Spotify's Business Model is Broken.

Sign up to Brilliant (the first 200 sign ups get 20% off an annual premium subscription): brilliant.org/tldreu/
Spotify may have pioneered and dominated the music streaming market, but their business model... well, it kinda sucks. And sinking around $1 Billion dollars into podcasts doesn't seem to have helped all that much. So let's unwrap Spotify's business model.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
🗣 Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!

[@funghi2606]

the great problem for Spotify is that companies like apple or amazon can just offer lower prices and use their other divisions to keep the division operating, something that Spotify can't do.

[@blanchimont5587]

so much for "fair competition" lmfao

[@Random_dud31]

​@blanchimont5587 competition isn't fair though. Also, spotify is the one in the lead. Kinda hard to feel sympathy for them when have also been throwing money left and right

[@stuart6478]

so what

[@charleswhite8603]

This guy knows what's up Apple, Amazon both tried with music, but there was no money in the delivery, nor in the data intelligence gained, and "payola" is not officially accepted. If/when Spotify dies, I forsee Apple adopt a "free music with iPhone" model for all DIRECT sales... driving up their prestige, first party control, and sticking it to the used market. If they can come up with a legal wrangle to allow payola "paid engagement" they can take the win and shut out others, other than Google who would be smart to copy, albeit the numbers might not work for them due to lower value clientele. Premium Android phone makers instead perhaps.. I just hope that Apple don't force everyone to listen to U2 again 😭

[@blanchimont5587]

@@Random_dud31 not just about Spotify, but really anything that can be incorporated into the software offering of companies like google apple and amazon. Apple in particular has a distinct advantage because they develop and control the entire device and user experience for the hardware that they manufacture, they operate their own app store and can incorporate services into their ecosystem that make users of their devices find any other app/service other than apples just inconvenient to use. if they undercut a competitor for long enough to bankrupt them, and as a result kill all competition, consumers have no other choice so you would think that apple can set whatever prices they want, but the higher they raise prices the more pirated content will start to rise. the danger with one company controlling everything is that they amass a lot of power and control through data, which means more intrusive spying on you and if a company has services that cover a large spectrum of your life, music, finances, spending, social media they can create accurate profiles of you and this sort of data has uses that many would not be comfortable with. at the moment it is relatively harmless to the us, but as these surveillance networks get more comprehensive you run into some real privacy concerns, and unfortunately set the framework for a technological dictatorship should an unruly bunch of people get into power. now apple killing Spotify isnt really that bad in and of itself, but its one step closer to the consolidation of power to a few companies and in the long run is not ideal. they've done this with payment services as well, as apple has used their dominion over their hardware to unfairly overtake competition in the payment transfer app market. this was a longer comment that touched on many things, but my original comment was poking fun at the ultra capitalist people that rave about "fair competition" when in reality it does not exist. also apple will never make music free as the record labels will just remove their IP off an apple streaming service if they don't get the money they want, which is far more than apple can just give to them without customers funding it.

[@Parakeet-pk6dl]

Please lower the volume of the transition music by at least half. It’s almost ridiculous now…

[@grantbooher7]

nah fr bro holy shit lmao

[@CrocodileWhispers]

on god fr fr ion like the volume@@grantbooher7

[@MichaelCampbell01]

Yeah, this one was almost shocking.

[@trollinape2697]

Shit wasnt even that bad lmfao

[@TheMysteryDriver]

I use sponsor block. Didn't see or hear any of that stuff

[@DavidRexGlenn]

The winner in both the music & video streaming wars has been Sony, because they were wise enough to sit back and just license out their media rather than invest millions into their own streaming services

[@Entertainment-]

Ever heard of Crackle, Crunchyroll, SonyLIV or Bravia Core?

[@riakriak7270]

Sony did it for both their music & their movies.

[@christophercripps7639]

SONY recognized that with copyright protection of music recordings and film a streaming service would be offering a blank video scream and static (speakers on house current are still analog devices) or silence.

[@ruekurei88]

But they did tho, except that the music streaming was Japan only and closed like 3 years afterwards or something. As for movie streaming, they have Bravia Core. I don't recall them ever launching a major platform for either though, but they are in there.

[@ShiekChilly]

Not True when it comes to video streaming though SONY probably owns no music streaming Platform but they certainly do own a video streaming platform (OTT) in fact they even got a few MILLION Paid subscribers and are actively investing and growing the video streaming part of business by mergers and acquisitions .

