James Blunt Says Spotify Pays Him £00.0004499368 Per Stream



35 Responses

  1. Yea. But...

    That’s not much money. But how much is James Blunt music ACTUALLY worth listening too? Maybe pointless, contrived vanity music is worth more than I think.
    I guess I’m siding with Spotify on this one

    • Remi Swierczek

      You are pretty ignorant SOB!
      Spotify is a drunk activity done by drunkards with no plan for PROFIT at the and IPO with current streaming performance will not happen! (Deezzer is lucky with freshly drunk French investors)

      There is no MONEY or new MUSIC INDUSTRY in premium subscription streaming! PERIOD.

      Ek can still can bow to the MASTER, Larry Page, and bag him to release his BULDOG grip on music business.
      This would allow for conversion of 100,000+ Radio stations on all of the stupefied streamers (Pandora and Spotify toooo!) to primitive discovery based $100B music store.

      We can double Google’s revenue, triple Pandora’s capitalization and have $10B Spotify IPO before 2020!!!!

      LARRY PAGE and his GOOGLE is the KEY! Labels are just wimpo/nerds with death wish on suicide MISSION.

        • Remi Swierczek

          I have bulletproof vision for $200B music industry.
          Motionless Grainge, Morrison and Blavatnik in suicide mode are real embarrassment!

    • steveh

      For Christ’s sake Spotify aren’t supposed to be a music censor.

      They claim to be a music distributor and to pay artists fairly. If they don’t match up to this any artist, even one that you don’t like, has the right to call them out!

    • Versus

      Rather irrelevant point, no?

      Obviously others consider it listening to. If they do, he should be paid properly for it.

  2. GGG


    Either I’m the world’s greatest manager for getting average per stream rates of like 8 times that for my bands, or this is once again a needlessly incomplete illustration of who/what Spotify pays.

    I mean, for christ sake, you can actually paint Spotify in the best light possible with their streams and they’re still shitty, so not sure why you feel the need to do this once a week….

    • steveh

      “you can actually paint Spotify in the best light possible with their streams and they’re still shitty, so not sure why you feel the need to do this once a week….”

      It’s tough job but somebody has to do it….

      • GGG

        No. Nobody has to do it because it will not help anything. If you (the royal you) want to call out Spotify for having low streaming rates at half a penny, go for it. If you’re going to keep posting these statements by artists/songwriters, back it up with what’s actually happening. THAT could actually spark some change if people start to see where the bulk of money disappears.

        But I guess that’s too much work for Paul. Might as well just copy and paste an incorrect tweet.

  3. Anonymous

    Convert to dollars = $0.0007
    If this is a 15% royalty paid from his label, gross amount = $0.0048
    Which is pretty much the average per stream payment to master owners everyone talks about.
    What is new here?

    • Literally Can't Even

      Ha! $0.0007 is not 7 cents, it is not 7/10ths of a cent, it is 7/100ths of a cent. That is not good!

      • Kilroy

        No, it is 7/ 10,000ths of a cent. So if you have 1000 streams, you make 7/10ths of a cent.

        Quit music now!

        • Literally Can't Even

          OK Boys and Girls, time for a little math lesson!

          $7 = $7
          $0.7 = 70 cents
          $0.07 = 7 cents
          $0.007 = 7/10ths of a cent
          $0.0007 = 7/100ths of a cent

  4. some math...

    actually, if the end pay cut is .00045, and that represents ~15% royalty from the label, the original pay from Spotify would be $0.003. which is about average when you combine advertising and subscription rates.

  5. DavidB

    As people have pointed out, the figures imply that Blunt is getting about 15% of the total payout. As a proportion of the retail price of a CD this would be a fairly normal royalty for a signed artist. But with streaming the record label has virtually no manufacturing and distribution costs, and the streaming payout doesn’t include the streaming service’s own share of revenue. 15% therefore means the split of revenue between artist and label is much more favorable to the label than with a CD. Blunt needs to grill his manager or whoever agreed to the deal.

