Wonderful blog by Trichordist here. Great effort on successfully providing transparency into the streaming model.
There is so much to be said about this… Yes streaming services are not a sustainable income for artists, but who ever said they had to be? If it’s not, it simply isn’t. Streaming revenues are only part of the pie for artist income. Market demand determines costs and revenues. That’s economics for you.
The problem is we’re looking at streaming the wrong way. Pointing fingers gets us no where. Find other sources to add to the pie. Streaming is not bad, it’s extra for your hard work, but don’t ever expect it to be your main source of income. It is only one of many sources. With all this focus on streaming revenue, I think we may have forgotten that. How conversations have been going, you’d think streaming is all that’s left!
Several of our posts on streaming pay rates aggregated into one single source. Enjoy…
[EDITORS NOTE: All of the data above is aggregated. In all cases the total amount of revenue is divided by the total number of the streams per service (ex: $5,210 / 1,000,000 = .00521 per stream). In cases where there are multiple tiers and pricing structures (like Spotify), these are all summed together and divided to create an averaged, single rate per play.]
If the services at the top of the list like Nokia, Google Play and Xbox Music can pay more per play, why can’t the services at the bottom of the list like Spotify and YouTube?
We’ll give you a hint, the less streams/plays there are the more each play pays. The more plays there are the less each stream/play pays. Tell us…
View original post 1,393 more words