What a Successful Indie Artist Actually Makes on Spotify

This is the complete, unaltered Spotify royalty statement for independent cellist Zöe Keating.  It covers the first nine months of 2014.

 

Zoe Keating – 9 Months of Spotify (Scroll Down for Totals) – Spotify

80 Responses

    • FarePlay

      That is the right question. Time for artists to take control of their careers and remove their work from Spotify and other abusive streaming sites. If they want to get paid what they’re worth.

      Until you say no, they’re just going to keep shoving it down your throat.

      Reply
      • Buddy Zappa

        I totally agree… I’ve been screaming about this for years…. ALL bands, musicians, and aritist’s need to take down ALL of their music from Spotify, Pandora, Youtube, LastFM…. all of them… Shut them all down… Start a revolution… WE have the power…. WE have the numbers… they can’t survive without us!!!!

        Reply
    • Willis

      She is on it because she gets paid something, and she also yields the exposure from a service that attracts millions of people (which didn’t cost nothing to make and build up).

      Reply
  1. none

    There is a way you can play your own music 2,000 times per day on spotify and collect the royalties. At $.004/stream, that’s $8/day or $2,920 a year. And that’s just one account. Multiply that by even 5 accounts and you can make a nice cash grab. All the info is out on fiverr.com. Just search for the spotify gig in the search field.

    I’ve been doing this exact thing for 6 months now and have made over $5,000.

    Reply
  2. WhaWha

    Now imagine what it is for the rest of us… Yeah, streaming is the future….for Spotify, not for the “fodder” that feeds it.

    Reply
  3. Me

    444,000 streams isn’t really a lot. If you’re only getting 444,000 streams total in 9 months, perhaps you need to up your marketing game. Or maybe release a new album? Her latest album on Spotify is from 2008. Maybe if she had new music on there that people were excited about she would have more streams. She also has only 7,172 followers on Spotify, which is pretty low for a “successful” artist. Bottom line is that if you want more money from Spotify, you have to convince more people to listen to it. Just sitting on your ass with old music and complaining about not earning money from said old music is not the way to make more money.

    Reply
    • Yep

      Bravo!

      Yes, that is the truth. Spotify needs product, and lots of it. You should release every month, just a single track. Users need that drip feed of product. 7000 followers is good, and would increase if she put stuff out. License to compilations, create a playlist. Spread your brand + you will double this in no time.

      Spotify is a wonderful system, it is social so use it like that. It is not iTunes.

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “You should release every month, just a single track”

        Because quantity is so much more important than quality.

        Seriously, if you want to make a living as a recording artist in the real world you have one option: Sell records.

        Reply
        • Yep

          One single a month is 12 tracks a year. That is not many, my friend. If an artist cannot get it together to record quality 12 tracks a year, do they really deserve to earn high revenue on any service.

          What I am saying (to the Spotify users) it looks like she has not recorded anything for 8 years.

          That is not going to fill them with excitement is it?

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            “it looks like she has not recorded anything for 8 years”

            Because it isn’t on Spotify? 🙂

          • Me

            Tim Armstrong recorded and released a song everyday for a year. 12 songs in one year is nothing.

          • tim armstrong

            Tim Armstrong is shit, point invalid

    • David

      Zoe has a more recent album, but as she has explained many times, it isn’t on Spotify because Spotify refuse to take albums direct from artists.

      She would probably have another album out too, if it wasn’t for mundane problems like a husband with Stage 4 cancer. So I guess she be ‘sitting on her ass’ for a while.

      Reply
      • Me

        Well I’m sorry about her husband, but that has nothing to do w/ Spotify. As for Spotify taking albums directly from artists? Does iTunes do that? I’ve never heard of a single indie artist w/ no label have their own iTunes Connect account. That’s pretty impressive if she has her own account.

        Reply
        • David

          I don’t know how she does it, but she does. I think her first EP and album were released through CD Baby, but the second album was through Bandcamp, so maybe that is the difference. Her main income is from CD and download sales, and increasingly from film and TV use. Her music was used extensively in the TV series ‘Elementary’, and she was commissioned directly to work on another major series. Her last album was #1 on the iTunes classical chart and in the Billboard classical top 10 for months. She may be a niche artist, but she seems quite comfortable with that.

