community.pirate.com

Did Spotify just cross a line?

Off-topic
#1

Spotify has just announced that they will prioritise your tracks in recommendations to boost your exposure … in return for less royalties.

What do we think of this? It’s a tad too on the nose for me. It’s also gonna make me trust my recommendations less.

Don’t worry, it’s in Beta mode - but I’m curious whether you’d be willing to give up a portion of royalties in exchange for that exposure? How can Spotify guarantee results?

Would you do this? Is it a good idea? …

Read the full DJ Mag coverage here

Godspeed!

2 Likes
#2

Without wanting to be too Tinfoil Hat, but I assumed there was something like this going on anyway - it certainly feels that social media is pay-to-play where they’ll hit you with a big boost, then drop your traction while offering to sell you ads that would get you back up to that high point. I think Tik Tok was found to be doing that, but I assumed Facebook does something similar - I’d also heard that Facebook guts your organic page traction if you start paying for ads, so that you have to keep paying for the ads to maintain it. I’m pretty sure I read all of that on Reddit at some point over the last few years so take it with a pretty massive pinch of salt, but I definitely don’t like the way social media has developed as an industry in general, and it’s hard to imagine it doesn’t extend to systems on the periphery of social media like Spotify :pensive:

2 Likes
#3

It’s literally extortion. I’m genuinely surprised they think its ok, I hope people do not opt for it, it will be the mid to smaller artists that suffer as the big ones don’t need the boosts

2 Likes
#4

Very insidious about the Facebook organic traction being pulled if you start paying … such a horrible concept - it’s like they almost force you to pay for them then take away what the page is actually meant for?

Let us pray no one uses the spotify feature as @faisal_pirate said, hopefully artists will lament this and choose not to. I just worry about major labels populating my recommended with new, average cash grab signees.

also wondering if this is merely a free feature? If they’re also using this for premium users this is just gross. Maybe it’s time i retire it and get my portable CD player out. It’s been real.

1 Like
#5

I think its a good idea to try and help smaller artists who dont have any money or clout in regards to marketing and help get them more exposure which could lead to a bright future where you will be able to negotiate a better deal in the future but if you are going to give up royalties for exposure and then the track becomes huge then you need to accept that maybe the track would not have become so big without the exposure. I think its a good choice to have… I have not read the article but does spotify give you the choice to make or does spotify make the decision for you?

#6

I think you’re right - if you’re not making that much money anyway, then it’s no bother for you to “take a loss” and get the free promotion. If everyone feels the same way, then everyone will take a loss, get free promotion, and nobody would stand out. The status quo is maintained, but now Spotify are paying 50% less than they were. Or even 10%, but it’s still a significant amount for a company like that. It’s a horrible race to the bottom that does even more to undermine the perceived value of music than Spotify has already done.

This is all from a tinfoil hat luddite so definitely take it with a pinch of salt!

2 Likes
#7

I kind of assumed the same. I suppose the thing is I’ve never seen Spotify in particular as anything but pay-to-play. I just don’t see Spotify as an outlet to sell, which admittedly is a sad state of affairs. I’m just paying for the ‘prestige’ of being there and having that (awful word) exposure. And it’s a dire situation to be in because if you want to compete on exposure, if you want to be available at someone’s fingertips, if you want to get on a playlist, Spotify is kind of where you need to be until a viable alternative appears that actually sells music, pays artists better, AND has the kind of captive audience of consumers that Spotify has amassed.

I feel like Spotify could offer more than a royalties-for-exposure kind of deal. The race to the bottom point is a very valid one. I’m as guilty as anyone of paying my premium rate for all the music and then whinge about the fact that back in my day you had to pay £12 for a CD and it better be fucking good, you needed that bang for your buck. There was a lot riding on an album purchase. There just doesn’t seem to be that kind of pressure on creativity now. Rather it pays to play to the masses if you want any chance of standing out on popular platforms

1 Like
#8

I just think (and have thought since the illegal downloads kicked off) that the music will inevitably be given away for free and the real money will come from gigs and other stuff. I think an artist just needs to think outside the box now, real fans will buy a limited edition cd / vinyl. You could get an artist on board and commission a nice piece of cover art / poster create a comic book as a cd cover… I’m just spit balling but what I am trying to say is give some other form of tangible thing or experience that real fans will buy (gigs, merch, etc).
With every crisis come opportunity, use Spotify as a promo model and build a fan base but have a different end game for making money in mind because at the end of the day I’m sure everyone makes music because they love making music and there are other avenues in which an artist can make money and remain in control.

3 Likes
#9

Or even 10%, but it’s still a significant amount for a company like that. It’s a horrible race to the bottom that does even more to undermine the perceived value of music than Spotify has already done.

I simply couldn’t agree more. Kinda hate Spotify tbh.