I started disliking Spotify since I uploaded my music on Spotify. They are not a good company, and the company is still claiming that they are removing fake streams. However, I know some people are still buying fake streams. I don’t like that company policy at all.
I believe in the phrase, "build a better mouse trap, build a better mouse". Cheaters will always find a way to cheat the system, so in the end this just seems another way to justify not paying the little guy their $0.00003 a year.
Step 0: Don't worry at all about getting 1000 streams because it's not worth the effort to make $3 or whatever. I mean, your ideas themselves are all fine. But framing it in terms of "OMG YOU HAVE TO GET 1000 STREAMS" is missing the real point of the steps you recommend, which shouldn't be wasting time and money on your dogs, but to push your best tracks even higher.
It's not a good thing to withhold royalties, wish you music influencers would stop trying to reframe this as "a good thing" it's just not. If people listen to your music you should be paid for it. End of!
I'm giving up on Spotify entirely. It's been such a waste of time for me vs other revenue streams. Downloading the data on a 28 day schedule (and/or cleaning the data when inevitable gaps/overlaps occur), worrying about which month makes 1k streams on each song so that they can all be pushed for the following year, dealing with bot playlist attacks. All that time spent taking out the garbage gets in the way of doing things that actually generate revenue. I'm pulling out from Spotify.
@@tinycha0s depends on what you're using Spotify for. I sell physical and downloads at shows and bandcamp. Cassettes, after manufacture, make between $10-$!5 for me. Someone else can do the math and say how many streams that would be worth. In terms of "discoverability" TH-cam, Bandcamp, Insta/TT have as many/more users and while they don't have great business models at least they aren't so actively degrading as doing all the chores for Spotify.
@@tinycha0sof course, there are many others streaming platforms that you can redirect your fanbase. Apple Music, Amazon Music, TH-cam music, Dezzer, your own website. You just need to let your fanbase know you are abandoning Spotify.
Definitely very concerned because artists can end up on fraudulent playlists without their knowledge/consent and they’ll get punished for it. A couple times my songs have randomly been on some sus playlists, even for a day
I’m going through that right now and I’m very scared cause this song was doing well before it was added to a bot playlist and now I’m not sure what to do
It's such a lie that the money was getting stuck at the aggregators and not being paid. It's just gaslighting bullshit from Spotify. First, Spotify pays distributors and aggregators for the aggregate of all plays of all tracks from all albums from all artists submitted through that distributor, not just separately for each single track by an individual artist. Second, distributors pay artists/labels for the aggregate of all streams and downloads from all the artist's tracks on all DSPs, not just from Spotify. Third, labels get payouts from the aggregate of all the artists they represent. Fourth, even if after all that aggregation, there is some amount that temporarily does not meet the payout threshold, the aggregator holds the money briefly until more accumulates and it does meet the threshold, then they pay the money out to the label or artist. In other words, the money falling under the aggregators' payout thresholds was just a rounding error, which was only held up temporarily, and then paid out. Spotify's characterization of the situation is so far from the truth that it's difficult to imagine them making that argument with a straight face (and even harder to imagine anyone else repeating it as a valid justification). I also love how they characterize stealing money from independent artists to give to major-label artists as "helping independent artists". Just more bullshit gaslighting. I almost suspect one of their goals is to drive small independent artists away from Spotify entirely by alienating them (which their major-label shareholders would love, as a way to reduce the competition). In the end, this IS about greed, by the shareholders of the major labels. Realize that the large majority of the royalties they will be stealing from smaller independent artists and labels is going to be paid instead to artists (who didn't earn those royalties) on the three major labels, and that most of the money sent to the major labels probably goes to the label (and hence their shareholders), not the artists. And don't forget that UMG and Sony, two of the three major labels, are significant minority shareholders of Spotify. So what Spotify is doing is paying more money (I forget, around $46 million per year?) directly to their shareholders, without having to report it as revenue (which might lead to a net profit), and hence without having to pay corporate income taxes on it. And they decided to steal it from the artists who presumably don't have large companies (and legal departments) behind them who would otherwise sue the shit out of Spotify for stealing their earned royalties on their copyrighted works, royalties which, combined with multiple other small income streams, artists hope to cobble together into a livable income (but will be much harder now that Spotify is stealing a significant chunk of it). No matter what Spotify claims, this is nothing more than an asshole move to steal the money of hard-working aspiring musicians and give it to rich shareholders. And they don't care if it pisses off the small artists, because Spotify's shareholders would love to get rid of them anyway. Even though I know the United States will do nothing, I hope the more enlightened and strict on copyright EU decides that Spotify cannot do that and enjoins them to reinstate the previous payment plan, or stop operating in EU countries. Since not paying the artists also means not paying that share to the distributors and aggregators, I hope the aggregators who specialize in small artists decide to stop distributing to Spotify. I would be happy to participate in an effective boycott of Spotify, but I know that alone, any single small artist or label, or even a fairly large number of them, won't bother Spotify in the slightest, so it would take a large boycott, like CD Baby, TuneCore, and DistroKid all pulling their catalogs from Spotify, to have any effect.