          Reply
          • Me

            Bandcamp is a store, not a distributor, so that’s not a factor. I really doubt she is selling direct w/ iTunes. And obviously she makes most of her money from album sales and downloads because she isn’t generating much interest on streaming services, and doesn’t even have her latest album available! You can’t generate revenue if you don’t have a product!

          • pman

            She has referred to this direct account with iTunes in her blog and also published on google docs her 2014 iTunes:$51k

          • David

            Maybe she has friends at iTunes? She is well-connected in the tech world Also I noticed that her latest album is available as a download from iTunes but not from Amazon (which only sells the album on CD), which does suggest she has a separate deal with iTunes. See here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/zoe-keating-itunes-spotify-youtube-payouts

            As for Spotify, supposing she did get her latest album on it, what would she gain? A generous assumption is that she would triple her total Spotify streams. But then her total income from Spotify would still be only about $6,000 a year. That’s less than a tenth of her income from sales. It would be worth having, but not worth paying any great price for. If the only way to get the album on Spotify was to distribute it through CD Baby, she might lose more from paying the distributor’s cut on all album sales than she would gain from the extra streaming income.

            Streaming may be viable as the main income source for mass-audience artists (not that that has really been proven), but I can’t see that the present pricing model offers much for those with a niche audience. Variable pricing, with a higher per-stream charge for specialist content, might work, but no-one seems interested in that approach at the moment.

          • James

            You are clueless. The point of Spotify, as has been pointed out by their execs, is that those with catalogue can earn revenue that they wouldnt through sales. People are more likely to stream an old album than buy it. So how old the album is doesnt matter, the point is that nearly half a million streams is pretty significant. Not Taylor Swift numbers, but still a good amount. To only get around $2000 for that amount is scandalous.

          • Me

            I’m clueless? Catalog streaming is only a small part of Spotify. You’re still going to make more money off Spotify w/ new releases than a dormant back catalog.

          • Rd

            to be honest a lot of people despises Spotify for this very reason, some people claims they have made more from their direct sales after pulling from Spotify.. so she may be doing this on purpose.. that may also be the reason why she released this statements.. to show Spotify is no business…

        • Justin Mayer / Plum Minnow

          Well I’m sorry about her husband, but that has nothing to do w/ Spotify. As for Spotify taking albums directly from artists? Does iTunes do that? I’ve never heard of a single indie artist w/ no label have their own iTunes Connect account. That’s pretty impressive if she has her own account.

          If you are unaware if iTunes takes albums direct perhaps you shouldn’t be talking about anything music related and certainly should not be parlaying around any advice about anything…

          That’s where i’m at, next year i will be removing everything from all these services and never putting more music up on them…

          🙂

          Reply
          • Me

            I know iTunes takes album directly, but not usually from independent artists. You have to have some clout. They aren’t just handing out direct accounts to every band out there. If she has her own iTunes direct account for just one album, then I stand corrected, and I am impressed.

    • Name2

      Yeah, 7K followers doesn’t strike me as even “Spotify Famous”. (Not that she has to be).

      Just more manipulative headline-writing at DMN.

      Reply
    • Anonymous

      I think people are forgetting that she is not actively trying to maximize her Spotify revenue. She has only a handful of her music on Spotify and none of it is very recent. She seems to spend little to no effort (time or money) on promoting her music on Spotify. She is not going to make a lot of money from Spotify and she no doubt knows this. She has her own way of doing things and this is how she chose to do it.

      Therefore while her royalty information is valuable to a lot of people for a lot of reasons, one must keep in mind that it is what she IS making from Spotify. it is not an accurate representation of what she CAN make from Spotify.

      Reply
    • R.P.

      “Just sitting on your ass with old music and complaining about not earning money from said old music is not the way to make more money.”

      Well said.

