And...?

Cheryl B. Engelhardt recently wrote a great article on how to turn your career goals into actual results. She's had a fascinating career as a composer and musician, and she writes eloquently about the steps you can take to turn your dreams into reality. Check out the article here:

http://blog.discmakers.com/2012/01/4-steps-to-convert-goals-into-results/ Much of the article is an excerpt from her great new E-course "In the Key of Success: The Five Week Jump-Start Strategy", available from http://www.cbemusic.com/ecourse/

That's what Spotify pays to an indie artist like me. Answer to the first line of this article. 

So your point is that you make no money of your music because nobody listens to it, is that right?  You have like 12 plays.  Its my guess that even in the CD era, you probably could not give away your CD, even at your own , let alone sell one.  

Huh? 12 plays? Where did you get that? This is just a part of the statement and it shows 37 plays.

But it's not about how successfull I am. It's about what Spotify pays per play.

I think the bigger questions are: What was Spotify's "cut" and how was this calculated within their 90 day pay cycle. 

The value of a base spin is dynamic and calculated by putting together a few different revenue streams of theirs. Without info telling you how they're actually banking at the end of the 3 months, you're basically accepting an arbitrary number from them. 

Obviously, the entire system is different from that of the standard digital or physical sale. But for most artists and labels to trust them, they need to figure out how to "show their work". 

They also need to figure out how to show how and when the system will work, and how when it would potentially be running at an ideal scale. 

Just showing your statement and that you made some amount of money, somehow, might work for you. But to most people they want to understand how and why they're getting paid what they are, especially when the value of their wares is not set. 

To be honest.. I don't give a damn. As long as Spotify keeps paying me almost 1 cent per stream it's fine with me. They may keep the change for providing such a great service that brings me more listeners than ever before. Man, it feels so good see so many streams on my statements.

Sorry about my rant then... I thought you were complaining about Spotify pay with your jpg.

I think it's great that you can use the service and be happy with how it's working for you. I wish it was the same for everyone, but it's not. 

Some will be in the same position as you and champion Spotify and other streaming services. Others, will not. It's probably good to understand why some aren't that happy about it.

In the end, the more artists and users are on there, the better off everyone is. I can't say it enough, happy artists would be the best PR for this service ever, whether it be getting other artists on board or helping the consumer understand how it works or could work. 

Huh? Just check the statement. I really get almost a cent per stream!! I'm on Rhapsody too but this is bringing me almost no streams at all, so what good is the higher rate?

" Keep trusting Spotify, you will go far in the music business (sarcasm attached)" Come on Yves, that's low and you know it (I hope)

@Finn Silver - At your size and level no one ever made money in music. You are clearly still building a career with more money going out than in.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but I'm sick of bands with 100 fans complainling about Spotify pay. If you had a million users listening to your full album twice a day Spotify would be paying you good money (but if you had a million diehard fans you are probably on a label seeing none of that money...)

Hey, I'm not complaining at all. I AM HAPPY WITH SPOTIFY !!!

I do hope you realize that the picture you've  posted in this article is NOT Bono.

Yeah what is up with that guys jaw implants!!! Did he have reconstructive surgery to look like him.

I'd like to have jaw surgery to not look like that to be honest...

and yes, that's me in the photo and it should not have been used as it was taken at a private event, owned by a private party, and should not be used in the capacity that's shown in this article, i.e., in any way representing the band U2, or Mr. McGuinness.

well, this is really a nice post.I really like the way you start and conclude your thoughts. Thank you so much for this information. Kurti

Also from Midem:

Bla bla bla....bla bla bla...bla bla bla...

Another non-expert is born. Oh dear. So much crap.

(and the sad thing is, there are so many e-books on economics available online!)

What is it she said you don't agree with?

I'm not trying to start an argument or saying you're wrong, I'm just interested to know.

One thing I take from Finn Silver's post is that there is no consistency on the payouts from Spotify.  

Look, even within a single song, there are different rates?  

What is the reason for that?  Is that freemium versus premium?  Is that from different territores?  

There is complete consistency. However the model is based on a calculation not a fixed sum.

At any given time there will be x plays divided by Y subscribers, or x plays divided by Y ad funded users. so that makes the payouts vary quite naturally. (specially for the ad part that depend on ad sales in various terrritories)

Maybe it would help to mute all this unfounded suspicion if Spotify hired some neutral auditor to vouch for the numbers.

That said, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the honesty of a Swedish company trying to break new ground.