[@ATABBOTT]

Just wanted to say you’ve got their business model wrong. Spotify don’t care how much you stream, their agreements with record labels and artists don’t dictate a fixed cost per stream. Their agreements dictate a fixed revenue split per subscription. ~70% of all subscription revenue goes into a regional ‘pot’ each month (a pot for Europe, a pot for North America etc) then that pot is divided between artists depending on how many streams each artist had in the month. For a simple example let’s say the Europe pot is €1m and Taylor Swift has 1m streams in Europe out of a total of 100m streams on Spotify in Europe. Taylor Swift (and her label) would get 1c per stream, but now let’s say Taylor Swift still has 1m streams, but Europe only did 50m streams, now Taylor would get 2c per stream. Basically all streaming services have similar deals with record labels. The only reason Spotify pays less per stream than I.e Apple Music is because less streams per subscriber happen on Apple Music so the user subscription is split between less streams.

[@egarcia1360]

That literally changes everything. Where'd you find this out?

[@ATABBOTT]

@@egarcia1360 I tried to post another reply but I don’t think it went through as I linked a page. I know as I have family who’ve worked in the corporate side of digital music for years. Spotify are pretty clear about it themselves though. If you Google ‘Spotify royalties streamshare’ and look at the article on Spotify’s own website it should come up. But to quote it: “rightsholder’s share of net revenue is determined by streamshare… We calculate streamshare by tallying the total number of streams in a given month and determining what proportion of those streams were people listening to music owned or controlled by a particular rightsholder… Contrary to what you might have heard, Spotify does not pay artist royalties according to a per-play or per-stream rate” There is a good amount more info on other sites as well. Don’t get me wrong though Spotify’s business model still sucks. Possibly more this way that it would the way presented in the video. Spotify are obligated to pay labels a fixed share of revenue (~70%), so even if Spotify increase the subscription price by let’s say $5 they only get to keep ~30%/ ~$1.5 of that $5 increase. That’s why so much of Spotify’s recent moves have been focused on non subscription revenue (podcast ads, selling artist merch etc) as they get to keep far more of the revenue.

[@scarface548]

thats basically makes this whole video total nonsense. whats the source for this info.

[@conradgillard]

I came to make the same comment! KZbin doesn't usually allow links, but see the first result when Googling: spotify streamshare royalties

[@tomsam1314]

@@egarcia1360 literally any result on Google will say this. Makes the whole video invalid.

[@hechss]

The first revolutionary service wasn’t the iPod, but Napster instead. The mp3 format also paved the way for any digital revolution.

[@ChrisWar666]

I was gonna say! Maybe he meant as a business model?

[@bami2]

You're completely correct and I stopped the video when he said that. Come on TLDR do a bit of basic research and you would've find out that what you're saying is complete garbage. iTunes and iPods weren't the first music players or music distribution systems, the music industry was shook by Napster now suddenly breaking up albums and allowing users to select the music they want in a way that was convenient. Without Napster and a flood of mp3 players there was no way the music labels would've agreed to this kind of distribution nor moved apple to make the iPod, but Napster and MP3 players have been around for years until Apple got in the game. Nothing about it is thanks to Apple, if any the music revolution is thanks to Fraunhofer developing the MP3 codec, Napster for making the first decent distribution platform and Metallica for marketing it to the mainstream. And even as a business model, Rhapsody (along with RealNetworks) pushed for the first music subscription service.

[@kaiserfranzjoseph9311]

@@bami2 Metallica marketing it? wasnt Lars Ulrich one of the main opponents of Napster?

[@bami2]

@@kaiserfranzjoseph9311 Yes, Napster got a lot more popular after Metallica started speaking out and eventually suing them.

[@haydarali6249]

KZbin Premium does have unique content tho cause while Spotify has every song in the world, KZbin has every performance of every recorded song and every cover ever sung, ad free.

[@1zy]

KZbin Premium has the best value out of all of them as well, as you get both Premium on both KZbin & KZbin Music. But the issue is that the KZbin Music app lacks a ton of features that are basic functionalities, and the UI of the app is awful. I used it for about two years but I can’t stand it any longer.

[@hisownfool1]

I'm a long-time (a decade?) Spotify Premium subscriber. What keeps me using Spotify is, first, a this point, Spotify's algorithm has a pretty good sense for what I like. Second, Spotify makes it pretty easy to listen to music my audio system instead of through headphones which I can't stand wearing.

[@jaymzx0]

I just wish Spotify would launch a hi-fi offering already. I also have a membership with Amazon Music because they offer uncompressed streaming, but their algorithm is really lame compared to Spotify. I left Deezer for the same reason. Also, it seems only Spotify will allow me to control my stereo/phone/laptop/whatever from their client on anything with a web browser or the Spotify app installed. That's huge. For example, If I'm at work, I like to listen to Spotify on my phone on my headphones, but I don't want to keep my phone on my desk so I can control it. I like to use a browser and control my phone while it stays in my pocket. If I listen to my headphones connected to my work computer, I can't walk around the office and listen to music. At home, I can control the volume and such on my 'smart speakers' from the Spotify app on my laptop. I can send the stream to the Amazon Echo device in the other room if I go in there using their my phone or laptop to control it.