      Reply
      • bleedingly obvious

        have you ever noticed that when journalists publish data it is called “facts”, when companies publish data it is called “PR” and when artists publish data it is called “complaining”?

        Reply
  4. Cmonbro2

    Umm Unless you are showing me Mac Miller or Macklemore’s Spotify numbers you do not have a “successful” indie artists numbers..

    Reply
    • Me

      Yeah, I was thinking something similar. I went to look at Arcade Fire and Vampire Weekend’s Spotify pages to see what a truly successful Indie artist looks like, and their top songs from their 2013 albums have been streamed around 20,000,000 time each. If you applied that to Zoe’s rates, that’s roughly $85,000 for one song, from one service.

      Reply
      • David

        Arcade Fire and Vampire Weekend are not independent artists, they are signed to so-called Indie labels, which is quite a different thing.

        Reply
        • GGG

          Arcade Fire is not an indie anymore, they are on a imprint of Universal. But Vampire Weekend still is. Just because they are big and famous doesn’t mean they can’t be indie. Their label even distributes through Beggars, not like Universal or anything.

          Reply
          • David

            According to Wiki, Vampire Weekend are signed to XL, which is the same label as Adele. Would you call Adele an independent artist? So far as know, there is no great difference between signing to a small (i.e. indie) label and signing to one of the majors, from a contractual and commercial point of view. Artists signed to an indie label may get more personal care and attention, but that is not always a good thing!

          • GGG

            Yes, I would. You seem to be insinuating an artist is only indie until they hit a certain level of success. Sure, you COULD make that argument that certain indies are on an almost even footing as majors but it becomes a bit too convenient when we’re in debates like this, just chopping out high numbers to suit a narrative. Call Zoe a DIY artist if you want to make a more accurate distinction, and that will also make her numbers a bit more impressive. Because as we’re seeing on this thread, people are going to scoff that someone is successful with 440K Spotify plays, while plenty of others do far better.

          • Paul Resnikoff
            Paul Resnikoff

            I feel like this thread is missing the point. Sure, it’s debatable how ‘indie’ the above artists are, but all of them are either outright partnered with a major, or have serious investment that goes well beyond ‘indie’ norms. It’s a label, no pun intended.

            Which brings me to Zöe: here we have an artist that is out there making a living off of her music, she’s one of the indies we were predicting would be winning in the current climate. She’s the upper crust of indie, DIY success, as much as I hate to admit that or clue you into that, but it’s true. She’s not a barrista, and nothing against barristas but that is where most aspiring artists find themselves these days to make ends meet (or Uber driving, or whatever day job they can get).

            YES, Zöe is a successful indie, and YES, this is what she’s making.

          • Central Scrutinizer

            How to determine if they are independent. People could go to the copyright office website, look up the songs and under copyright claimant discover the owner of the work.

            If the owner of the work is the artist or a legal entity controlled by the artist then they are independent.

            If the owner of the work is anyone else other than the artist or a legal entity controlled by the artist then they are not independent.

            I don’t care how small or large the company is, if you have signed away all or part of your ownership of the work you are not independent. Many small labels start out with pro-artist good intentions but in the end business is business. If the small label’s existence is in the balance they will screw the artist for a few pennies more or they will cease to exist

          • Central Scrutinizer

            Sorry, Copyright Office website search engine sucks. Better to just ask the artist themselves if they own their work

          • GGG

            Well sure, but maybe this also speaks to the idea that DIY can only get you so far. I have a ton of friends in the DIY scene here in NYC and it always amazes me how supportive of each other they are. But I’ve seen very, very few break out. And the ones that have, even slightly, have done so with the help of some investment is some sense of the word.

