But it would still be a more accurate reflection because the pot is only divided amongst “your” artists. Of course that model still entails that the more streams that are made, the less each stream is worth. Thus the effect of dividing up each user’s subscription fee by his individual streams would be doubled too. More so because these genres probably attract audiophiles who might be willing to pay double the amount per month for lossless streaming. They too would benefit from a more individualistic approach. There are entire genres like jazz or classical music that are losing out in the current system because they aren’t streamed intensively. Silver starts his day to the exact same three songs every morning but the artists he listens to do not benefit from that because they get drowned out in the current payout model. If you only listen to, say, the new Rae Sremmurd album, all of your ten bucks would go to the band, their label and publisher. What that means is every user’s subscription fee could be divided up individually according to what that user actually listens to in any given month. Spotify Losses Accelerate as Revenue Grows to $1.22 Billion But if they were to reorganize their payment mechanisms so that it reflected what individual subscribers are actually listening to, then indie bands in particular would start to make some real money.”
#Rae sremmurd this could be us loseless pro
If a subscription service simply aggregates all the activity on its entire platform and then pays out pro rata against it, the winners will always be the larger players. The problem is not about streaming, it’s about subscriptions and how you divide up the revenues. He says: “I do believe that there is the makings of a solution to this. One of them is the investor, entrepreneur and digital media consultant Jeremy Silver. Whether the subscription model turns out to be everybody’s favorite way of consuming music or not, there are advocates of a new payout model out there. It may be realistic to assume that most music listeners won’t pay for a streaming subscription in the first place, simply because they are content with internet radio.
It remains to be seen if streaming will become a mainstream model. It is the early adopters who are so engaged that chop up the revenue pot into small pieces. According to some supporters, the more mainstream a model streaming becomes, the more users will stream less intensively. Granted, it’s not the only scenario where that could happen. It’s just about the only way the amount in the pot will grow while the amount of streams stays the same, making every single stream worth more.
#Rae sremmurd this could be us loseless free
That is why it is so important for these services to convert their free users into paying subscribers. The Baffling (and Slightly Insane) World Of Streaming Payments, Explained This means each individual stream becomes worth less the more streams that are generated.
From there, it is distributed according to the number of streams generated by users.
But this much has become clear by now: all the money subscription services earn from advertising and monthly subscriptions ends up in one big pot. It is hard to lift the veil entirely because the subscription space is a hazy jungle, with individual deals hidden behind non-disclosure agreements. It is the nature of the current payout structure of streaming subscription services that the more streams that are generated, the less each individual stream is worth. What is more: Barrow shouldn’t have been that surprised in the first place. Income after tax = £1,700.” We already analyzed why it is hard to draw any meaningful conclusions out of this crude depiction. Remember Portishead instrumentalist Geoff Barrow‘s Twitter rant last month? “34,000,000 streams.
0 kommentar(er)
