
Spotify artists earn $167 per 1 million plays. - vaksel
http://torrentfreak.com/lady-gaga-earns-slightly-more-from-spotify-than-piracy-091121/
======
malloreon
Can payment agreements like this be used in court during filesharing lawsuits
to show that if RIAA members are willing to value music at $167 per million
plays there's no reasonable way they can argue that each mp3 someone shares is
worth the thousands of dollars they sue people for?

I recognize that these are apples to oranges, but there must be some
reasonable conversion. Artist gets X amount per Y plays, and given standard
artist % breakdowns that suggests a song has Z value. if Z < W, where W is how
much one gets sued for sharing one mp3, then either the RIAA should pay their
artists fair value, which would drive more users to pay for music, or they
can't sue people for so much per song.

~~~
tjogin
Comparatively, if the same song were to be played in a radio show with a
million listeners, she'd have earned not even _half_ of what she got from
Spotify.

Comparisons with the CD model are misguided, because the CD business model was
an exception, made possible only because of technical limitations.

------
DrJokepu
Let me clear up a few misconceptions here. Is that one million plays worldwide
or one million plays in Sweden? The population of Sweden is about 10 million
people, I really doubt that a single track accumulated as much as one million
plays so quickly.

And if the number is worldwide, why do they expect STIM (Swedish Performing
Rights society) to pay for it? Of course they won't, STIM only collects
royalties for performances in Sweden! Every country in the world has its own
performing rights collection society. For music played in the United Kingdom,
she gets paid by PRS, in France it's SACEM etc.

Artists usually don't have the "performing rights" for a music. The person who
gets the performing rights royalty payments after a music is the composer.
Lady GaGa received that paycheck not as an artist/performer but as the
composer of that track (along with Nadir Khayat). She is not the only composer
of the track so she only gets her share of the payments. The article has huge
factual mistakes.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
This is an important point and fact that needs to be looked into more. If she
only received $167 for her portion of Sweden's 1 million plays, the article is
way off. OR does Sweden;s STIM cut the check for the aggregate plays for all
nation's since that's spotify's home base?

~~~
DrJokepu
Well I'd looked it up and apparently international royalty payments for
performing rights are collected by the collection society of the composer's
home country. So if you reside in the UK and someone listens to your music in
Sweden, ultimately you will get your cheque from PRS UK. As far as I know
Stefani Germanotta (known as Lady GaGa) resides in the United States which
means she must be a member of ASCAP, so I don't really understand how could
she get a cheque from STIM at all.

------
alex_c
To put that in perspective, $167 for 1 million plays is the equivalent of a
CPM of $0.16 for an ad-supported web site. A bit on the low side, but $0.16 is
in the right ballpark for a site with low-quality traffic.

I think the question is: is there any reason to expect music to be "worth"
more than other types of online content?

~~~
biznerd
Flashing "You're the 1,000,000 visitor to this site!" and fake "You have 1
message waiting" 468x60 banner ads pay more than $.16 CPM. Many of these ads
appear on low-quality sites where the visitor spends less than a minute on.

Meanwhile, the typical song is longer than 3 minutes. The user also must
actively find the artist and seek out the song (rather than say mindlessly
clicking a link from Digg because they're bored.)

Comparing a pageview to a song play is not a good analogy.

On a side note, I'm starting to get tired of all the anti-media view on YC.
Group-think is very dangerous. There are a lot of insightful comments here but
I make myself take everything with a grain of salt because of the social
dynamics of the community.

The article mentions that the top artist was Lady Gaga. Why didn't Lady Gaga
start self-publishing on Lulu.com? She would have been able to keep ALL her CD
and concert revenue. Information wants to be free!

Contrary to the popular belief here, record companies DO add value. Gaga
signed with Def Jam at the age of 19 after L.A. Reid heard her (who is
responsible for building the careers of Mariah Carey, TLC, OutKast amongst
others). She cut her teeth on writing and producing music for established
artists before going out on her own.