          • David

            Quote: “You seem to be insinuating an artist is only indie until they hit a certain level of success”

            I’m not insinuating anything of the kind. I’m just pointing out that whether an artist is signed to a so-called indie label, or to a ‘major’, has no bearing on whether that artist is ‘independent’ in any other sense. There could be a number of criteria for ‘independence’ such as:
            – the amount of artistic control retained by the artist
            – whether the artist retains ownership of copyright, master recordings, etc
            – whether the artist finances the production of their recordings
            – whether the artist gets the lion’s share (or at least a majority) of the revenue.
            As far as I can see, the distinction between ‘indie’ and ‘major’ labels, however defined, has no logical connection with any of these factors.
            What complicates matters is that there isn’t a simple ‘either/or’ answer to the question ‘is this artist independent?’, but a spectrum of possibilities. Some artists would score as ‘independent’ on most criteria but still have a contract of some kind with a label, if only for purposes of distribution. Without knowing the details of contractual arrangements, it is impossible to say where along the spectrum a particular artist falls. There are exceptions: at one extreme, Zoe Keating herself is clearly about as independent as it is possible to get. At the other extreme, the latest Simon Cowell puppet will have practically zero independence. But in between, it is largely guesswork. The only reasonable generalisation is that a long-established and successful artist is in a better position to be independent if they want it, because they will have greater bargaining power and financial resources than a beginner.

  5. Hippydog

    Once again.. We should ALL thank Zoe for posting these numbers..
    its in same ways the “touch stone” for us to see what is really happening..

    as per
    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/zoe-keating-itunes-spotify-youtube-payouts

    “apple’s iTunes Store, where sales of 32,170 single tracks and 3,862 albums netted her just over $38,195.”

    “185 tracks and 2,899 albums sold through her profile on direct-to-fan site Bandcamp earned a further $25,575”

    “403,035 Spotify streams earned Keating $1,764, while more than 1.9m views of videos on YouTube – mostly those uploaded by other people featuring her music – earned her $1,248.”

    “US personal radio service Pandora generated $3,258 of royalties”

    Reply
  6. Nissl

    To me the most interesting information is that she’s only getting 0.4c per play, lower than the 0.6-0.8 range Spotify cites and barely better than the 0.3 Avicii’s people said he makes on Youtube. Is that because she’s indie, or because a lot of them were international plays, or what?

    At the same time, 450k total plays is actually not all *that* much for Spotify (or Youtube). Let’s keep in mind that this a 5-year-old back catalogue from an artist who is playing a 200 capacity venue (for 3 nights) in NYC early next year. New albums from several touring indie club-sized acts I follow might do anywhere from 5-20x as much in a year, adding up all the tracks. That starts to look like a pretty handy additional income flow, considering Spotify is only a modest slice of the recorded music pie at the moment. However, there’s no doubt it’s smart to window releases on streaming services – to free tiers at the very least – in order to push sales, just as Zoe does. Ideally you’d show the album ghosted out and put on a link to buy or upgrade the service level…

    Reply
    • Slim

      450k is a lot for an indie artist. People who say oh it’s not that much are missing the point. If you are not on mainstream radio or you are playing a niche genre and you have 450k plays you are doing really well – only a tiny percentage of artists achieve the big plays. Put it into perspective – if an artist sold 20,000,000 on iTunes that is in reality just short of $20,000,000 which is a lot more the $85,000. If the only sold 1,000,000 a fraction of the plays – it’s still a hell of a lot more.

      Reply
    • Yep

      For some reason this statement is not split into ‘Subscription’ revenue and ‘Ad Supported’ revenue. She needs to get that fixed.

      The 0.004 is the average, with 0.001 at one extreme and 0.008 at the other.

      Artists should only look at the ‘Subscription’ activity to gage user activity on there catalogue, this pays about 10x higher than the Ad Supported service.

      Looks like she has a good catalogue but really needs to build on the stratergy

      Reply
      • PiratesWinLOL

        Richard Dawkins? Many people such as William Lane Craig can destroy him in a debate any day. To be fair though, it isn’t easy when you get outside your actual area of expertise. Dawkins obviously also has a point about the retarded creationists in the United States. They are such a disgrace and embarassment for anyone wanting to defend the theist point of view.

