• AEsheron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I can definitely understand that response, but people that feel that way are misconstruing the situation. Traditional podcasts and music are there for entertainment, and/or sometimes education for podcasts, and compete against each other for that. Most people listening to white noise are likely using it as a tool, not for entertainment, it isn’t beating out music as an option in most cases, they aren’t competing.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes, they are competing. Spotify only has a limited amount of money to distribute between artists and if “low effort” artists get more money, that means “regular” artists get less. It’s that simple.

      • mightyfoolish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Why complain that your song has to compete with white noise, podcasts, and other people’s music? It’s obvious that your entertainment has to compete with other entertainment. If you can’t compete, just move to a “low effort” market…

        If Spotify would move out white noise to its own platform or Spotify removes white noise and a different platform picks it up; I would pay less for a Spotify subscription anyways.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        My understanding was Spotify pays by the stream. Not out of some pool that is distributed based off a percentage of time spent listening compared to everything they have. Some quick Google searches show .003-.005 dollars per stream on average. Assuming Spotify will increase stream payouts if they don’t have to pay for “low quality” artists is like assuming a company will pay it’s employees more if they get a tax break. These streams are taking from Spotify, not other artists, because few people looking for white noise would choose these other artists if the white noise was unavailable. They would likely simply go to another app that does have white noise.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          My understanding was Spotify pays by the stream. Not out of some pool that is distributed based off a percentage of time spent listening compared to everything they have.

          From the article…

          Universal Music Group’s CEO Lucian Grainge and Warner Music’s CEO Robert Kyncl have both voiced their displeasure at the fact that songs filled with noise are paid out of the same royalty pool shared by their superstars.

          • MyFairJulia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I wanna ask Spotify the same question i wanna ask media companies about region locking because of copyright shenanigans:

            Why do you make your system to my problem?

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Spotify needs to get the money somehow first. They can’t increase prices indefinitely, and they can’t lower royalties indefinitely. That’s a rather simple calculation.