I assume they mean something like “we have to pay white noise podcast creators when the money could have instead ended up in our coffers or paid to record labels”
i’m guessing Creator money as the 10$ you pay is split depending of the time you listened too each artist.
And also as they are podcasts and have constant sound changes, the file could be heavier than usual, which costs more bandwidth to send, or at least more place to store
From reading the article, it sounds like Spotify itself doesn’t get directly affected. Instead, the record companies and advertisers are upset. The record companies, because the shared pool of royalties that gets paid out is now getting split with white noise creators, leaving them a smaller share of the pie. The advertisers, because most people listening to white noise are using it to fall asleep or just keeping it on in the background, and therefore nobody will be listening/paying attention when the ads come on.
Tough titties for them, you may say, but if they don’t like it, they may take their respective balls and go home. That would seriously impact Spotify, since without the music, most users will quickly lose interest, and the advertisers are a large part of their revenue stream. If they don’t do something, they could end being a streaming service predominantly for white noise, which would be far less profitable.
It should also be taken into account that a lot of the white noise hits were not organic, but the result of a problem with how Spotify set up their algorithm.
Ah thanks for taking the time to explain. This makes sense.
I think this article is a little disingenuous. the record companies aren’t losing money, they’re losing market share. Many users simply weren’t listening to their music. Whether they were listening to the white noise is irrelevant. They WEREN’T listening to Taylor Swift, even accidentally.
I’m guessing this will cause Spotify to put time limits on playback (if they haven’t already)
The article doesn’t really make it clear. Why do these cost the platform money?
I assume they mean something like “we have to pay white noise podcast creators when the money could have instead ended up in our coffers or paid to record labels”
Yeah that means the headline makes no sense
i’m guessing Creator money as the 10$ you pay is split depending of the time you listened too each artist. And also as they are podcasts and have constant sound changes, the file could be heavier than usual, which costs more bandwidth to send, or at least more place to store
From reading the article, it sounds like Spotify itself doesn’t get directly affected. Instead, the record companies and advertisers are upset. The record companies, because the shared pool of royalties that gets paid out is now getting split with white noise creators, leaving them a smaller share of the pie. The advertisers, because most people listening to white noise are using it to fall asleep or just keeping it on in the background, and therefore nobody will be listening/paying attention when the ads come on.
Tough titties for them, you may say, but if they don’t like it, they may take their respective balls and go home. That would seriously impact Spotify, since without the music, most users will quickly lose interest, and the advertisers are a large part of their revenue stream. If they don’t do something, they could end being a streaming service predominantly for white noise, which would be far less profitable.
It should also be taken into account that a lot of the white noise hits were not organic, but the result of a problem with how Spotify set up their algorithm.
Ah thanks for taking the time to explain. This makes sense.
I think this article is a little disingenuous. the record companies aren’t losing money, they’re losing market share. Many users simply weren’t listening to their music. Whether they were listening to the white noise is irrelevant. They WEREN’T listening to Taylor Swift, even accidentally.
I’m guessing this will cause Spotify to put time limits on playback (if they haven’t already)