Comment

Comment on Spotify to axe 1,500 workers to save costs

The change exclude payouts that are under 1 cent or something like that. The news got hijacked by click and rage baiters like this title by the Guardian (which I won’t link):

Spotify made £56m profit, but has decided not to pay smaller artists

The smaller artists would literally get single digit cents! The Spotify hate is getting astroturfed hard it almost seems.

source

Sort:hotnew top

thenightisdark@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You say that like it’s a defense though.

Yeah they’re paying the people who make the product we sell so little that they don’t even get enough money in a paycheck to have it be worth sending them a paycheck!!

source
- Zoot@reddthat.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Should spotify offer more money for less views? Maybe. But 1000 views being a threshold (and only valued at a few pennies with their current model) sounds to me like the paper they write the check on, cost more than the person may make.
  
  source
raptir@lemdro.id ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
No, they spun it that way by deceptively going on a rant about how many “songs get fewer than 1000 plays ever” and doing the math based on that in the “article,” but that’s not what the change actually was. If you read the details of the change below that, it is that they will no longer pay out at all for songs that get fewer than 1000 unique listeners per year.

You still aren’t talking a ton of money, but if each of 999 listeners streamed a song once per month, the artist could be losing close to $40 per song per year.

source
- RedAggroBest@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Playbacks, not listeners. It’s not a high threshold and listeners would be a weird metric in the first place. Playbacks doesn’t exclude niche content consumed often by fewer people and shows overall popularity.
  
  source