  6. Steve

    People need around 250 spotify streams in order to make $1 (the value of one track sale)
    If there were 250 different legit buyers listening to that track, the generated revenue would be $250 instead of $1..

  7. Seriously

    Are you that stupid to encourage such misguidance? It’s not Spotify who’s paying him that ridiculously low amount money… it’s his recording label. Maybe he has to double check his contract with them and see if he’s being payed what his contract says he’s entitled to; and then renegotiate if he feels it’s not fair. That simple.

    C’mon. Enough with this narrow-minded bullshit.

    • steveh

      No – it’s you the narrowminded bullshitter, so quick to fall for Spotify’s “blame the labels” scapegoating line.

      OK so if Blunt is on 15% of a stream and he’s earning £0.0004499368 per stream then the full 100% of the stream earning is worth £0.003 (that’s nearly 0.5 us cents).

      Let’s face it, that’s still ludicrously low!

      • Seriously

        I’m not falling for the “Spotify ‘blame the labels’ scapegoating line”. I’m inside the industry, I’m inside a label and I see how things work from the inside.

        Ed Sheeran’s Thinking Out Loud has 507.905.818 streams so far on Spotify alone. By your figures, it has generated more than £1.523.717,45. This song alone, on Spotify alone. If you think that’s low cash, WOW!

        Spotify pays 70% of that money for the next links of the chain (£1.066.602,22) for this song alone, Spotify alone. Go check the contracts.

        • DavidB

          You are not going to impress anyone by cherry-picking the most-streamed song ever on Spotify. But even taking that example, the £1.5 million has to be compared against the amount that the same song would have earned from single sales in a functioning marketplace, i.e. one without uncontrolled piracy. It’s reasonable to guess that a very popular single would sell at least 10 million copies worldwide, with revenue at least 5 times the £1.5 m figure. Streaming doesn’t look so good in that light.

          • Seriously

            You have a fair point.

            The first thing I have to add to the conversations is that you’re talking about the whole amount of sales. You’ll have to compare this figure with the total amount of streams by any given product (album or single) in all streaming platforms to have a fair comparison… do you agree? Further, no platform pays the same as the next one; there are players who pay less than Spotify – as there are those paying more.

            Sales volume is directly influenced by the artists popularity, right? The same happens on Spotify – and every other streaming platform. Further, the sales of singles in platforms like iTunes surpass in quantity the sales of full albums. Streaming tends to stimulate consumption of the whole content when the act of listening starts on the artist’s profile or album. Even if the first contact is made from playlists, the same tend to occur. By this perspective, you have more consumption.

            What do you think?

          • DavidB

            The jury is still out on the effect of streaming on sales. Personally, I still buy a CD of any album I expect to listen to repeatedly over a long period. For example, I saw a good review of Julia Holter’s new album, I listened to it on a streaming service, and bought the CD. But that’s an exception, and I’m sure I buy fewer CDs than I used to. More often, I stream the album once or twice, decide I’m not likely to listen to it again very often, so I don’t buy it.

            Overall, music industry revenue seems to be holding up reasonably well, but there must be considerable variation, and I suspect that ‘mass market’ pop and R&B is holding up better than minority genres. Specialist retail outlets for CDs (e.g. Tower and Virgin) have almost disappeared, so CD sales must be more and more concentrated in general stores like Walmart, Tesco and their equivalents, which sell a very limited range of music.

            As for paid downloads, it is difficult to see any future for them, as (unlike CDs or vinyl) they don’t have anything to offer that you can’t get from streaming.

        • steveh

          I’m in the industry as well Mr “Seriously” and you, sir, are talking out of your ass.

          Just cherry picking a song that has had 500 million streams is not proving anything, apart from the fact that you are a shameless spinner, and a totally repulsive shill for Spotify.

