• @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      381 year ago

      In effect, yes. Given that ~70% of revenue goes to rights holders, making the amount of revenue bigger by not paying 30% of subscriptions to Google, the savings are passed on to rights holders.

      • @selokichtli@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        So, not exactly to the artists. I get the impression you seem to know quite a lot about the deal, can you try to analyze how this 70% gets divided?

          • @selokichtli@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            I suspected that much, it must be a complicated matter with many different cases, considering how music is produced. Thank you for your insight.

            • @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              71 year ago

              Any time.

              To be clear, I don’t think this should be taken as a defense of Spotify. I just think that these misconceptions distract from more valid criticisms.

      • @devils_advocate@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        70% of revenue goes to rights holders.

        Thus could mean that 69% of revenues go to rights holders A and B and 1% of revenues are spread between holders C - Z.

      • nicetriangle
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Nah the savings are probably being mostly passed on to stock buybacks and executive salaries

        • @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          121 year ago

          …I mean, 30% of the savings go to Spotify, so some part of it will indeed go to stock buybacks and executive salaries. Some of it will go to regular employee salaries, and some of it will go to pay for technical infrastructure, and some of it will go to pay for offices. Some of it will be spent on marketing, even.

          70% of it will go to rights holders, though.

            • @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              211 year ago

              Again, not true - the royalty payments are based on revenue, not profit.

              To understand how absurd the claim that royalty payments are based on profits is, consider that Spotify has had a grand total of two profitable quarters throughout its whole existence - are you seriously claiming that no artist ever got paid outside those two quarters?

    • umami_wasabiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Better be, but don’t be optimistic as they are called capitalist. You know what they love and hate.

      • @echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        231 year ago

        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.

        • BananaTrifleViolin
          link
          fedilink
          191 year ago

          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.

        • kpw
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          70% of Spotify profits is a ‘tiny tiny amount’?

          • Bonehead
            link
            fedilink
            91 year ago

            Their last quarterly financial statements shows $65 million profit on $3.36 billion in revenue. So, yes.

          • @GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            70% of profits would be miniscule, but the figure is not true so you can safely disregard everything they said.

          • @Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            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.

      • nicetriangle
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        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.

        • @LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          They’re a public company, they’re required by law to share financial info.

          Do you perhaps have better data though?

          • nicetriangle
            link
            fedilink
            7
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            From what I understand that 70% they’re paying artists is from “profit.”

            And from another comment in this thread:

            Their last quarterly financial statements shows $65 million profit on $3.36 billion in revenue.

            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.

            • @crystal@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              5
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              lets assume they make $65 million in profit every quarter

              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)?

      • @Flip@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        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.

        • @KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          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

          • @jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

          • @Flip@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            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.

        • @nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          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’.