Try monkeybars.net!  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/29/spotify-facebook-partnership-apps

All these myriad Spotify comment debates on DMN are getting sterile.

There are two distinct camps:- the users/fanbois and professional artists/small labels.

By professional artists/small labels I mean entities reporting 1000 or more Spotify streams a month. That disqualifies HansH and other fanbois like him!

Of people getting 1000 or more Streams streams per month I have not heard of one - not one - speaking positively about Spotify.

We all get our monthly, quarterly or biannual royalty reports and we look at the Spotify income and cry "W T F!!!!!!". It's getting marginally better but it's still Shockingly Bad!!!

As far as I'm concerned Daniel Ek is another Kim Dotcom who's managed to conceal his tech company takeover of music under an elaborate smokescreen of false legitimacy.

Via Jeff Price on the Tunecore Blog:

The challenge with Spotify and how much money it makes for artists/songwriters is a bit challenging to figure out, and not because of Spotify 
For every song streamed on Spotify there are TWO royalties owed

one for the owner of the recording of the song (i.e. the label)
and a second separate one owed to the person(s) that wrote the song

If you own the recording and are the songwriter - like 99% of TuneCore customers - you are owed both royalties 
The one for the owner of the recording is calculated as follows

Every 90 days Spotify calculates how much money is in the "pot" - this money comes from entities that paid it for advertising and people that paid it for subscriptions 
It then takes "expenses" off the top - credit card fees etc.

What's left over is the Net.

It then determines how many streams there were over the same 90 days. it divides the amount of money by the number of streams and that provides the per stream rate for the recording of the song 
All TuneCore customers have this detailed information in their accounts and can, if they choose, publicly post this information 

The second separate royalty is owed to the songwriter. The amount paid to the songwriter is a combination of the mechanical royalty rate and public performance rate
The mechanical royalty rate is set by the governments around the world in each country. In the US, the mechanical royalty rate is about 10.5% of Gross Revenue minus the expense of public performance 

Public Performance is negotiated between the entity representing the right of public performance (like a songwriter, publisher or performing rights organization like BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, PRS, APRA, SOCAN, SACEM, GEMA, JASRAC etc etc) 

Problem is, the performing rights organizations refuse to tell you the rate they negotiated and what % of it they take. In addition, they (maybe?) pay you the money owed to you anywhere from 9 months to two years after you earn it 

so the truth is, no one really knows how much you make off Spotify as the performing rights organizations refuse to be transparent and for all we no steal and/or skim your money 

(this is why we started the TuneCore songwriter publishing administration service. We have struck a deal with Spotify to pay TuneCore the money owed to songwriters that sign up for our service bypassing the performing rights organizations. this means, within the next 120 or so, we will finally have the exact rates paid by Spotify, you can just log into your account and see them) 

And you will most likely get paid much closer to real time as opposed to two years after it happens. 

With respect, this does not really apply here in the UK where iTunes pays the publishing directly - and.

The transparency of iTunes is in stark contrast to Spotify.

A lot of the "Fuck Spotify" sentiment is coming from UK artists.

The lack of transparency with Spotify is inexcusable.

Completely understand where you're coming from Steve, and agree wholeheartedly. 

I posted Jeff's reply just to give an idea of how many different ways it's hazy for artists, labels, and consumers. (as well as outlining how the payout cycle works overall, that seems to be something everyone on all sides is missing as well)

That said, the UK situation with the two royalties is different from here in the States, which makes comparing people's royalties that much trickier. Apparently in some places there's other extras removed for ISP usage etc. 

It's just a mess. 

As I mentioned in another reply earlier in this thread, we need to see the specifics that lead to how the "net" is calculated, and where the company's stake is within that (also how that could potentially change as it grows).  

With Itunes (or whoever really) we can see in a very straightforward fashion what it's selling for, what they get, what we get.  With Spotify, not only has it been a nightmare trying to figure out how it actually works, but how the pie is actually sliced at the end of the day. 

Speculation will make or break things here. It's been responsible for the great depression here in the states, wars have been started, won and lost over it and what we're seeing here looks to be a very strategic use of information, how and when that is released, and disseminated. 

It will be interesting to see how they deal with this to say the least. 

Hey check out (and like) an awesome video interview with the Grammy Award Winning Producer Steve Lillywhite, who has worked with artists such as U2, The Rolling Stones, etc at: http://culturecatch.com/vidcast/steve-lillywhite

Uhhh, that's not Bono in the photo.  Talk about lazy "journalism"

Why can't I stop laughing?