        Reply
  7. zoe herself

    Thanks for posting my public spreadsheet. Here are some others (not comprehensive, I’ll publish everything at the end of my tax year)

    2014 Bandcamp
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wQyS5XYFf8Eo6C4Ru2ny5KF_1VhameL6szj18zalD7I/edit#gid=0
    2014 iTunes (yes direct account)
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10yhytphn3D4MVH5o7TH9_atEeLTIZhRLIEl8d9CPj0w/edit#gid=0

    If you care, read my blog at zoekeating.com if you want to know why I started publishing earnings. Short version: there are other ways to go about a music career (that I certainly didn’t invent).

    Two years ago, I met with DA Wallach and he agreed with me that maybe I shouldn’t put my entire catalog up on Spotify. I still see no reason to…maybe a couple tracks when I have another album (but later, right now I have a preschooler, a husband with cancer and a full-time TV composing gig)

    Reply
    • Name2

      Glad you got steady TV work. Sorry about some of the other stuff.

      “Sleep in the van and sell T-shirts” really doesn’t work for everyone.

      Reply
  8. dude

    If we use Billboard’s standard of 140 streams = 1 track sale

    444,200 streams divided by 140 is the equivalent of 3,173 track sales

    3,173 track sales times $0.70 = $2,221.00 which is only about $300 more than her actual payout

    Whats the big issue here again?

    Reply
  9. YouDontKnowMe

    Before the advent of recorded music and video artists performed live – this was how they earned money. For some strange reason now they think that they can record a song once and receive royalties in perpetuity. I think this is a perverted mindset being pushed to gullible public as the new norm. A coal miner does not receive pay for the coal he delivered yesterday, he has to go to work every day. Why artists should rest on their laurels?

    IMO, the only honest way for a musician to earn money is via live performances. Everything else should be considered additional income at best.

    Reply
    • Name2

      If coins are going to cross a counter for a recording for 50 years, why SHOULDN’T the artist get some?

      No, it’s not written on stone tablets, it’s not promised by God, but it is A way of doing business, and it has some things to be said for it.

      Reply
    • Bandit

      Not long before the advent of recorded music, owning another human being or retaining indentured servants was just part of doing business

      Reply
      • YouDontKnowMe

        “Not long before the advent of recorded music, owning another human being or retaining indentured servants was just part of doing business” – and even before that happened, “the Land of the Free” was free for the indigenous tribes to use and roam, but then civilized Europeans arrived, killed the natives and grabbed the land to themselves. Then they proclaimed private land ownership to be a cornerstone of Western Civilization – and supposedly a Very Good Thing.

        Reply
        • Bandit

          Exactly.

          That damn Gutenberg inventing the movable type press if we could only go back in time and prevent the invention of copyright we could be living like those good old days.

          writers should have to go town to town carrying their original copy and recite it to the public

          Reply
    • Star*Thrower

      I’ve heard your opinion before (from others) and it is a myopic one. Artist are people that create. Reproductions of a creation is and should be a large part of their income. Think about it. A musician must travel and set up equipment to perform in front of maybe several dozen to several hundred people to perform and maybe make several hundred dollars but spend thousands on expenses for the instruments, transportation and lodging expenses. A reproduction of that live performance should contribute more to their livelihood let alone a studio recording that can be very expensive. Let’s take a different perspective ….. An artist that paints could go to a mall and let say paints pictures in real time and sells them. Does that mean he can’t make a decent living off the reproduction of his paintings ? Most art we buy are reproductions do you think the artist shouldn’t get a nice portion of that sale ? Of course they should. Musicians are artist too that are willing to invest lots of time and money to get their music heard and if people are dialing in to hear the music they are contributing to the wealth of the streamer / broadcaster either by subscription or by website advertising , sort of like terrestrial radio which pays the artist fees through performance rights organizations ( BMI, ASCAP, Etc. ). This nonsense about musicians should only perform live to be compensated for their creations and the reproductions of their performances should be virtually free streaming / broadcast for a thousandth of a penny is good enough but somehow the broadcaster can rake in the subscription and advertising dollars seems like late 19th century Barons of the industrial world type of thinking. Myopic and archaic.

      Reply
  10. gjansen

    On the bright side, you get a 191-page statement of very granular detail showing exactly how what Spotify thinks your creativity is worth! And the really good news is that Spotify made money. Right?