[@chadakoin1]

If you spend time on KZbin and you also enjoy music, youtube premium is unbeatable.

[@technetium9653]

People sleep on KZbin premium, virtually every song gets posted on KZbin, and no ads for all videos is such a good deal

[@TrizziEhgan]

even if prices have increased a bit now...

[@punkdigerati]

YT Music is included with KZbin premium, which is inferior to it's predecessor Google Play Music, but it's something I guess.

[@Root174]

People say that YT Music does lack features that others have. Until recently, this was also true for the scrolling lyrics feature, which has been part of Spotify for ages.

[@quas3728]

I tried YTM but I'm really not fan of it. algorhythm is mid. It moves slow af on laptop compared to spotify and apple. what about no ads youtube only? (for like a 3 bucks). It's more like a BAD deal to people who are not fan of YTM (like me)

[@quas3728]

@@Root174 YTM still doesn't have "search within playlist"...

[@addemac5353]

I think 70% of subscriptions going to artists is overall good, as opposed to lower proportions, although most of the artists' share probably goes to middlemen, and it is a disincentive for Spotify to improve the subscriber experience.

[@Entertainment-]

70% go to artist’s labels, it’s a big difference. Also Universal and Sony also have a minority stake in Spotify.

[@stuart6478]

yeah so the solution is to give away your stuff on your own website

[@mukkaar]

@@Entertainment- Yeah, but that isn't really spotify issue.

[@protoretro1290]

​@@Entertainment- Spotify had to sell its soul for its content. The labels as they always do, have all the power. Spotify pays the labels 70% of every cent they ever make, for the "privilege" of having music on their platform. The labels then pay the artist a cent of every dollar. It is clear what the real problem is.

[@me-myself-i787]

​​@@protoretro1290That back when most major artists started out, there weren't good, cheap music making and publishing tools, and now those tools exist, it's too late to leave record labels. Back then, record labels merely competed with each other. Now, they also compete with self-funding and self-publishing.

[@caseclosed9342]

I had Spotify for years before I finally switched to KZbin Premium. I already watch KZbin, adding Premium also means I get music and podcasts ad-free through the same platform.

[@stuart6478]

exactly. it's awesome

[@graham1034]

Does KZbin have an audio-only experience similar to Spotify?

[@yedjhava1474]

@@graham1034yup it does! And I find their suggestions to be more relevant than Spotify’s

[@caseclosed9342]

@@graham1034 you still see the video, but if you’re on a phone you can listen in the background and lock your screen and it will play in the background

[@matejda91]

​@@graham1034 Yes. The dedicated KZbin Music app has a functionality whereby you can toggle to play a KZbin video in a music only mode. This is in addition to all the native KZbin Music content of albums, playlists etc, which works and looks just like all the stuff on Spotify. The only downside (hardly noticeable when listening wirelessly) is the maximum bitrate of 276kbps with YT compared to 320kbps with Spotify. It's hard to beat as a deal when you get no-ads in the regular KZbin app (TV, tablet, smartphone, laptop) and you can also have the family subscription.

[@bolztyle]

one thing huge that’s failed to be considered is most spotify users use the app for free, without any subscription, they have to listen to ads and we all know how great ad revenue is.

[@willardSpirit]

They should do like exclusive live music sessions that customers have to pay to listen to. Won't be the same as seeing and hearing it in person, but it'll probably be cheaper and don't have to deal with Ticketmaster.

[@AJRandom]

someone would screen record it and put it on youtube anyways

[@HShango]

From Spotify to Tidal (music) and for film and TV, Disney plus to Hulu these lot dominate like crazy 😅

[@Karagoth444]

Artists and listeners complain about the low revenue rate, but it's really the music publisher oligopoly that put everyone in this mess. They also put in a requirement on spotify that they can't publish music, which would have been a key for them to pay artists decently per stream.

[@thekrakozhian392]

Why noone talking abt spotify nerfing the progress bar.. making it impossible to rewind songs? Unless we pay, we can't do that, or skip to the previous song, or play songs in the order that one created his playlist

[@AnymMusic]

even if prices were like $50/month, Spotify's model is the best thing a consumer could ever want if you ask me. All music from like 100 years ago, that you can play wherever and whenever, without a replay limit or need to buy it. the $10 people pay now is the biggest steal of the century. Now, for musicians and artists, it's an absolute hell.

