Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by cm2012 on Saturday September 16, 2017 @03:04PM
(#15266116)
They pay more than radio per listen.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by coldtea on Saturday September 16, 2017 @03:15PM
(#15266175)
The are serving songs on demand where radio is not, so what they pay shouldn't be compared with radio.
Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by mahyarm on Saturday September 16, 2017 @04:01PM
(#15266438)
So instead of the record firm chosen top 50 and the nostalgia 200 it gives the long tail radio play payments too.
Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by jessaustin on Saturday September 16, 2017 @04:34PM
(#15266597)
It isn't clear what this means. Are you saying that radio isn't as valuable because we can't be sure that anyone is listening? That isn't the way that radio sells its advertising: "We charge less for ads because much of the time nobody is listening!" Beside the study that GP presumably references [0] specifically controlled for audience size.
[0] http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1155395/business-...
Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by mortehu on Saturday September 16, 2017 @05:20PM
(#15266829)
Radio isn't as valuable because you don't get to choose what you're listening to. Your favorite artist may never be on the radio.
Re:We've failed: open access is winning and we must change o...
by coldtea on Saturday September 16, 2017 @06:42PM
(#15267155)
No, I'm saying Spotify is more like owing the records -- you can play whatever you want, replay it as many times as you like, etc, than radio, which offers a lesser service.
So artists should get more from Spotify than they do for radio plays anyway.