~~~
alex_c
I wasn't talking about low-quality sites, I was talking about low-quality
(e.g. unfocused, or hard to monetize) traffic.

I don't want to split hairs - yes, obviously, a song is not identical to a
page view - but at a very basic level, both songs and web sites are content.
They both cost money to produce, promote, and distribute.

My point is that while $0.16 CPM is low, it's the same order of magnitude as
other online content. I don't think $1 CPM would be unreasonable, and that's
not a huge difference.

 _Contrary to the popular belief here, record companies DO add value._

I never said they don't. I'm not really sure what that has to do with what I'm
saying.

------
arnorhs
I can't believe people are still using these terms, like 'making 0 dollars off
of pirate bay' -- That's like saying a free newspaper doesn't earn any money
from giving the paper away.

It's a argument people often make that are so entwined in the thinking of
"selling music" like it was a physical thing...

This kind of thinking needs to stop.

Artists have more ways of making money today then they ever did, because they
can do it themselves (and/or hire somebody to do it) - Selling live shows,
selling merchendise, selling music in a form that makes it a "collectable",
even music for films etc... The possibilities are there, but you need more
omph than just standing in the garage bad-mouthing the downloaders while
nobody will sign you up...

~~~
Tichy
"Selling live shows, selling merchendise, selling music in a form that makes
it a "collectable", even music for films etc..."

Many of which are not really making music, though. What if you simply want to
make music? You might as well say "musicians can get paid for doing TV
commercials for facial creams" - maybe they can, but I doubt it is what they
had in mind when they went into music.

In fact, if I was looking for a cleaning lady, and Bjork as well as some
unknown woman would apply, I would probably prefer Bjork. So in that sense
"musicians can make money by becoming room cleaners".

~~~
ABrandt
As much as I would like to not put this so bluntly--that's the free market for
you.

"Simply making music" is fine, but that has never exactly put food on the
table. The internet isn't destroying the value of music itself, its just
altering the industry's viable business model. This is the same line of
thinking that we are constantly applying to web apps here on HN. Sure you can
make a neat little functional application, and it will take you time and
effort to do so, but that doesn't just automatically mean it should pay the
bills for you.

~~~
Tichy
I actually believe in the free market, and of course it is nowhere set in
stone that musicians are entitled to make money off their music. I just wanted
to point out that to say "but see, they have more ways of making money than
ever" is a bit besides the point.

I suppose some artists will find ways to survive, but just because somebody is
a talented musician doesn't make them talented T-Shirt designers or even
talented live show performers (making music does not imply performing anymore
these days). Film music is also not a good way out, because film is plagued
from the same problems as music.

------
ramanujan
This is only a problem if you think musicians need to be rich and famous.

That is, before feeling bad for artists, remember that the cost of producing
and distributing music has also gone way down. A desktop computer with
electronic instruments is sufficient to cut a professional quality song.

Artists who produce music will slowly become like bloggers. You will find them
through the Internet and recommendation engines, not through MTV, just like
you find bloggers through Google rather than the opinion column of the
Washington Post or NYT. And just like with opinion, the best stuff will be
done by talented amateurs for free (e.g. everyone here can name 100 bloggers
better than Maureen Dowd).

Eventually, just like the NYT syndicates some top blogs, so too will the major
record labels pick up some Internet artists (Soulja Boy being a leading albeit
cacophonous example of said trend). But this is just a stopgap en route to a
new future where Google (via search) and Apple (via iTunes) and Amazon (via
reviews) are the middlemen and respectively replace the RIAA's promotion,
distribution, and quality control functions.

...two other thoughts. First, the role of the composer looks set to return to
importance once a database of every possible sond and voice is compiled.
There's definitely room for software to produce a "perfect" song entirely from
the sheet music + sound/voice synthesis + historical data, without any live
voices or instruments at all. For all I know, this is how Trent Reznor already
does it.

Second, the analysis above places little weight on the experience of listening
to live music. I guess if you are a big fan of concerts, the Internet will
kill the (music) video star.