[@perfectallycromulent]

yeah, but spotify's problem is i get the same thing from amazon music and other people get the same thing from apple music and other people get from another place, there's nothing unique about it

[@SianaGearz]

What you say doesn't make sense. I have never not once spent over 80€ a year on music, and usually less, i didn't buy an album every week. Shopping for music is hard, it's a lot of work. You don't want to buy music that you end up listening to once and never again. Most people buy way less music than me. Spotify gets 120€ a year out of me, so 70% of my subscrpiton fee should do well to support proportionally the labels of the musicians i listen to and the musicians themselves, at least better than CDs. So how did it get broken, why doesn't it work? Or has the music market simply become overcrowded, and better discoverability has harmed artists which used to have radio play, but benefitted artists which would otherwise earn flat zero off their music? But it's the artists with radio play who are the ones that have the ear of music magazine editor to complain to?

[@Manticorpse]

Nah, I think the Spotify is pretty shit with all the ads completely destroying the "free" user experience, loudly blarring and interrupting the vibe of the music for yet another ad you've seen and heard at least 5 times that day. And you need mobile data for it to work at all times, which can be very pricy and is bad for where I live (rural, very bad and slow wifi, if any at all). Even worse is the Premium Subscription, charging you ten bucks a month for still not being able to completely download your favourite songs. Sure, you can download the and listen to them offline, but as soon as the subscription ends, thats gone. No more offline music without ads for you. Im just sick and tired of the modern era of never actually owning anything and always only paying subscription, rentals, permission to have a license for a product (like, you pay 10 bucks for an e-book. You dont own that book, it can be deleted at any time from your device, you are just allowed to have 1 digital file.) I bought a good mp3 player and have never been happier. No Ads, no internet needed, very long battery runtime, I just have my favourite music to take with me wherever I go, I dont have my data sold, no profile to track and I can play it from whatever device has a USB port.

[@tmcxp]

5:40 that woman on the right lol

[@ComputeCrashers]

Please can you consider looking at volume levels throughout the video? The volume for the chapter intros is so much more than the average volume of the video. Biggest pet peeve of mine

[@ismo5152]

The Joe Rogan deal was far more than 100M, more like 300M according to people who know Rogan personally

[@bzuidgeest]

Outside the US he is a comparative nobody. So they would have to recoup that from the US alone, good luck

[@samelmudir]

​@@bzuidgeestnot true. I've many many people in the UK and Germany that listen to him.

[@bzuidgeest]

@@samelmudir maybe in your bubble. If you listen likely the people you interact with do to. He certainly isn't a household name.

[@bobpriest6388]

Spotify have given artists money to Mr Rogan, they a robbing musicians.

[@ruekurei88]

'millions choosing to illegally download songs for the first time'. Sure, if you ignore stuff like Napster, Kazaa and the sort and people just ripping and putting up mp3s on various websites. Which is a VERY bizarre thing to ignore when covering this topic specifically, since Napster pivoted to a music streaming service that had you pay a flat fee for. Which you'd think would warrant mention considering you're covering Spotify, and Rhapsody(Napster rebrand) was the first of it's kind(subscription based streaming music service). Mp3 players were also a thing long before Ipods as well. I even remember those shitty small mp3 players that had a single hit song(kind of) that were marketed towards teens. Ah, good shitty ol' days, back when you had Limewire, Realplayer, Winamp, Quicktime Player etc. Nostalgia kicks in, but I don't miss it.

[@triarii9257]

You know you're the boomer now when you're the one going "back in my day we had limewire...."

[@ruekurei88]

@@triarii9257 That's not 'boomer' timeline. Limewire came out in 2000. 23 years ago is a long time, but a proper 'boomer' timeline predates all that and would be around the start of the worldwide web. Though, I have noticed people pretty much refer to 'boomer' as anything before their 'time'. Any cell phone pre-smartphone and pre-ipod mp3 player technology is called 'boomer tech' by people, so I guess it's like whatever.

[@Funglutton]

The statement in the video is accurate. Before the iPod came out, most people didn't know what an MP3 was, let alone Kazaa and Napster. That's 'most people', not 'most people I know from mIRC' ;)

[@thomasmaxon8911]

Awesome video! Another core reason, not explicitly mentioned in the video, for Netflix's video content dominance and Spotify's lack thereof is the power of whoever owns the catalog and how consumers prefer to consume different media. Netflix had the same problem with Hollywood studios as Spotify does with the record labels: they have to pay every time their customers watch or listen to a hit -- essentially an old-school land tax. Netflix saw this obvious issue with their DVD rental and early streaming of Hollywood hits business, but bet heavily on their own content. Being a single investment per show, it's spread over hundreds of millions of paying viewers, thus lowering the cost per view. On the other hand, Spotify must pay Sony/Paul McCartney each time I listen to "You Never Give Me Your Money" by The Beatles (Sony owns The Beatles catalog). Podcasts were supposed to be Spotify's "Game of Thrones" moment, but they turned out to be a house of cards (puns intended). Until consumers move away from the music hits and erode the labels' artificial moat, Spotify cannot compete in producing their own music. Meanwhile, producing quality shows seems to be much more challenging, but those who create them retain ownership. That's why replicating Mr. Beast's videos is so challenging, whereas covering a hit song is straightforward. While music production is much more commoditized than video production, the consumer's appetite for hit songs allows record labels to reap the rewards for generations. Meanwhile, Hollywood is in crisis...