    Reply
  11. Rasheid

    When you make folks pay for your music..they will pay…if they really want it..see Taylor, Adele, Black Keys, etc. Shit even if you ask…ask Amanda Palmer. Take those same amounts of Spotify “listeners” and direct them to iTunes. Compare the numbers. Music has value. We need to treat it like it is. Try to buy a new guitar with that Spotify royalty statement. The facts are out. Taylor is the 1st platinum artist this year!!! It’s not a coicidence. I guarantee we’d have more platinum artists once they remove their shit from Spotify. We(the artists) make the rules…not them..fuck them.

    Reply
    • Name2

      Take those same amounts of Spotify “listeners” and direct them to iTunes.

      Where I can either listen to 30 seconds or pay $1.29? For each song?

      No, thanks.

      Reply
  12. Josh

    The article from the guardian also says, “Keating also notched up 266,331 streams on SoundCloud and 222,226 streams on her Bandcamp site, neither of which generated royalties for her.”

    A very important fact to mention. Is she saying she doesn’t appreciate the $1200 from Spotify but she appreciates the free promotion of Soundcloud? Or wouldn’t it make more sense to bash Soundcloud and praise Spotify.

    The truth is an artist has a choice to put their music out there for free or paid streams, or they can not put it out to stream at all. If you choose any of these options you know what you’re getting. There’s really nothing to debate about or complain about any longer. Only complaints should be directed at publishers and labels for being at times greedy middlemen. 70% of Spotify revenues could be reaching artists directly if they’d all wake up and cut out the middle men.

    Reply
    • Boo

      She’s making $90k/yr + on music sales from iTunes and Bandcamp alone. That is incredible success, and only better than say, oh, 99.999999% of musicians.

      Reply
    • songbird

      It doesn’t strike me at all that Zoe is complaining about what she’s earning on Spotify. Just objectively sharing the information so the rest of us can make informed judgments on whether it’s worth it to us. I’ve learned plenty from reading this, both her public posting as well as everyone’s comments. Apprec!

      Reply
  13. The Truth Hurts

    You are foolish if you think an artist can make significant money streaming their music on these sites. Look at the payout — it is in the THOUSANDTHS of a percent. Artists will never make money streaming their music with this level of exchange. This new digital payout system is actually MUCH WORSE than the thieves who stole from artists from the record industry eras. The only way a musical artist can make money now is (and you know this but wait for it anyway….)

    PERFORMING.

    Yup. Good old, going out there and playing LIVE for fans that appreciate your art and will support you. The ONLY place left to make sure, significant money is to have your music become licensed by whatever is left of the movie and TV industry. This is difficult to do and, oddly enough, requires contacts in the remaining record industry, publishers and media outlets. Barring this, the musical artist must go out and perform and make deals with promoters and venues and sell a boatload of swag at each and every show.

    This is old school but it still works. Digital distribution really doesn’t do anything for the artist including the famous and legendary.

    Reply
  14. iamthegif

    Artists need to stop looking at streams as lost sales. That’s the problem. Do we not realize that the people who stream are not the people who buy? Rebbecca Black racked up like a billion streams on Youtube with an 80% disapproval rate. People weren’t listening to it because they enjoyed it. They were checking it out to get a good laugh. What we have to realize is why people stream. A friend tells me about a new album I’ll stream it to see if it’s good. I keep hearing about an artist I’ll stream their music to see what the fuss is about. I may assume I won’t like an artist because of the kind of music they make but stream it out of curiosity and change my mind about them or the genre. Spotify and other streaming platforms monetizes people who otherwise would not be generating any revenue for artist. The thing about the Internet is that there is no room for the middle. If people aren’t impacted by the album enough to compel people to buy, they won’t get any sales. It’s not like people are hard pressed to find music. I get spammed music all day everyday. People can cherry pick and buy only what they perceive to be the best. As artist to survive we have to build relationships with fans where they want to support us and will spend money to do so.

