Time to stop drinking Coke!  Hopefully Coke will help SpotaFly pay the songwriters their due! 

that's funny, sean parker's nose has been investing in coke for years.  #coincedence? 

Fuck You Coke, Pandora, AND Spotify,  Pay the artists! Pay The songwriters!   You fucking cheapskate assholes! 

It seems that artists really hate Spotify more by the day but I dont think they care?  I wonder can this company last like that with just fat investors and labels rooting for them?

Artists' problem with Spotify is essentially that their subscriber revenue is subsidizing their free listeners, which is spreading the money thin & producing low payouts. The alternative is a subscriber-only ecosystem, where artists receive a better per-play payment, but there's fewer artists getting paid for fewer plays, & there's actually less money getting paid out because ad revenue, while it doesn't generate $5/mo per user, does generate revenue.

What everyone's betting on is that the ratio of free listeners to subscribers changes dramatically in the future, which directly affects the per-play payments. I would hope that Spotify is presenting some kind of strategy for converting subscribers to investors to justify these rounds, whether that's waiting until full-resolution streams are made practical by storage/bandwidth advances creating greater differenciation between free & subscription accounts, just reducing the privileges of free users, or packaging the service at the provider level.

The idea is that streaming is undeniably, irreversibly, the future. And to believe in the concept of Spotify, it has to be a pay service, & you have to have faith that they will ultimately convert enough users to subscriptions to replace the per-track or per-album recorded music industry. (At $7.5/mo per subscription, you're not covering $7b until you've got nearly 75 million subscribers. To put it in perspective, if AT&T & Verizon both included subscriptions on all of their mobile plans, at $7.50/mo it would generate nearly $20b, which is 50% larger than the recorded music industry was at it's peak.) Of course, to get there consumers have to make the switch from ownership or piracy to streaming, which requires this period where subscriptions subsidize free uses.

This is one of these concepts like fiscal responsibility or global warming... anyone with half a brain can see that changes are absolutely necessary, in fact key to survival, & the solution is right there in front of us but no one wants to feel like they're getting ripped off in the meantime.

Dude,  I don't know who you are but your posts on DMN are some of the most eloquent and precise I've ever read.  Bravo

@jw

There are two alternatives.

increase subscribers OR increase ad revenue..

We saw it work with youtube, for years they barely showed any ads (besides the page itself) until they established themselves as 'THE' 'goto' place for media.. Now they are blatantly forcing people to watch ads..

Spotify just doesnt has the leverage or customer base yet to make significant ad revenue..

The really strange part is that Coca-Cola failed to read the writing on the wall.

They used to be pretty good at that.

I don't understand this math. If Spotify is now claiming a $3 billion valuation as they bring these new investors, that means that they are valuing their subscribers at $750 million per million. (http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/business-matters-a-3-billion-valuation-brings-1008011232.story) 

Since most investors want to see a healthy return on their money, what is the exit plan?  An IPO that will end up valued much less than the initial offering 6 months later (as most tech stocks wind up doing)??

Or will there be a white knight to scoop it up?  Highly unlikely in this post-Myspace-bargain-basement-sales-price world. 

I usually think that big time investors have a lot of very smart people surrounding them.  Yet, my puny brain can't do the math on how Goldman-Sachs, Coke, the major labels, or any other significant investor is going to recoup their investment, let alone profit from it. 

That being said, I am really enjoying the revenue growth of Spotify.  They have augmented our revenue streams (pun fully intended) very nicely.  I have not seen any cannabilizing of our a la carte sales (yet).  
 

So while this investor furor mistifies me, I am happy to see Spotify funded for the foreseeable future.  

"my puny brain can't do the math on how Goldman-Sachs, Coke, the major labels, or any other significant investor is going to recoup their investment, let alone profit from it"

Spotify is probably the next bubble to pop, so Goldman-Sachs should be expected.

But Coca-Cola's involvement is weird.

I don't know who has the bigger dick fucking us in the ass. Spotify not paying what they said would pay or iTunes taking an unfair share of the download!  Anyone can steal music from Rhapsody. They have zero security what's so ever. You know they don'r care. In fact, Nobody cares about the security of artist welfare. This just proves artists have been getting ripped off since the marriage between art and commerce. And it will NEVER END.  These companies are the true leeches that suck the living life out of art. Just look at the top of their charts and you'll know why Justin Beiber and Nikki Ms Potato Head Minaj are your top artists! 

Another scary point:  People are willing to pay up to 5 dollars for a DAILY cup of coffee but they won't pay for music downloads,  yet they'll buy a fart app on iTunes for 99 cents instead?   It's time to revalue music people.  Time to be honest with yourselves. STOP STEALING MUSIC!

I know my songs have played and their logs are false. Spotify is garbage. Shame on Coke. 

make better music and stop complaining

There are very few sites that are truly artist friendly. Yes, artists have been taken advantage of since the beginning of time but that's because they allow themselves to be taken advantage of. I don't know of any site out there except myrecordlabel.com who has sold my music, never took ANY commission and it was totally free to sign up for. While they're mostly indie level, I think the future of music will eventually be independent. We the artists need more of that! 

iTunes/Apple are incredibly artist friendly. The only thing I don't like about them is the way they censor stuff.

iTunes pay artists 70% and that's just plain awesome.

Compare that to Spotify...

bientôt du streaming sur canette?

Spotify + Coca Cola...

This shows up Spotify as the corporate cocksuckers that they truly are.

Come on Spotify supporters - try and defend the indefensible!

Other "corporate cock suckers" who've taken money from Coca Cola...

The Beatles, Elvis, David Bowie, Elton John, Whitney Houston, Butch Walker, Cee Lo... Bob Dylan licensed a song to Pepsi for a (absolutely terrible) superbowl commercial, & let's not forget Michael Jackson's hair catching on fire during a Pepsi shoot.