[@olbos_xyz]

This is essentially wrong. Spotify does not loose money with more streams, it just distributes the same amount of money in smaller fractions (after having subtracted its fees).

[@Ziggletooth]

I don't understand sounds like an obvious solution. For each membership take the amount that goes to artists and divide that up by the percentage of time that person listened to your music. Spotify won't end up paying for more streams and artists that are listened to get more money.

[@bzuidgeest]

As I understand it, that is what they used to do.

[@christophercripps7639]

Very informative. Got me to subscribe. I am of a generation that can go without the latest and can ignore many ads on YT. Thus YT being on various devices is usually with me and enough. There’s more than enough content in “bite sized” portions to fill up the entire day. Why pay for premium.

[@christophercripps7639]

P.S. Speaking of on line, algorithm-driven ads, what’s up with the YT model. I’m guessing the ads aimed at the current gens must be working because I find these to be ineffective. I’ll get YT survey asking which have I seen on-line ads for and must answer nine of the above because if such an ad played it had no effect. One odd exception is insurance companies - State Farm, USAA, NJM, …. These I remember but am unlikely to switch. Don’t many ads lose out in the first few seconds with “skip ads?” In the first few seconds often the product or service is both not mentioned in audio &/or visually.

[@kgw72]

Great video. I didn't know the podcasts' war or why Spotify is so obsessed with them.

[@Bjarkiee]

3:15 The comparison of Spotify's rental and Netflix's flat rate is a temporary one. WGA and SAG-AFTRA are demanding to get residuals and royalties per stream.

[@lolazzaro]

Is Spotify really paying artists (and label) a fix amount per stream? As far as I understood, they take the total of their income from subscriptions and advertisement and split a fraction of it (70%?) among the artists (and labels) according to how many time their tracks were streamed. If I got it right, their cost does NOT increase with the number of stream (at least not this cost, the server and the banwidth might have a cost per stream). So there would be a major flaw in the analysis of the video. Another point that I do not undestand is the podcast strategy: are the Spotify exclusive content only for subscribers? If they want to improve the advertisement money for the podcasts, do they put the ads also in the streams of the premium subscribers? If the subscribers get to listen to the podcast ads-free, then they would have to compensate the podcast authors for each stream.

[@TankEnMate]

Hey, Napster existed before iTunes!!

[@sabelomthethwa9736]

Spotify should introduce music videos like KZbin

[@DC9848]

1) Spotify could start selling the listening data they produce back to the music companies (just because you own the music, doesn't necessarily mean you own all the meta data associated how the music in consumed by the consumers) 2) Spotify could see that AI generated music, background audio is not under the agreement done with music juggernauts. Same goes for synthetic voice 3) Spotify could release a new way to pay for less ads for younger people with less money (watch 3-5 video ads and answer a survey related to them couple times a month for example). There are a lot of research companies trying to approach the younger generations to gain insights

[@Ein.7.musique]

I think 1 has been done long long ago. Big labels should have a way to learn about their audience. 3 is actually more or less similar to 1.

[@guardianali]

They arent a cloud hosting company. They dont have their own servers. You forget like many that having the online infrastructure to serve half a BILLION people songs on demand anytime they want is expensive as hell. Not saying they arent making a tidy profit. But it sure as hell isnt 500 million times 9.99. You also need to remember that the podcast bet had potentially 2 benefits. Not one. New users AND retention. Ideally you get both. But even one is still decent. In this case while they may not have gotten a ton of new sign ups, it helps KEEP existing customers specially in times of price hikes.

[@LD-wf2yt]

Just to clarify, what is called Spotify's model i.e. the way Spotify is organized/operates internally (structure, streaming technology, product, user experience) should not be confused with Spotify's Business Model (covered in this video) i.e. how Spotify manages content and revenue (pricing, artists, labels etc). BTW, Netflix's book "No Rules Rules" is a great complement to Spotify's model.