          Where are all the musicians and artists who publicly rejoice about Spotify’s fantastic payments? Why do you think there are there so few?

          • Seriously

            First of all, go fuck yourself. If you can’t have a debate on ideas with people who don’t agree with you without offending the other part, it’s pointless to even engage on a conversation with you.

            Where are all the artist “rejoicing” download? Download is a one-time-only deal. It’s nice on a short term, but what about future income? Catalogue? Or Youtube – pays much, much less than Spotify, you know? All I’m saying is: check the fucking contracts.

            Except from Taylor Swift – and few other artists – everyone’s making incremental money on streaming. As the business grow, as more users adopt it, the more money will be made out of it. Check US studies for consumer’s behavior; check how many are willing to pay anything for listening to music. The huge majority is willing to pay NOTHING. Zero.

            Again: check the contracts. If they don’t agree, renegotiate. If it’s still not acceptable, take the fucking content from the streaming services and put it on download only. Or on Youtube (again, pays less than Spotify)… But stop nagging once and for all and start actually proposing viable solutions.

            By the way, have I told you to go fuck yourself already? Go do it.

          • steveh

            “Download is a one-time-only deal.”

            Question 1:- do you want your weekly wage paid this week – or paid in tiny increments over the next 15 years?

            Question 2:- if you prefer the tiny increments can you easily ask your utility companies to split their bills up into tiny increments rather than demanding you to pay it all at once?

          • Seriously

            Try reading the whole argument, not a slice of it: “everyone’s making incremental money on streaming”. Streaming is a new source of revenue, not the one supposed to be paying the bill. Nor is download single-handed paying the bill.

            Digital revenue is a PACKAGE made of every platform where the content is available: download, streams, advertising (YT) etc.

            It’s like you having a wage (revenue from concerts, p.e.) and add-ons from other sources (like companies that offer shares; like sharing post-EBTIDA profits etc). Look at the whole picture, not a slice of it.

            Why don’t the industry pick a fight with YT? They pay less than a 1/3 of what Spotify does (with ads) and YT Red is believed to be paying the guaranteed minimum (again, of what’s written on contract).

            Again: check the contracts. If you don’t agree, pull out the content. That simple. That’s what Taylor did. Then, stop nagging. Like she did.

          • Seriously

            Missed something:
            “Where are all the artist “rejoicing” download? They’re busy on shows and/or recording and/or participating on TV shows and/or a lot of other things.”

  8. Label owner

    Digital Music News will post anything with zero explanation. This is obviously his rate after the label has taken their share as someone else mentioned. James Blunt doesn’t seem to understand but we know DMN does so they are just negligent…..and wasting everyone’s time with a debate about distorted numbers.

  9. Edu Camargo

    “Streaming is a new source of revenue, not the one supposed to be paying the bill.”

    Exactly. That’s why I think that people should be consentrated on making good music, something that few have been done these days. A lot should have been done long time ago, especially when the Napster stepped into the scene. But the industry was more into putting the Maries and Jos in prison instead of focusing on what’s really important.

    I don’t even think there should be a discussion about streaming replacing the sale or something like that. I believe that things should co-exist and bring results to everybody. Some people will only listen, some will buy downloads, some will buy discs, some will watch free and anonymously on YouTube, and some simply couldn’t care less, because they got a lot to do with their lives.

    Peace, and good music.

  10. Anonymous

    How does this compare to PRO terrestial radio royalties?

    I’ll bet it’s about the same, or close to it. 1,000,000 spins on terrestrial radio isn’t much, either, when
    a big hit can do billions of spins on heavy rotation accross tens of thousands of radio stations, worldwide.

    But, the difference is radio is not on-demand, and an on-demand service, since it is replacing actually buying a CD or album, should be paying a lot more. If the average life of a single vinyl record were, say, maybe 100 spins before discarding it, perhaps 100 spins on spotify should pay for the single the kid would have purchased, eh?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *