Less than 1000 during what time? A year, right? And after that the counter resets and your money goes to various Justin Beibers of the world. Even small numbers accumulate over time. You could get some money after few years. Not a lot, but why the fuck would anybody else be entitled to it. Possibly you could at least pay for the album distribution.
If an artist has no tracks over 1000 I can understand it as it’s an administrative waste of time. But if an artist is already getting paid for one track that has over 1000 plays they should get paid for all of their tracks even those under 1000.
This is totally awful. #myplaysmymoney. You still played my music, I want my tiny amount of money instead of NO money. Spotify gets all this music for free. They are also getting away with not paying what radio used to pay. This makes it even worse for artists. Don't excuse them by saying "well, you wouldn't have many much anyhow." Don't be a Spotify apologist!
Wow, great channel, but terrible take. CDBaby has as little as a $10 payout minimum, and you're overlooking the fact that royalties accumulate. It might take an artist the better part of a year to reach their payout, but they're still paid royalties. Going forward, this isn't the case. Two very different situations.
'you wouldn't have got the money anyway' – yes, you would have, eventually. Spotify must be paying y'all off with you music marketeers justifying this like it's a good thing in all your videos
The issue with this logic tho is that how can we seriously trust Spotify to actually redistribute that 40 million? It sounds a lot like trickle down economics to me. In theory it makes sense but will this instead just go to shareholders and major label artists? I guess we will see in time!
you left out 1000 plays per year on each song before being paid out. if you had 1000 songs that got played 1000x each, each year. you would've made $4000 a year, now $0.
Distributors pay out thresholds are for an artist’s full catalog, not on a song by song basis. Most of my songs get less than 1000, but because I have more than one song, I still get paid by the distributor
I'm not making much with my music…….yet. so once I put the work in that I now know how to do after reading Jesse Cannon's book "Get More Fans," this payout dilemma won't be such a big deal after all. Thank you Jesse (and Todd) for writing such a great book.
I'm so tired of the "only a little bit of money" and "these songs weren't earning any money anyway" and "your distributors would just keep it anyway" BS.
Multiply that by an entire back catalog of songs that aren't actively being promoted but still earn streams (just less than 1000 a year) that are essentially being used by Spotify for free. It's not like Spotify is going to stop playing commercials before/after these low-stream songs. It adds up.
So I guess next you're going to compare this to Youtube's rules about monetizing videos despite the fact that they are two entirely different things. Go on… we're waiting.
Artists and influencers vomiting these arguments are starting to make me angry, but at least the positive side is this nonsense makes it easier to identify the bootlickers and people too shortsighted to listen to,
Wrong. There's no reason to believe that $40mil means paying artists more. Why would you think that? Also $4 is just for 1 song, but for artists like me with dozens of songs just under the 1k threshold, that is potentially $100s (one of my artist profiles has 40ish songs just under 1k, or around $150 which pays for my unlimited distro fees).
Bad move on Spotify's behalf. As they say, never take away something midstream otherwise the crew will declare mutiny. Youtube started with the 1000 subscribers out the gait, thus no one complained, but looked at it as a challenge, have to earn your way in kinda thing.
I am really struggling to see how this change helps any small artist whatsoever. I created the art myself, paid a distributor to distribute it. I don't think any of the streaming services should have this kind of power.
Anyone trying to justify this as a positive change has clearly lost touch with the realities of independent artists on the financial breadline. Every little payout helps for those struggling and seeing this as encouragement to essentially ‘get good’ at marketing and sink more money into promotion in order to hit the threshold is a short sighted and pretty entitled angle to approach the issue from. Every artist should be paid for every stream or sale. Regardless of how poultry the fee may be to the big dogs who likely don’t have any concept of what a financial struggle even looks like. I’m sure it matters not to anyone of note, but I’ll be cancelling my Spotify subscription. I’m not going to give them my poultry £10.99 a month in support of this.
But an artist that has many tracks with low number of plays will lose way more than 4 dollars. It might be little money, but I don't think this is right. Money will end up in the pockets of the already big artists
Less than 1000 during what time? A year, right? And after that the counter resets and your money goes to various Justin Beibers of the world. Even small numbers accumulate over time. You could get some money after few years. Not a lot, but why the fuck would anybody else be entitled to it. Possibly you could at least pay for the album distribution.
If an artist has no tracks over 1000 I can understand it as it’s an administrative waste of time. But if an artist is already getting paid for one track that has over 1000 plays they should get paid for all of their tracks even those under 1000.
Has anyone seen a higher royalty playout yet for over the over 1000 streams? I suspect there would be a very long delay into any additional payments.
This is totally awful. #myplaysmymoney. You still played my music, I want my tiny amount of money instead of NO money. Spotify gets all this music for free. They are also getting away with not paying what radio used to pay. This makes it even worse for artists. Don't excuse them by saying "well, you wouldn't have many much anyhow." Don't be a Spotify apologist!
What artists are gonna get paid more? All the ones already making the most. This does nothing but hurt smaller artists
Wow, great channel, but terrible take. CDBaby has as little as a $10 payout minimum, and you're overlooking the fact that royalties accumulate. It might take an artist the better part of a year to reach their payout, but they're still paid royalties. Going forward, this isn't the case. Two very different situations.
Take from the poor and give to the rich. Well, it's very logical 🤦🏻♂️
'you wouldn't have got the money anyway' – yes, you would have, eventually. Spotify must be paying y'all off with you music marketeers justifying this like it's a good thing in all your videos
The issue with this logic tho is that how can we seriously trust Spotify to actually redistribute that 40 million? It sounds a lot like trickle down economics to me. In theory it makes sense but will this instead just go to shareholders and major label artists? I guess we will see in time!
cool shirt! i spilled chilli sauce on mine 🙁
you left out 1000 plays per year on each song before being paid out. if you had 1000 songs that got played 1000x each, each year. you would've made $4000 a year, now $0.
Good move. If you aren’t putting enough push behind your music to get 1000 streams you aren’t treating it as a business (which it is)
It’s just a cash grab for Spotify
Most artists just don't understand they are a business and never will
This sucks. Cause $2 a song dont seem much, but across 20 songs thats $40….which distributers will pay out.
Distributors pay out thresholds are for an artist’s full catalog, not on a song by song basis. Most of my songs get less than 1000, but because I have more than one song, I still get paid by the distributor
Geez, there's a lot of whiny people in here. wtf.
Watch Spotify executives and shareholders get a 40M$ bonus next year
I'm not making much with my music…….yet. so once I put the work in that I now know how to do after reading Jesse Cannon's book "Get More Fans," this payout dilemma won't be such a big deal after all. Thank you Jesse (and Todd) for writing such a great book.
And how is this good news for us indie artists exactly?
I’ve got about 1k streams total across 4 tracks. I was getting paid, albeit almost nothing, and now I won’t.
I'm so tired of the "only a little bit of money" and "these songs weren't earning any money anyway" and "your distributors would just keep it anyway" BS.
Multiply that by an entire back catalog of songs that aren't actively being promoted but still earn streams (just less than 1000 a year) that are essentially being used by Spotify for free. It's not like Spotify is going to stop playing commercials before/after these low-stream songs. It adds up.
So I guess next you're going to compare this to Youtube's rules about monetizing videos despite the fact that they are two entirely different things. Go on… we're waiting.
Artists and influencers vomiting these arguments are starting to make me angry, but at least the positive side is this nonsense makes it easier to identify the bootlickers and people too shortsighted to listen to,
Why do I feel this will make distributors charge artists more, in the long-run?
Wrong. There's no reason to believe that $40mil means paying artists more. Why would you think that? Also $4 is just for 1 song, but for artists like me with dozens of songs just under the 1k threshold, that is potentially $100s (one of my artist profiles has 40ish songs just under 1k, or around $150 which pays for my unlimited distro fees).
Your If I have a 100 tracks get 900 plays which is not bad for of us… that’s 90k streams unpaid It’s total bullshit
Bad move on Spotify's behalf. As they say, never take away something midstream otherwise the crew will declare mutiny. Youtube started with the 1000 subscribers out the gait, thus no one complained, but looked at it as a challenge, have to earn your way in kinda thing.
What is artist stream all their own tracks that many times lol
This isn’t a good thing.
I am really struggling to see how this change helps any small artist whatsoever. I created the art myself, paid a distributor to distribute it. I don't think any of the streaming services should have this kind of power.
Anyone trying to justify this as a positive change has clearly lost touch with the realities of independent artists on the financial breadline. Every little payout helps for those struggling and seeing this as encouragement to essentially ‘get good’ at marketing and sink more money into promotion in order to hit the threshold is a short sighted and pretty entitled angle to approach the issue from. Every artist should be paid for every stream or sale. Regardless of how poultry the fee may be to the big dogs who likely don’t have any concept of what a financial struggle even looks like. I’m sure it matters not to anyone of note, but I’ll be cancelling my Spotify subscription. I’m not going to give them my poultry £10.99 a month in support of this.
I don't care what Spotify do. I found a DSP that is really on the DIY
artists side. If anyone wants to know , drop me a line and I'll share.
I usually agree with your takes but this is just flat out not a good thing
I only have 2 tracks over 1k looks like I have work to do!
Thank you!!
But an artist that has many tracks with low number of plays will lose way more than 4 dollars. It might be little money, but I don't think this is right. Money will end up in the pockets of the already big artists
Does it though? Or will the big companies grab that cash?
A lot of major label artists will be getting paid more. Which means more record labels get paid more.