[@IAGan12345]

I didn't watch the video, because I already knew about spotify business model being broken, but you have cool and creative thumbnail, worth of a compliment

[@Blackmeteor]

That's all very interesting but I believe there was a major part missed about the recommended algorithm because that's what drew me to Spotify along with free premium with my new phone contract at the time. The no ads free music was a big starter and what keeps me is at least once every couple of weeks I find a new song of band I really like and I've heard othered voice similar opinions. 👍🏻

[@loowyatt6463]

I've always found the algorithm on KZbin music is far better. However, that's probably because I have used it so long. I honestly believe that people would convert to KZbin music if there wasn't the stigma. It has lots lf small advantages like having a much larger catalog of content

[@FlavorsomeMusic]

I huuh.. actually have music on spotify! Nothing huge, but I've studied the ins and outs a lot. They screwed themselves up **AND** spotify customers by incentivizing a specific type of music: Short ~2 mins hookey tracks (it's theorized to be the minimum to produce maximum revenue/stream), lots of tracks are made like that, specifically tailored for spotify, unless these artists had a fanbase from elsewhere that listens on spotify. Customers have less variety, spotify finds themselves with too much stream to pay for artists, only really these artists that "game" the system win the end. Spotify plays like a collection of choruses instead of a library of music tracks. :D

[@mr.y.mysterious.video1]

it a lack of money - as in, subscribers are not paying enough, it's not like spotify are pocketing the money, they are losing cash. for artists to make decent income it requires a good payment per stream which requires subscribers to pay a whole lot more than they currently do. which would naturally slash subscriber numbers.

[@mike8055]

Podcast fatigue... there's just too much choice with everyone doing them!

[@hockysa]

I mean this sounds like it could be a good thing about Spotify passing profits to artists moreso than other greedy corporations.

[@dachd]

I only stopped using Spotify because they allow artist to bait us with albums and then take them off the site. Creating a playlists is impossible as it will have gaps after more time pass. I returned to piracy and occasional media buying. Fu Spotify

[@michaelhango555]

5:43 girl gets hit by graduation hat stick video made me laugh 😂😂😂😂

[@dombo813]

As a humble consumer with relatively niche music tastes, Spotify has a fundamental problem for me that doesn't even make using it feel more ethical than pirating music - the way the spotipot works, the money i would spend would go to artists I wasn't listening to. If the purpose of paying for digital goods is to reward good work or encourage more similar works, it doesn't make any sense for me to pay for Spotify, since doing so doesn't actually reward or incentivize the small artists I listen to. In that way, it's ethically identical to piracy, and it comes with the additional cost of having to put up with spotify's well known bullshit practices, like forcing you to listen to music you don't want to hear, or wasting your attention span with adverts for podcasts. £11 a month is also way more than just buying music outright. I have a library of about 300 songs worth downloading, accumulated over about 10 years. At £132 a year, I'd have paid £4.40 per song, far more than the £1 you typically pay to buy the mp3 file forever. Spotify might be a sensible choice for the undiscerning, high volume, high range music consumer, but it makes no sense for people with more specific tastes.

[@waltersoares4264]

I still prefer my digitalized mp3 version of real disk.

[@nathanngumi8467]

Very insightful!

[@Bumbumbandit]

So paying monthly to still have ads on the podcasts! So left it

[@hankhillsnrrwurethra]

This. I paid up, and I'm still having to reach for the phone to skip ads. I'm out also.

[@grubu4131]

They are going to sell even more of your data … but saying it as a business decision, advertising, and fancy terms like content creator engagement sounds a lot better.

[@thvist]

Interesting topic!

[@Petch85]

4:08 But way do they pool all the subscriptions? This just opens up the system for miss usage. Way do they not just have a 70/30, or honestly a 15/85 shear model with the artists. Just divide individuals subscriptions among the artists the individual subscriber lisened to for that month. And have a special cases it the user did not use it at all that month. If someone only listens to Taylor Swift, just send all the money to Taylor Swift. Even if it is only one song played once.

[@SianaGearz]

Hold on just a second. When i signed up back 10 years ago, the premise was simple. That the Premium subscription you pay is split two ways. A third of it gets retained by Spotify to put into tech, streaming and platform investment. The other 2/3 go to the record labels of the artists according to how popular they are. This seems at the surface an absolutely bullet proof way to make everyone happy. An average music enjoyer pays 120€ a year for Spotify, but would otherwise likely only pay something like 40-80€ a year for music, so there's plenty of money to go around for the artists and labels. In turn the customer gets a possibility to listen to anything they like, anytime they like. What happened, how did it end up broken?

