Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t...
by pessimizer on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @10:42AM
(#33436613)
The point is that 1/3 cents a play isn't a lot. Argue against that claim if you like, but engage with it instead of using weird rhetoric to avoid it.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t...
by happymellon on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @10:53AM
(#33436784)
I don't think that was the point that anyone was making.
In fact Jefftk has stated the exact opposite to your position.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t...
by jefftk on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @10:43AM
(#33436630)
> that is much higher than the normal published numbers by 10-100x.
$3.65 per thousand is at the low end of what I see elsewhere. For example https://twostorymelody.com/spotify-pay-per-stream/ has $3-$5 per thousand.
> I'm not clear what your point is.
I think the distribution of streaming revenues is generally reasonably fair, and people who say things like "Spotify pays artists nothing" are confused about either (a) how much money there is to divide up or (b) where it is going.
Re:Invasive Diffusion: one unwilling illustrator found her t...
by happymellon on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @10:52AM
(#33436767)
You are right on those numbers, I miscounted when I looked at those numbers.
I'm glad that there is someone creative on here that can educate and confirm.
Are you saying that CD Baby is a better distribution technique than standard labels because you get good margins? I didn't know CD Baby until I just looked them up but they appear to be a distributor, so your $3.65 metric is still being paid by Spotify/Amazon/Apple. Please correct me if I'm wrong but that is much higher than the normal published numbers by 10-100x.
Is this an RIAA moment where labels are trying to make other people look like jerks rather than accepting what they do, or are people using the "per 1000 streams" poorly because they will always look worse on successful platforms?