story
The ad-supported users outnumbers premium users (236 million to 180 million) but bring in only 1/6th the revenue. So that's a factor depressing the payout per stream.
https://investors.spotify.com/financials/press-release-detai...
The only "pull factor" Spotify has is the userbase, which is arguably fair. For Google, though, the "pull factor" is because you literally cannot sell directly to users through the Play Store.
One could argue (on Android) that it's possible that you can install third-party markets, and that's true, but there's also pretty big roadblocks to installing, whereas selling on another music platform is much easier in comparison. (Don't believe me? Send your father an APK file and ask him to install it. Let alone iOS where this is not possible at all..
Spotify is just a convenience service in the end. They could sell their music through their own app, site, Magnatune, etc.
Even Google Play is iffy, as developers could distribute through 3rd party app stores or sideloading, though Google makes that harder than it should be.
Apple is really the only one of the 3 you mentioned that forces a 15/30% cut if developers want to distribute an app on their platform.
Isn't this the definition of a monopoly?
A company that is not easy to undercut could just be an efficient business that operates roughly at cost without excessive margins.
This classic article by Steve Albini captures what monetizing music was like for artists before the Internet: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music
That said, many artists have objected to subscription models like Spotify’s (Taylor Swift notably), or a la carte like Apple’s (Pink Floyd and Beatles’ estates notably). Most paid Internet music services have been a mixed bag of inconsistent payouts and artistic control. Spotify is definitely among them, even if it might be more attractive than a Record Deal^tm.
In my experience and inferred from experiences of other artists, SoundCloud has the best exposure benefits for lesser known artists combined with the most freedom to monetize, and Bandcamp is the most straightforward self publishing platform for built in monetization.
Comparatively, Spotify is basically, like Apple, filling the void of the record labels they usurped. While their terms are comparably “fair”, it’s easy to understand why they’re not ideal for a lot of artists.
I think Spotify is an excellent example of labels using a 3rd party to mislead where they money is really going when Spotify is paying nearly 80% of its income as fees to 3rd parties.
They have a license to play music, and they pay for the songs at a rate that the labels charge for. If artists do not get enough money from streaming then their label should negotiate more from Spotify. If they are already taking 80% of Spotifys income then that means that either they aren't charging Spotify enough, and Spotify should charge users more, or they are taking a larger chunk and deflecting blame.
With them using the RIAA for the longest time as a distraction from it actually being Sony et al that was suing it's customers, I would not be surprised if this is misguided blame again.
But again, if artists do not get enough money from streaming music, then that is not Spotifys fault. It has paid for a product that it is reselling. You don't then get to bitch that you sold someone something for below the cost that you wanted to.
Maybe Spotify should offer a discount.
Anyways, this is a bit like looking at Walmart's COGS and declaring that they've never screwed over a supplier by forcing them to cut prices to the bone.