[@mr.y.mysterious.video1]

your previous 80 dollars a year would be split among around 10 artists whose cds you bought who were very grateful. your 120 dollars is split among hundreds or even thousands of artists, not enough to give anyone much

[@SianaGearz]

@@mr.y.mysterious.video1 Yeah but then everyone ELSE also has the ability to listen to the same artists and contribute thus to their income proportionately. Say i would probably not buy even a single, much less a CD of Katy Perry, but i might tune in just once out of curiosity; in return i bought a bunch of CDs of Epica that someone else thinks are overrated, but would probably like to give them a listen. Like if you assume vaguely same pool of artists, vaguely same distribution of preferences, then streaming subscription is only more fair towards musicians. Does it just mean that the music market got oversaturated and fundamentally much larger? That most musicians back in the day would never be able to release a CD and get it promoted and brought to retail, but are now on Spotify getting those fractions of a cent in return for their craft? It might not be enough to live off of for these let's say weekend musicians or ones of lesser luck, but it's more than nothing.

[@mr.y.mysterious.video1]

@@SianaGearz I just assume that a lot less people pay to stream music than paid to buy cds

[@Triro]

the industry of free music streaming is broken, greedy multi national companies that hold the right to songs up-charge them like hell, and the contracts are terrible. Spotify just cant make money, no matter what they do.

[@LunarNeedle]

Holy hell, the volume at 0:50 caught me off guard. Too loud. :(

[@AnymMusic]

0:43 dude, down that volume by like 5dB holy shit 😂

[@cocopops1950]

5:02 I don't quite agree with this statement. There are some music that can only be streamed from youtube music

[@ilovelimpfries]

I dont really use spotify, I used to be a paying subscriber for nearly a decade but quit after I realized I watch youtube more than i listen to music. Plus anything spotify have, it's also available on youtube.

[@null090909]

All you can eat buffet is a marketing stunt, not a business model.

[@mansonfd7835]

KZbin MP3: I have no such weaknesses.

[@raylopez99]

@1:52 the number of Spotify paying subscribers is stated at 155M for 2020, yet @2:15 the number of paying subscribers is stated as 205M for today. So in three years Spotify got 50M paying subscribers? And they are failing? Not credible. Not sure if this is another inaccurate KZbin video, of which there are numerous.

[@MrZanvine]

Yeah right, this episode sponsored by Apple music Inc. [Sarc]. Great video guys

[@baseballfan99]

I just don’t have enough hours in the day to listen to it all, also i don’t like the fact there is no yearly deal so appears expensive. Apple are able to offer free deals through other providers so for example I pay £10 for my EE phone contract but within that I have had 6 months free of Apple TV and 6 months free Apple Music so therefore no need to pay for Spotify at present.

As a musician I say it is about time…

[@user-uv9og4yx7y]

It is literally a ad after every single song now, this shit is so ass, i have Apple Music but i have a really deep playlist of like 5k songs on Spotify but the ads are too out of control now I’m thinking about deleting.

[@AutoCAD681]

Spotify still has a much larger library when compared to rival in world music, only KZbin music and Apple Music can compete. The main differiator for me is their algorithm for song suggestion, it's miles ahead of all competitors, the closest is KZbin music. I still use Spotify because I know I can explore new music constantly I get bored really fast

[@matrix01234567899]

I see an inspiration of film on channel "The Art of Business" from 11th august

[@JimCullen]

The problem with Spotify and podcasts is that Spotify _doesn’t do podcasts._ They can’t ever do podcasts, it just doesn’t fit within their DNA in the slightest. Yes, they claim to have some huge number of listeners, but what their listeners are consuming is not a podcast. A podcast, _by definition,_ is served using RSS, and can therefore be consumed via a variety of podcatcher apps. Spotify doesn’t do that, and doesn’t want people to be able to use other apps. So they don’t provide podcasts. There’s also the fact that nobody in the podcast industry (that is, listeners, developers of podcatchers, and reputable podcast producers who come from a podcast-first world, rather than being from another world like television or advertising and coming in to try and impose that way of doing things _upon_ podcasting) wants tracking of users via Remote Audio Data. The TL;DR of this is: what Spotify calls podcasts are not actually podcasts, and therefore are doomed to fail with the General podcast audience.

[@Slamymach]

Nevertheless, Audiobooks could be a really good approach for the future of spotify

[@prakharchaurasiya8107]

How are they gonna compete with Audible in terms of pricing?

[@twenty-fifth420]

⁠​⁠@@prakharchaurasiya8107Maybe by not being Audible? Out of all the big competitors in this market dominated by oligopolies and near monopolies, Audible can go to hell (as an Audible user and soon to be author). Sanderson was right to call them out on their shit revenue share and their exploitative position in the audio book market. Not everyone is a ‘price conscious’ consumer. And for the record, Audible is monopoly. At least Amazon has *some* competition with big box stores and other online stores. Not Audible, and it won’t be for a while now.

[@federicomarintuc]

Damn! 10 bucks in the US? They are milking those guys

[@bradavon]

It was Napster that shook up the music business.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Spotify should consider ASMRtists for podcasts. Lmao.