~~~
ahlatimer
I'd say the internet has done more to _support_ live music than to detract
from it. If there was no internet, I may have gone to a few shows here and
there when a big name artist came through town, but because of the internet, I
listen to a much wider variety of bands and choose to support those artists by
going to their concerts.

There's a totally different experience to actually being in a crowd listening
to a band. I may have a (near) perfect recording on my computer or iPod, but
there are many nuances that you miss out on when you listen to music at home.

From the artist's perspective, there's nothing like playing live. Playing in a
studio is worlds apart from playing with your fans right in front of you. I
know quite a few artists that love that, myself included.

------
ahlatimer
I believe they got their numbers wrong for the investments in Spotify from the
record labels. I seriously doubt Spotify is valued at around 50,000 euros.

Artists are generally short changed when it comes to this sort of thing,
whether it be selling music or streaming it. Artists make the bulk of their
money in ticket and merchandise sales. It would be far more interesting to see
how much the record companies are making per 1 million plays. It might also be
shockingly low, but I somehow doubt that the record companies would sign a
deal where they made little more than a few hundred bucks per 1 million plays.

~~~
des
re:their numbers, Spotify's valuation is closer to $1bn. But wired implies the
labels got ownership in exchange for advances on future royalties:
[http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/ka-shing-spotify-
inve...](http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/ka-shing-spotify-investors-
include-chinese-billionaire)

And I can't find a primary source, but the consensus seems to be that Sony
paid 30,000 kroner in cash for their share of Spotify, which jibes with the
figures in the OP: <http://www.p2pnet.net/story/26736>

~~~
ahlatimer
So it seems that the record labels are more to blame for the low amount that
artists are making, which isn't particularly surprising. If the labels did get
some amount of ownership for advances on future royalties, the artist would be
making significantly less due to the labels not collecting said royalties.

------
patio11
Is this surprising to anyone? You cannot simultaneously have the price of a
good be zero at the margin and yet pay producers non-zero renumeration at the
margin.

There is no Internet Economic Fairy that makes it possible to increase
consumption of music by a factor of dozens while simultaneously decreasing
monthly expenditures on music (relative to CD sales) AND leaving all
participants in the system better off.

~~~
tumult
The only money I've ever made off of music is doing live gigs. Give your music
away for almost nothing (or dirt cheap) and then play your own shows.

Record sales as a way to profit probably should never have existed. I would
not be surprised if music historians in the future look back on the 20th
century record industry as an aberration that existed only in the time when
live performances stopped being the singular way to hear music, but creation
and distribution of recordings hadn't yet become trivial.

I have no problem with this model. For every musician that hit it big with a
record deal and marketing promotion under the rule of the RIAA, a hundred or
more went into debt after failing to sell enough records after signing their
contract, and a thousand more never even got the contract. I'd much rather be
able to work and see my effort pay off in a tangible way than play the
lottery.

~~~
ewjordan
_The only money I've ever made off of music is doing live gigs. Give your
music away for almost nothing (or dirt cheap) and then play your own shows._

This is _The Problem_ for the record industry - there's an almost infinite
supply of very talented musicians that are thrilled to do exactly what you
suggest. That makes it extremely difficult to buy the argument that we won't
have music anymore if people aren't willing to pay for records. It just not
true, all we'd lose is heavily produced pop music, and everyone else would
continue to play because they really love it. I don't see live gigs drying up
as an income source for quite a while, and they are (just barely) enough to
let plenty of people play for a living.