Doesn't seem like they're in the worst of company.

I run a very small site that matches indie artists to online radio stations (http://www.RRadioMusic.com). Please allow this observation from someone who is trying to help both sides.

To Indie artists: In today's world of easy music access the value of a song is dramatically lower than you wish. That people feel comfortable downloading music without paying for it is a societal problem. Complaining isn't the fix. Changing society's values is so difficult as be impractical.

Yes, a musician should be compensated. My question though; at what stage of development does payment occur and what level of compensation should they be paid?

Rihanna, Katy Perry, Billy Joel, and 122 other top-name artists sent a letter of complaint to Pandora. All have a right to compensation because their music is a draw for radio stations (and music services like Pandora and Spotify).

But what of "Joe I'm Just Beginning and the We Need to Get Exposure Band"? Do they consider that as the station/service plays their music the station/service is risking losing audience to tune-out?

Playing new artists is a risk the station takes. The exchange comes in exposing new artists to an audience the artist would not have had access to before.

Another question: How much is one artist's music worth when it's compared to the above mentioned Rihanna, Katy Perry, Billy Joel, etc.? Is "Joe I'm Just Beginning's..." music worth the same amount of payment? Should all music be accorded the same value?

There's an honest effort being made to methodically bring new, indie artists to a huge new fan base. Having been involved with this process since 1997, what I'd like to see is the inordinately high performance fees paid by internet radio and music services placed on par with what other music based businesses like satellite radio and cable TV pay. And, yes, it's time broadcasters belly up to the bar and pay, too.

Musicians' constant trashing of companies that are spending over 50% of their revenues for content should stop.

This rate structure was established using a very one-sided equation, based on payments by one company. The "willing buyer, willing seller" concept was strongly stacked against a nascent industry (internet radio) by a well-healed, mature promotion-oriented industry (labels) in staged CARP hearings - where everything done had no precedent.

801(b) - the basis for the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA), now in action - does not work against artists. It levels the field so musicians are guaranteed an expanded audio stage, and stations are given a fair market rate that's paid by all entities using music.

The bickering has been going on for too long. We are in a new day that requires change on both sides. To prevent this by continuing to demand money that just isn't there, from thousands of smaller professional and "enthusiastic amateur" radio stations, in addition to the big companies, simply won't work for musicians or station operators.

How many artists have gone back to their label to question why it should receive 50% of the current performance royalty fee? (As labels do.)

We need to move forward together and understand that consumers are establishing the value of music today, not radio stations and online music services which have little advertising (at remarkably low ad rates).

I have worked both sides of this issue for nearly 15 years. If we can just transcend the feelings of "getting screwed" to "working together," everyone is going to have a bright future.

Ken Dardis
President,

Audio Graphics, Inc.

Hey Ken you are on the wrong thread here.

Spotify is not a radio station.

...also, complaining is definitely the fix when it comes to piracy.

Complaining, punishing, lobbying and suing!

To Steveh - and Visitor:

I made the effort to state "station/service," as the performance fees are killing both. Besides, what is it that defines a "radio station" today. (I also operate RadioRow.com, and have plenty of what you might refer to as non-radio stations being defined as "stations" by their owners on submission.)

As for "Complaining, punishing, lobbying and suing!" That was tried by the labels with little effect, except to irritate consumers.

We each have our own ways to approach this.

How about answering the questions: Why should a new artist be paid the same amount as an established artist? And... would any of the above mentioned established artists get recognition if it wasn't for the exposure that radio airplay brought them?

6 strikes in the US later this month. 3 strikes in the EU. Hundreds of lockers and torrent sites shut down. Megaupload gone. New tough laws in Japan. 

Why do you think we see all these internationally coordinated efforts to stop mainstream piracy right now?

Because we complain, punish, lobby and sue!

I am not for illegal downloading - but, even with all that you say is happening, we still have it as a major problem (otherwise, it wouldn't still be discussed). These anti-piracy laws have always been around - it's enforcing them that' proving the problem.

Ever take a toke off a joint? Millions of people know that this action is illegal, yet they continue - so will be the case with illegal downloads.

How about addressing my questions? I'm interested in your take on them.

Enforcing laws is a problem?

Headlines this month:

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-pirate-ordered-to-pay-1-5-million-damages-for-sharing-10-movies-121101/

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-topsite-operators-handed-suspended-jail-sentences-121104/

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-celebrates-15-year-jail-sentence-for-movie-and-music-pirate-121112/

I couldn't care less if you trash your lungs, but I'll take you to court if you steal my property.

If they're really hurting then explain these numbers to me:

"Over at Pandora, CFO Steven Cakebread earned $446,400 during the company's fiscal 2012, down from $1.1 million the year before. Thomas Conrad, the chief technology officer, earned $3.4 million, up from $405,000. Chief marketing officer Simon Fleming-Wood, who wasn't with the company a year ago, earned $2.7 million in fiscal 2012, and chief revenue officer John Trimble earned $4.6 million, up from $1.6 million, mostly because of $3.5 million in option awards." - Hollywood Reporter

Either the service is making so much money that they can shell out massive executive compensation packages, or they're not. They can't bleed the company dry, and then point the finger at artists and songwriters. I don't think paying 50% of revenue is out of line, but their business model doesn't work because they're trying to be a more attractive source for music than commercial broadcast radio. That means less advertising.

Now back to what the thread is actually about.

@steveh

I think thats half the problem..

Spotify, Pandora IS the new digital equivalent and evolution of a radio station..

Sit at The Computer-Listen to Spotify-get Coke Commercials with the music-Drink Coke-get fat-

It's all so simple