It works. Almost…
Artists Get Paid
Of course the renowned argument is that they don't get paid enough! There are many on-going questions as to where this money is getting stuck and challenges to make it happen.
Listeners Can Consume Easily
We thoroughly believe that music streaming that generates revenue for artists (both through adverts and subscriptions) is the future of music consumption. This will be especially evident when voice control starts to become more mainstream for playing music.
Listeners want access to any music they want, when they want to listen to it. In the age of the internet, this is not a harsh demand...
It is our job; as labels, publishers, technology platforms (DSPs) and other service providers to create and manage a solution that ensures listeners can consume easily, and that artists get paid enough to develop their careers as artists and not have to subsidise their passion by working in corporations that destroy their souls!
Why Not Apple Music, Deezer or Tidal?
At BDEM, we use all of these. We want our artists' music to be on as many platforms that are in demand as possible (that recuperate our artists with revenue earned), and it is said that Apple Music and the others even give a higher payout per stream than Spotify.
However, Spotify has the highest userbase of all the DSPs and the most advanced technology. This bring a lot of advantage to our artists in terms of opportunities, and as long as those opportunities are evident it makes sense for us to put all of our marketing eggs in one basket, as such, and invest our resource into using the advantages of Spotify to support our artists' growth.
The Majors Have Their Grubby Paws All Over It
It's no secret that the Majors are heavily invested in Spotify and therefore have power over decisions, and take the majority of the revenue (leaving Spotify in their position of turning over billions but still not making a profit). - And, it is widely criticised that the majors do not pay the right amounts of that back to their artists.
This is a situation we're watching closely and assessing whether we're always going to have a place on Spotify as an independent service. As long as there is opportunity for our artists, we'll have presence. As soon as it shows that the playing field isn't fair, we'll find another way to make a fair solution elsewhere.
The Market Has Changed
Some are still arguing against streaming and its viability commercially. claiming that per-play returns are so minimal against MP3 purchases that there's not going to be enough money in it.
But we're now talking about a multi billion dollar industry, one that is still in early growth stages.
Even with such a small return per stream, a quick look at The Spotify Charts is enough to inspire you to believe in the future of streaming. 4,000,000 plays DAILY at $0.006 is no laughing matter. Earning $24,000 a day is no laughing matter. That makes you a millionaire every 41 days. So every year you earn $8,000,000 from a single track, in theory. But yes, that 4,000,000 mark is artists like Drake and they are massively manufactured, globally marketed and highly advertised on the Spotify platform itself. The point is, there is chance and opportunity there for those that play the game right.
It's highly likely that these deals are much better for the major partnerships than $0.006 per stream. However, the deals with artists are complicated, and it's unlikely that artists are seeing $8m from each track per year.
But we don’t believe the outlook is bleak for independent artists either, with more users picking up the use of streaming platforms and Spotify going public, it should bring more money into the business, bring more power back to the DSP and introduce fairer payouts directly to the creators. If not, then people will either have to get used to only listening to manufactured music from the majors or they will seek new ways to consume new / up-and-coming / independent music and we'll be there with a solution that ensures our artists are properly reimbursed!