I'd add "teach lessons" to that list, too, that's how most of the musicians
that I know actually make rent each month; gigs are just beer money if you've
got a full roster of students. Learn a few extra instruments, you don't have
to be very good to teach most students - I know drummers that teach piano,
pianists that teach guitar, etc. To optimize for income, find yourself a nice
rich suburb with some cheaper (but still pleasant) areas to live in around it,
and teach lessons to the kids in the suburb (you can charge probably 2-3x what
you'd get anywhere else, even if you're not one of the best) while living
cheap a couple towns over and playing gigs in the city that you're near.

~~~
tumult
It's strange to me that some people seem to believe that artists would stop
making art without economic incentive. As if somehow, the prospect of being
financially rewarded is the differentiator between creating art and not. As
long as you are making enough money to be comfortable (or maybe not, for some
artists!) there's no amount of money you can offer someone to make them a
better artist.

Yet another similarity between artists and programmers: you cannot get someone
to create something that otherwise would not have been able to by offering
money.

------
psranga
"plays" is misleading. Number of listeners would be a better metric. I play
songs _MANY_ times.

Assuming each listener played the song 100 times in 5 months (slightly less
than once per day), we have 10,000 listeners. $167 for 10K listeners is 1.6
cents per listener (quite low compared to the 10euro/mo Spotify charges). But
the number of listeners could easily be lower, if people listen many times to
their favourite songs (like me).

------
apexauk
yes, but how much would have been paid for the right to broadcast 100 times on
a radio station with 10,000 listeners?

it's easy to see artists don't get the same returns from radio as CD sales.
spotify and the like are a new medium again - but with more similarities to
radio than CDs imho.

~~~
Maascamp
But the difference is that users have control over the music on Spotify. Even
with the free version you can listen to a song when you want, as many times as
you want. So as long as they're a Spotify member, a user essentially owns the
content on there.

With radio it's more of a teaser. You might hear a song you like but you'll
have to purchase it if you want to listen to it on repeat.

------
dsingleton
Honest question, not addressed by the TF article (and unfortunately I don't
speak Swedish for the original);

Is $167 for all Spotify Lady Gaga plays, or those plays made in Sweeden (and
thus under the remit of STIM)?

As I understand music licensing Spotify would be required to pay royalties to
the collection society relative to the location of the play.

------
ErrantX
It'd be interesting to see how much money Spotify earned for those million
plays.

I know that's probably a tough number to come up with but if it is $200 or
$2000 then we can start to consider things in perspective.

I think everyone here will agree that it is complete FUD the amount of damages
the record industry claim from illegal downloads - and that it is apparent
some (though again I suspect not as many as people tend to claim) publicity
and additional sales is created from illegal downloads.

In this sense perhaps Spotify is almost a loss leader; barely scraping a
living on the idea that it's users are more likely to go out and buy an album
or go to a concert. If that's the case they need to be more up front about it;
otherwise fall outs like this will happen.

Of course it could well be that they are just ripping off artists. who knows.

------
CSunday
Spotify certainly sounds like a good deal for users and The Labels, but not
much for the Artist(s).

let's keep in mind that Spotify is still Europe-only for now, But...

If someone with as much world-wide fame as Lady Gaga could get this much for a
million plays, then what about the less known artist(s)?

And who actually gets to see and keep this $167?...RIAA bosses, Label Bosses,
or Lady Gaga

Great post BTW!

~~~
ABrandt
What if you look at those 1 million song plays as advertising. She (or who
ever Spotify's agreement is with) actually was paid to advertise her music to
1 million people worldwide.

The article mentions that she sold 4 million records and 20 million paid
downloads. Would those numbers be nearly as high if countless people didn't
get to try her out through streaming services first?

------
mdemare
If people listen to twenty tracks a day, this rate amounts to $1 per person
per year.

That seems lowish.

------
javery
The question is what did those listeners do? Did they go buy her album? Did
they go buy a concert ticket?

------
notphilatall
Did anyone else do a double take on "Sony BMG bought 5.8% of Spotify for 2,935
Euros"? What else did they receive from Sony BMG?

------
mattmaroon
"Douglas Léon, better known as Swedish rapper Dogge Doggelito"

Ah Sweden. Do a Google Images search for Dogge Doggelito and try not to laugh
at what passes as a rapper there. That guy makes '90s Vanilla Ice look like
Suge Knight.

