For your information Posted by: Brad Hill The “Spotify debate” swirls around one core hypothesis: Musicians don’t get enough value from the service. As such, Spotify is a surrogate for music streaming sites, which promote access instead of ownership, and attention instead of purchases. The debate flared up again this week, in a caustic exchange between Thom Yorke of Radiohead and Moby. Moby called Yorke “an old guy yelling at fast trains.” Yorke emitted a Twitter yawn. Spotify evangelists, especially founder Daniel Ek, repeatedly preach that it is still early days for streaming, and that massive future scaling will eventually solve complaints about the model’s revenue potential for recording artists. (Spotify’s investors have reportedly bought some time to build into that future with an eye-popping new funding of $250-million.) But the entire subject of artist revenue on Spotify might be moot in the long run. What if streaming services are really about exposure of potential stars? What if Spotify’s true role is more about leverage than earnings? In other words, is Spotify the new radio as a hit-making influencer?
Posted on: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:11:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015