    In order for your music to be heard you’re going to have to put it somewhere where people can hear it. You don’t expect to make money every time somebody streams your music on your website. You hope that it makes a big enough impression on them that they’ll want to buy it. I use Spotify and it does not compare to ownership. Free tier you need Internet access and you don’t have any access on mobile devices so you can only listen on your laptop or desktop computer. Artists like Taylor Swift and Adele wanted their albums restricted to only being available on the paid tier so that apparently isn’t the problem. Besides that, with the paid tier you’re restricted to accessing your music exclusively through Spotify so if another audio player plays at better quality too bad for you. If your Spotify app malfunctions, no music for you. Bottom line is if people want ownership they’ll buy. If they don’t, they won’t. Spotify isn’t going to sway them to one side or the other. If they want it but just don’t want to pay they’ll download illegal or duplicate a copy from a friend. I have yet to see a case where an artist experienced a drop in sales after adding their music to Spotify and an increase after taking it down. I know Lorde’s Royals single went platinum and was readily available on Spotify.

    Reply
  15. Natasha Dias

    Great way to share your thoughts in fortunately it’s a little bit confusing ….. however i would like to share my own simple tips to be more productive see here.. snipr.com/29ikjck

    Reply
  16. Geo Labelle

    Worried for the future of artists? Soon WR1.com will provide a steady and reliable monthly income for artists.
    It is the ultimate income tool securing a viable future for entertainment.
    Through the phone artist can share exclusive music, live streams (on the go), images video, contests etc to their fans. The fan can join and support the artist on a small monthly recurring fee (set by the artist)

    Example: $.2.99 per month – 3000 fans = $100 000 per year to the artist. 95% of the income is reverted back to the artist.

    WR1 is the future of entertainment.

    Reply
  17. Ray Wilson

    In case no one has figured it out yet Spotify is extremely profitable for it’s founders. They raise millions telling their investors that they control all music and then they pay 1000ths of pennies for plays. Then they go back and raise more millions from other investors on the strength that everyone is talking about Spotify. They create a brand (Spotify) that they can raise millions on because people are desperate to get plays by any means necessary. I can guarantee they don’t get paid in 1000ths of a penny.

    Reply
  18. Anonymous

    THE POINT IS!!! REVERSE THE REALITY WHICH IS SPOTIFY IS TAKING 99.6% OF THE ARTISTS INCOME. DO THEY HAVE A CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH THESE ARTISTS? THEY DIDN’T WITH ME WHICH IS C0PYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. THERE EXCUSE IS THAT’S IT IS THERE VENDERS RESPONSIBLITY. THEY DON’T EVEN CHECK TO SEE IF THERE VENDERS HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THESE ARTISTS. THERE GAME IS PLAY STUPID THEN IGNORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THERE ACTIONS. I CANT BELIEVE ANY ARTIST WOULD SIGN A .004% CONTRACT. I WOULD IMAGINE THE BIG BOYS ARE NOT GETTING SCREWED LIKE THE SMALL INDEPENDENTS.

    Reply
  19. JOSEPH

    AS ELTON JOHN SAID—–THIEVES. Why can’t we all go into amazons warehouse steal there product and take it to our store and sell without doing jail time. NO DIFFERENCE. These people say it is not there responsibility to verify if there vendors have legitimate contractual agreements with the artist they are stealing from. Never heard of an artist that would ever sign a contract paying them .004% and giving spotify 99.6%. THESE people play stupid and then they ignore the question. THEY and others streamed my stuff without verification of a legal right to do so which is blatant copyright infringement according to my attorney. New legislation on these sites by the government is necessary.

    Reply
  20. CPP

    I once got a track played 200 times and made at least 4.50 back, not to bad for a week of promo.

    Reply
  21. An

    The fact that she got almost 2000$ for 444,000 views over 8 months, which is less than 50,000 listeners a month….spotify has 70 million subscribers and 20 million premium users….so 50,000 is peanuts….It’s amazing to me how musicians don’t see the amazing opportunity Spotify gives us. The ability to stream and distribute music for practicaly nothing, its not their fault that competition is fierce…and what is our alternative exactly??? labels? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *