Good grief. Why is it that every single one of these articles never never NEVER back out the distribution fee. 

Please add back in CD Baby's % fee then republish. 

the same percentage goes across both match and spotify and it's not really relevant to the point that is being made. cdbaby says 'We keep 9% of the net income paid to us by our partners and you keep the rest.'  multiply all the $ by 1.099 and you'll be close if you really need to see it.

...Disgusting... @DougUSA

Here is why:

Spotify pays its artists based on their populatiry. Spotify takes in revenue and pays out 70% of that revenue. So if you are a popular artist and you are responsible for 1% of the streams, you get paid 1% of that 70% of profit that is designated towards royalties. If you are a smaller artist you are maybe resbonsible for something like .0001% of the total plays. So you get .0001% of the 70% of the total profits. 

That is why artists get paid different amounts. To hear more read this article: http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012/09/spotifys-da-wallach-explains-how-spotify-pays-artists.html

some people might not think this is a fair system but when it comes down to it, music is a compeitive market and the more popular product gets more profits. 

But digital music news should explain this, and stop posting articles about how artists get paid different amounts. 

so perfectly opaque

I don't know one person that can explain how Spotify payments work 

(which is of course great for Spotify)

Well I can at least explain how the system (sort of ) works: 

http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm

This is so foolish it hurts my brain.  Simple human perceptions here.  Instead of running ridiculous algorithms that vary to the .000001, just pick a number that you know you can be consistent with and go with it. 

The artists (being human) will like a definite number, even if it's a tiny amount smaller.  If it remains the same, and is the same for everyone, then the community will like it better.  Change it if you have to, month by month, but nobody is impressed with this grand math scheme, especially when it's thousands of a cent. 

Streaming doesn't pay yet. We get it.

But the main point of the article is the low rate of pay-per-play, and this should not vary according to popularity.

Why shouldn't it? Music from an artist signed to a major is worth more than some random "indie" noise that passed off as music.

I can tell your great taste in music pushes you to love "the big artist mainstream" garbage, but people with actual taste support that "indie noise" and don't want to see those artists getting screwed.  

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks mainstream is garbage. Too many people are complacent to accept what they are spoonfed because of its convenience.

They should both be payed the same amount per spin. The difference should come in the amount of plays they gets. Obviously the mainstream artist will earn more through more plays, but each individual song is worth the same.

Wow! That article was really enlightening. Thanks for the link!

So if I am an independent baker and I want to sell bread at a grocery store, would I distribute at a store that pays me per loaf sold or percentage of the total of all brands sold?

It seems that the percentage system encourages the status quo.

I guess that is why major record labels prefer it.

If the streaming services pay out 70% of a subscription fee (or whatever % they pay), that 70% should be split between all of the artists that each subscriber has heard.  For instance, you pay $10 per month, $7 gets distributed to artists.  If you listened to 1000 tracks in the month, the per stream payout should be $.007.  If you listened to 100 tracks in the month, the payout should be $.07 and paid to only the artists you streamed.  Average per stream payout would go up for the majority of artists on spotify or other services.

Right now they pool the money which benefits the more popular artists even if you dont listen to them.  If I only listen to 50 artists in a month my money should go to that group of 50.  When you pool the money, if I only listen to these 50 non-mainstream artists, then their streams are divided by the whole making it way smaller than it should be.  This is a small tweak of the formula that is much more fair.  I don't care how popular an artist is, they shouldn't get subsidized by the long tail streams which is what happens now.

Its amazing how the press hyped this mediocre company into existance then everyone drank the kool aid.

Suckers.

indeed it is, Sir.   Truly amazing.

Indeed.

Didn't DMN report several months ago that STHoldings pulled music off Spotify because it was paying $0.0045 per stream?

They got paid $3,376 for 750,000 streams or $0.0045 per stream.

Another report from DMN, Spotify was paying $0.00535.

($4,277.39 for 798,783 streams).

--------------------------

The indie artist QUOTED got a total of 23 streams.

If most of these streams are from FREE USERS, it's easy to see why it's at $0.00126.

Why don't you use a big number of streams like you did before?  750,000 streams and 798,783 streams to get a more accurate picture?

It's a good complaint.  I took a snapshot of the top page, but I can go back to the dataset (after talking with this artist) and get a much larger number of streams.  It will probably raise the number, but not as much as you'd think (premium and free will be averaged based on the source).  

Let's see.

/paul

Paul, CD Baby statements usually show a variety of unit prices. Just check the one below or the Google Spreadsheet  published by Zoe Keating.

Why not reveal the name of this artist? 

Agreed. I think the average will be somewhat higher, but not dramatically so.  I'm working on it.

The reason for the identity mask is simple - the artist didn't want to reveal his/her/their name.   I have to respect that.

/paul

Paul I prefer names and numbers.

Check this statement of the US artist HoneyBoy Dupree

It has a breakdown per country and per tier. 

Hey Spotify,

Answer this question.

Are all artists receiving the same percentage? Very unlikely.

If yes, the provide the evidence.

I just got a snapshot from another CDBaby statement over the same sales period July 2012. 

Exhibit C:

See the rates? Sometimes even $0.0170 per stream.

Stop with this nonsense about iTunes Match. How on earth can a service that charges $25 a year pay better rates than a service that charges $120 a year?

So this would be true if EVERY spotify user paid.   There is no free iTunes match.  Just something to think about.

Jared Kuenstler

NastyRecordings.com

That's true, but you have to also take in account that iTunes doesn't pay for every play. Real streaming services do.

It's not just about rates.

Hello Hans,

Your CD Baby spreadsheet layout looks different from the one above. What is the name of this artist and what country are they based?

Yves you should know. Looks don't count.;) I hope you don't think I am faking statements do you?

The name of the artist is Finn Silver. It is a Dutch band. I have published their statements earlier at http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm

Rates are different for about every country, because Spotify revenues differ for each country. The system is: 70% of revenues of the specific tier devided by the number of streams and there you have you rate.

I know you still believe that Dutch and Swedish artists get higher rates and you are right about that, it's because Spotify revenues are better in certain countries. 

Check this statement of the US artist HoneyBoy Dupree It has a breakdown per country and per tier.

Hans, to be honest, I believe you and Spotify do a lot of faking.

The rates for each artist in a country should be identical. It is convenient for Spotify not to include the country or the tier in its reports i.e. artists cannot easily compare rates with others.

There is no evidence that every artist/aggregator receives 70%. Also, "70%" appears to be quoted by Spotify shills because this what iTunes roughly pays.

I am guessing you are a shareholder of Spotify. I see no other financial reason to create a Spotify blog, as you have done.

Check the statement again!! In a Catapult statement the country and tier is included. 

If I was a Spotify shareholder why on earth should I need a blog to get rich? Some people run blogs for no financial reasons you know? 

You are making a fool of yourself with these allegations.

To get Spotify Premium, user pays $119.88 a year

To get Itunes Match, user pays $24.99 a year

Obviously, Itunes Match will pay more per stream since $24.99 is GREATER than $119.88 a year.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Is this sarcasum? 

Are you being sarcastic?

I think a better description of the statement would be irony.

it should not be forgotten,

• the 70% of that Spotify etc. payout is probably 70% more than what illegal download services payout, thus the legal services are not the bad guys!and Spotify for example as a company makes a loss
• unfortunately the lions share of the 70% goes to the chart POP/ROCK stars...just like it was in the CD world, as the payout is directly based on usage. maybe time for automatic participation in the revenues just for making up the catalog with quality music... ? 

7 different font sizes and styles -- is that the best you can do to confuse the reader? :)

Why not a new one for each word?

I think the real problem we're seeing here is the quantity of streams this person is seeing.

Regardless of payout amount, he's lacking some serious fan/listener engagement..and that's gonna hurt whether they're streaming or buying.

Or did everyone miss that on the chart?????

"active indie, multi-continental artist."

2 streams of a track in a month?

you're not active. you're not relevant. AND THOSE TWO STREAMS AREN'T KEEPING YOU FROM MAKING MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE.

what a surprise that artists who don't actually have enough popularity to see anything even resembling viable streaming counts are pissed that their payouts are low. 

how is this still a discussion.

Unlike the hordes of file "sharers," Spotify pays. They account for streams. They monetize what otherwise adds up to big fat zeroes for the artist. Sure, they're not the most lucrative channel. But attacking Spotify when we can actually see and measure what they do, while not attacking all the "sharing" we can't see or document, is a mistake.

The artist-marketing potential of Spotify is enormous. It's not just about retail -- it's about reach.

Not everyone that uses Spotify are premium users remember. Many are using the free service. If you are using iTunes Match, you have to pay, no free model.

"active indie, multi-continental artist."

2 streams of a track in a month?

Sounds like numbers from "Vistor's" sales data?

23 Spotify streams?

Listen guy, have fun, play music.  Work your ass off and maybe make it big one day.  But 23 streams says you music might not be worth what you think it is.   

It's not 23 that's just the top few rows of the CD Baby report (this one has 500 as you can see)

the point is for 2 streams the artist should have got $2.00 rather than some tiny % of a penny when added up didn't even add up to a cent! And so what if the artist only got 2 streams, music is qualitative not quantitative, somebody out there is enjoying those 2 songs!

If a streaming service starts paying $1.00 for a stream the monthly subscription rate would have to be about $2000. 

check my songs out,

bosma.bandcamp.com