[@quas3728]

hmm that's actually good idea because I mean I have youtube premium and main reason is I want to remove loud ads in asmr videos haha.

[@harry4901]

Would be interesting for you to talk about the insane sums of money they are paying FC Barcelona to sponsor their kits and stadium.

[@seraaron]

it does cost Netflix to steam to you, so the more you watch the more it hurts them too. sure they don't pay artists per view, but streaming 4K hour long videos ain't cheap

[@aspacelex]

Well actually according to America's uncle Howie Mandel, the #1 podcast in the world is the H3 podcast.

[@user-lc2yh9kk6u]

Very informative content

[@efisiopiantacarote8780]

Streaming sucks. Period.

[@Dewi-H]

Can you please cut the volume on the sound cuts and stuff? It's annoying having to constantly change the volume...

[@DanielleKingdjdinosaur]

hmmm i do not use spotify or tidal .I download and keep my music on a hard drive.I still buy physical media too.I do not rent my tunes and pay for them over and over again.Ido not do subs and i do not stream

[@kuromad]

I'd go into audiobooks instead of podcasts (and offer AI-voice features to authors and publishers to be able to instantly create a huge back-catalog). And I really can't believe their free ad-supported users generate any money, so I'd scrap that feature. I don't think any online content can be offered profitably with just ads. So maybe time to just stop that.

[@casparcoaster1936]

EK looks like SBF w/ a skullshave

[@House020]

I pay 55k IDR = $3.6 for Spotify in Indonesia :)

[@ymi_yugy3133]

Are Apple Music, Deezer, Tidal and what not in a different situation than Spotify?

[@salty_tech]

Is this only me who is observing a totally different style in this channel? I mean - do as you want but the measured approach from your other channels is what I truly value. It's more like TLDR Venting here =]

[@salty_tech]

yup, I'm aware I've just vented myself =]

[@JamesRoyceDawson]

The entire streaming model is broken. I expect it’ll collapse this decade. No idea what will replace it

[@RandomUser062]

Bro for one month is 10 quid in UK and in India it’s £1.27 per month when u convert into British pounds

[@endoetz]

okay.. now i feel sorry for spotify.. i'll subscribe for spotify premium..

[@kaiserfranzjoseph9311]

Thats just not how the payout to artists works, please do your research. Also their main competator isnt Apple of Amazon, its KZbin

[@Cacuofa]

And with all these challenges, they still sponsored Barcelona’s football jersey? One of the priciest clubs?

[@BillyTheKidsGhost]

Ofcom, lol... nice video ''comrade''.

[@Angarsk100]

My big problem with Spotify is that I can't save all my music to a USB drive and listen on whatever device I want to. When I listen most of my music is while I'm driving, and since I can't install spotify to my car, and I certainly don't want to waste phone battery to play music while I drive, I just listen to radio, or whatever mp3s I have left.

[@Bishop11111]

Why don’t you charge your phone while driving?

[@abdelftahzowail6803]

Spotify premium is 50¢ in Egypt (If you buy a family plan)

[@MCRuCr]

they should fix their horrible apps and technical problems. Ain't spending a dime on a product that has the EXACT SAME ISSUES for 5+ years

[@philosoaper]

I started listening to podcasts a couple of years ago and within a month or so I had pretty much abandoned it due to FUCKING ADS... so... good luck with that.

[@ItsWesSmithYo]

Getting a$$ beat at streaming, I’ve got an idea, copy (and ruin) the podcast concept from your competitor, who’s been giving it away since they invented it 😂 smooth move 😎

[@antrena490]

I don't see artist coming together and establishing a paradigm that they all can stand behind. Pretty much just complaining. I've never been apposed to paying for rights to play digital music. But ive been screwed by the digital rights tied to a technology or a company. So yes, Spotify is great for the consumer but sucks for the artists. This can simply be solved be creating listening rights as NFTs and make the player free. Ah, but for this to happen all artists, labels and studios need to come together and agree.

[@VerdeMorte]

*WHERE ARE YOU ON THE UNITY DEBACLE?!?*

[@samuelschonenberger]

Is the person editing this by chance a fan of the Ripple Effect?

[@Miamcoline]

Super interesting.

[@jacobconcannon4677]

i think the podcast issue is that you cant covert people who are already subscribed to you, to most people who have spotify it was just a bonus

[@roberto789shadow]

I'm a son of Ares app and i'll die as a caribbean pirate!

[@Kaihegon]

While i was slowly watching less and less of the JRE show. Them switching to spotify made me stop instantly

[@monkeymoo87]

At least Spotify has learned and is pivoting to a more sustainable business model

[@teawa_]

I don’t think things are gonna end well for Spotify, they should sell themselves to apple or google