the recurring nature is the key. If a consumer likes a song it will get played 1000's of time over a lifetime and easily generate more revenue than a one time buy. So it just shifts an enduring quality vs fad element to the success (and revenue) of a song.

There is a problem with the view that "If a consumer likes a song it will get played 1000's of time over a lifetime and easily generate more revenue than a one time buy". Spotify limits free users to playing a song no more than 5 times per month. So to listen to a song 1000 times on the free account would take 200 months or 16.6 years.

I don't think it's a good limitation to put on the accounts. Most people aren't going to upgrade (they'll just play the song on YouTube or download it), and artists are losing out on money from plays and potential fans.

Spotifier here. Just wanted to chime in on the 5 times per month limit. We actually removed that limit in all markets except the UK and France back in March. If I recall correctly, it never existed in the US.

Thanks for making that clear (I'm in the UK so didn't realise). Any specific reason it's limited in those two markets?

Looking at my lastfm stats, I have very few songs I listened to more than 99 times. My guess, if I try to estimate the tracks that are not counted, would be around 40 tracks making it to that level, with a distribution heavily skewed towards one or two artists.

I estimated my top playing artist at 6000 listens. That's max $60 on Spotify. I have paid for more than that in albums over the years.

That's just me, of course, but I'm trying to give some perspective.

What you pay for albums != what the artist receives for them.

Yeah, I thought about that just after writing it. I'm speaking of my all-time top playing artist, though. I think the numbers are still valid for most of the rest of my tracks. I'll have to look more in detail.

A cent a listen seems reasonable to me too considering how many times I listen to my favourite albums throughout the day.

While it may not add up to much for small, independent bands, at least they're getting their albums out there to a much larger audience. I know I've discovered bands I wouldn't have bothered to download if it wasn't for these services.

A cent a listen would be nice but from all the data I've seen on this the average artist gets paid something more like $0.001-$0.004 per stream on Spotify (slightly higher with iTunes Match but still well under 1¢). The problem is particularly bad for independent artists as the major labels have worked out deals to get much higher rates per stream.

Let's not forget about how this helps new bands to put their music out.. and even get some money out of it. They don't need to chase a record label and they don't need to pay agents and so on. It's a great way to reward artists and a great way for consumers to find new, quality, music!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com