

Spotify is second largest source of revenue in Europe for labels - vilpponen
http://www.arcticstartup.com/2011/02/09/spotify-second-largest-source-of-revenue-in-europe-for-labels/

======
dragonintime
Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The IFPI report says Spotify is the second
largest source of DIGITAL revenue. (Itunes is number 1.) Big difference.
Digital revenue is about 20% of total revenue for European labels.

~~~
kragen
Are Compact Disc Digital Audio sales being counted as non-digital?

~~~
bartl
I think so. "Digital music sales" generally means the sale of music files,
while CDs are counted as physical objects, not files.

~~~
kragen
That is mindblowingly stupid. (I know it's not your fault.)

------
kennywinker
[http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-
laugha...](http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-income-is-microscopic-laughable-
pathetic-110205/)

Good for labels, not so good for artists

~~~
JonnieCache
Spotify cannot be compared to iTunes and amazon, or traditional CD sales. It
is more equivalent to royalties from FM radio play. Lots of people don't seem
to get this.

The smart musicians realise they can do things like put their album on there
for the month before the release, leave it on there for the month after its
release, then yank it away and watch the MP3 sales climb. I see this quite a
lot.

Planet Mu records in particular seem to have a subset of their extensive back
catalogue on there that is constantly in rotation. This practice has basically
forced me to buy music from them on more than one occasion. It's like the
mythical practice of drug dealers giving kids free samples to get them hooked
:)

~~~
unicornporn
> Spotify cannot be compared to iTunes and amazon, or traditional CD sales. It
> is more equivalent to royalties from FM radio play.

Well, that sounds like a strange simile to me. When listening to FM radio you
do not chose what tracks you listen to. Spotify isn't Pandora. With Spotify,
you can chose whatever track you like (as long they have it and there's no
commercial queued). Lady Gaga got $167 for 1 million plays. Imagine what the
small artists receives.

Spotify is controlled by the four major record companies: Universal, EMI, Sony
and Warner. Even if they just own 18% of the shares, Spotify's entire
existence rests on the trust that these record companies continue to license
"their" music. The four record companies are using the power of Spotify to
further strengthen its domination over other record companies and penalize
artists outside their own team.

To me, listening to Spotify and actually believing you are doing something
better for the artist than those who pirate is no less than delusion.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
_listening to Spotify and actually believing you are doing something better
for the artist than those who pirate is no less than delusion._

That’s sad to hear, and I hope it gets fixed, but

 __But __

I didn't sign up for Spotify in order to "do something for teh starving
artists" I, and the people I know who signed up for it, did so because

1) it's legal

2) it's cheap

3) It gives instant access to a wealth of music beyond what I could ever
listen to in my whole life. It’s not every song ever (for instance there’s no
Frank Zappa, no Coil, and the cusswords in Cake’s songs are blipped out) but
it's close.

The artists were starving when the major labels were ripping them off, the
artists are starving now their songs get copied and torented. It’s sad that
Spotify doesn’t solve that problem, and that it doesn’t cure cancer either,
but hey, at least Spotify didn’t make things worse.

Spotify’s competition is yes, illegal downloads. Illegal downloads have the
advantage in price - they’re free, but they lose out to Spotify in not being
legal and being less searchable.

The "instant music" really is a distinguishing feature. e.g. Gary Moore dies
-> Play some of his music on Spotify. Friend says he’s been digging a band
called "Aesthetic perfection" -> Listen to them all afternoon on Spotify. As
ever, casual listening, if the artist gets paid or not is a gateway to finding
new music that you really like, leading to being a fan and buying CDs/MP3s,
gig tickets and merchandise.

~~~
unicornporn
I use Spotify too. I'm a user from back in the days when they shared their
friends music libraries. I kind of like Spotify, but I think it is important
not to see any of these services as the be-all and end-all of digital music
distribution solutions.

That is exactly how Spotify is presented here in Sweden. While Spotify is
losing money, the politicians brag and tell us how they suddenly found the
"cure" for illegal filesharing.

We have to be realistic and not place all our bets on one horse. There is no
single solution to media on internet and Spotify is no different. The
internets = multitude. And, therein lies the beauty.

------
2arrs2ells
Spotify background (in case others were ignorant like me):

* 10 million free users can stream any song in the 10 million song catalog to their desktop (Pandora-style ads)

* 750,000 paid users - no ads, support for streaming to mobile (Android, iPhone, etc), better quality stream

* Paid 45 million Euro to labels in 2010

~~~
trustfundbaby
I would really love to hear more about the kind of technology infrastructure
they have that supports that kind of usage.

~~~
mzl
Here is a nice article: <http://www.csc.kth.se/~gkreitz/spotify-p2p10/>

~~~
trustfundbaby
You sir ... are a gentleman a scholar and god among men

------
kleiba
Spotify is not available in Germany. Neither is Pandora.

~~~
mzl
That is most likely due to GEMA (the german collection agency) having very
high fees for internet streaming. Same problem in Denmark with their
collection agency.

~~~
DrJokepu
Exactly. GEMA charges a minimum of €0.1916 ($0.2626) for each streaming of a
song up to five minutes. Compare that to the £0.0022 ($0.0035) charged by PRS
for Music, the equivalent performing rights collection society in the United
Kingdom.

