Hacker News Reader

Comment by reaperman | Hacker News Reader

Which is why spotify should pay a percentage of MY subscription fee to only the artists that I listen to. My money shouldn’t go to Taylor Swift if I don’t listen to Taylor Swift.

That would eliminate direct financial payment from botting. But botting could still affect trending or “related” recommendations for indirect financial boost.

View on HN

The issue there is that the listens from people who listen to less music would be worth more than the listens from people who listen to more music.

That's not an issue, that's accurately reflecting reality. If I'm paying the same $10/month just to listen to $OBSCURE_ARTIST for 10 plays per month, then each play of that _is_ worth more to Spotify than each play from a 10-year old listening to the same track of $SUPERSTAR one thousand times in a month.

In one case, 10 plays brought in $10 of revenue to Spotify, and those 10 plays should get $PERCENT of that $10.

In the other case, 1000 plays brought in $10 of revenue to Spotify, and those 1000 plays should also get the same $PERCENT of that $10.

A fixed monthly subscription amount with unlimited usage will always carry this deficiency. A solution that addresses this would be usage-based pricing.

I don't understand how this is a deficiency.

That's not an issue. That's the entire point. You track listens per account and if you're only listening to a single niche musician, all your money (not someone else's) goes to that musician.

The real mystery is why it should work any differently, because the cross subsidy seemingly creates a perverse profit incentive for bots to scalp off some of that cross subsidy. The economics are broken. This is socialism for the rich and popular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com