Spotify is second largest source of revenue in Europe for labels
arcticstartup.com
arcticstartup.com
However, it would be interesting to research if there are single entities larger than iTunes or Spotify selling "analogue" music on a European level - which could hold the initial statement true.
Good for labels, not so good for artists
So, if you're a Spotify customer, paying 100 SEK ($15)/month and listening exclusively to, say, Santigold, most of the loot will still end up in the big four's pockets.
The smart musicians realise they can do things like put their album on there for the month before the release, leave it on there for the month after its release, then yank it away and watch the MP3 sales climb. I see this quite a lot.
Planet Mu records in particular seem to have a subset of their extensive back catalogue on there that is constantly in rotation. This practice has basically forced me to buy music from them on more than one occasion. It's like the mythical practice of drug dealers giving kids free samples to get them hooked :)
Well, that sounds like a strange simile to me. When listening to FM radio you do not chose what tracks you listen to. Spotify isn't Pandora. With Spotify, you can chose whatever track you like (as long they have it and there's no commercial queued). Lady Gaga got $167 for 1 million plays. Imagine what the small artists receives.
Spotify is controlled by the four major record companies: Universal, EMI, Sony and Warner. Even if they just own 18% of the shares, Spotify's entire existence rests on the trust that these record companies continue to license "their" music. The four record companies are using the power of Spotify to further strengthen its domination over other record companies and penalize artists outside their own team.
To me, listening to Spotify and actually believing you are doing something better for the artist than those who pirate is no less than delusion.
That’s sad to hear, and I hope it gets fixed, but
But
I didn't sign up for Spotify in order to "do something for teh starving artists" I, and the people I know who signed up for it, did so because
1) it's legal
2) it's cheap
3) It gives instant access to a wealth of music beyond what I could ever listen to in my whole life. It’s not every song ever (for instance there’s no Frank Zappa, no Coil, and the cusswords in Cake’s songs are blipped out) but it's close.
The artists were starving when the major labels were ripping them off, the artists are starving now their songs get copied and torented. It’s sad that Spotify doesn’t solve that problem, and that it doesn’t cure cancer either, but hey, at least Spotify didn’t make things worse.
Spotify’s competition is yes, illegal downloads. Illegal downloads have the advantage in price - they’re free, but they lose out to Spotify in not being legal and being less searchable.
The "instant music" really is a distinguishing feature. e.g. Gary Moore dies -> Play some of his music on Spotify. Friend says he’s been digging a band called "Aesthetic perfection" -> Listen to them all afternoon on Spotify. As ever, casual listening, if the artist gets paid or not is a gateway to finding new music that you really like, leading to being a fan and buying CDs/MP3s, gig tickets and merchandise.
That is exactly how Spotify is presented here in Sweden. While Spotify is losing money, the politicians brag and tell us how they suddenly found the "cure" for illegal filesharing.
We have to be realistic and not place all our bets on one horse. There is no single solution to media on internet and Spotify is no different. The internets = multitude. And, therein lies the beauty.
As you might now The Pirate Bay and piracy have been huge in Sweden. Spotify have changed that when it comes to music. By making it _easier_ to listen to music via their application than via bittorrent/kazaa/napster/dc++ downloading, they're now the most used music player in Sweden. Just a few years ago the Pirate Bay top 100 list was full of music. Now there's two (2!) music albums on it, the rest is tv-series and movies.
If you look at it that way, that piracy is the competitor not cd sales, the music industry has a great opportunity in Spotify in the long run.
My real problem is finding what I want to listen to at this very moment, and managing it. I don't want to spend forever finding my music, downloading it, arranging payment, organizing it, backing it up, copying it to my iPod or other computer, etc.
Spotify gets this: search -> listen -> add to playlists. At work, home, wherever... just login. Girlfriend's music? Switch user. Throw away my iPod, it was just a shipping container, anyway.
It solves the organisation problem very neatly. Piracy will find it hard to compete.
Piracy still is the market leader in catalogue size and ease of use for consumers at large (just see the AVC post in another comment). This is actually a fantastic way to look at it - Spotify didn't set out to beat iTunes or any existing market player with a business model, they wanted to beat piracy.
Now that's an ambitious goal, even though many other services aim at doing the same indirectly (by beating existing market players).
Serious pirates are all on small, private trackers with exclusivity, speed, and quality as the main guidelines. You can't just join them either, most require relatively decent speeds tests, high ratios for seeding/sharing and have closed registrations, only invitations. Seedboxes are all the rage, and the hardcore pirates are probably using Usenet quite a bit now as well.
Get with the program granddad!
* 10 million free users can stream any song in the 10 million song catalog to their desktop (Pandora-style ads)
* 750,000 paid users - no ads, support for streaming to mobile (Android, iPhone, etc), better quality stream
* Paid 45 million Euro to labels in 2010
* So far, they're losing more money each year. http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/22/spotify-had-a-16-66m-los...