its a 1000 per year, right..? so you can fall off the paid list.. I say we boycot Spotify/.... Plus, you think i should pay advertising dollars to get the perthetic payment.. Spotify SUCKS.. badley
Major artists use bots to get into the algorithm. They are just knocking unsigned artists off the platform. It's all about money. The problem is not just bots but they are only budgeting X amouint for artists. Spotify is going out of business.
simple actually if they go out of business that places like tidal apple music will take over and if they all fail things will go back to cd here is why is possible last few years young teens been buying up vynal records which is older than cds and people still buy them as super fans to contribute to merch. It was much better selling cds cause all you had to do is invest in burn cds than copy songs to it than give 25 PERCENT to all mom , / pop stores AND 50 per cent to major stores now they market and sell your music for you cause I know most artist mainstream wasn't giving away 50 percent of proceeds plus this forces labels to start artist development again
So 5 months on, can any independent artist with 100k+ streams actually validate Spotify's claims that these royalties robbed from smaller artists are going to bigger artists?? Have your royalties increased? Or was it indeed a massive lie from Spotify?
I think it sucks for small artists with big catalogs. I have like 75 tracks on Spotify, and even if some of my tacks are doing way over 1000 streams a year, most of them are like maybe one stream a day. I think this is a problem spotify generated on purpose when they decided not to let smaller lables distribute on their platform themselves, just to keep distributors in the chain, as a pointless middleman, eating up the profits from most indie musicians. Always they are crying about not making enough money, however they are clearly splurging with money, who in a sense belong to musicians. I think this will get old real quick, and people will wake up to the reality of buying music directly from the musicians themself in the near future.
While I like the idea of people buying music directly from musicians themselves in the future - how can this be practical for very-small musicians? Making CDs, for example, is very cheap if done in bulk - but really, really expensive to make one at a time. How does that work for an artist who is too small in audience to get 1000 streams per track? Well - that means that just to break even, you would have to either (a) know that you are going to sell a significant number of CDs (an amount that is huge for an artist who can not get 1000 streams per track) or (b) somehow manage to sell a few CDs for a price that far more realistically would drive your sales all the way down to zero.
What about artists that have lots of tracks that taken as separate entities may not be over the existing distributor payment threshold but collectively add up to being over the existing distributor payout thresholds? Now that Spotify require 1000 streams per year before royalties are paid there goes all or most of my Spotify royalties and I have been paid Spotify royalties every month since 2005. The other issue is say your track takes 11 months getting to 1000 streams and you just get over the 1000 stream threshold I don't think you get paid on the 1000 streams just the ones that are over 1000 streams and then guess what the year ends and the 1000 stream count eligibility resets. Have I got this right? If so, Spotify need to adjust their new royalty terms to take this into account otherwise it is blatant theft.
Hmmm...sounds like distributors are becoming labels. "Higher priced distributors and exclusive distributore are more likely go to bat for you." "Selecting a distributor is also selecting a fraternity of artists that your music will automatically be associated with." Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce to you, the new gatekeepers. Why we ever messed with the old model is beyond me.
One MASSIVE issue is people botting just to be jerks. You can order 1,000 cheap plays from an SMM Panel for as little as 10cents. If you do that to an artist with 2 albums uploaded under 1k streams on all songs, you could spend $2 to incur a $200 fine for them, and get them banned. It also means indies falling prey to the playlist promo scam where they put you on for a day and bot you like wildfire hoping you reach out for more, will cause a $10 fine, and ban. This will not be sustainable. 1 angry commenter with $100 could practically destroy any artist who isn't famous. Just like that.
I had a bot playlist stalking me over 2 years and I kept banning them and they’d find me again. It was someone in the music industry attacking me. There was also one botted that was my mistake. And I also reported this. All of my other playlists were organic.
@@IndieMusicAcademy It's really unfortunate because I reported it repeatedly and even chatted directly with spotify numerous times. It was still reported to my distributor putting my whole profile at risk and getting a strike.
Yeah this is fucked up it happened to me some one put fake bot streams on my song I had to delete it but now I think my artists profiles compromised and it's on spotify bad list now as having bot streams
That the money doesn't reach the artist is bad reasoning. First of, it's per song, not artist, so who knows how much an artist gets. Second If you won't hit the 1000 streams the first month it will take a long time before you make up for the first month. If you get 500 (unpaid) streams first month, then it will take 100.000 streams before you make up the lost streams. (According to Spotify's own numbers). So how they can say it is to prevent money being stuck at distributor is beyond me
Mostly to the three major labels, two of which are Spotify shareholders. This allows Spotify to pay those shareholders most of the $43 million per year of additional royalties (which those labels didn't earn) stolen from the people who earned them, without having to report the money as revenue or pay corporate income taxes on it. At the same time, they are (purposefully, I have to imagine) alienating the small independent artists, whom the major labels find to be annoying competition and would like to be rid of.
Thank you so much for this video. It was very informative as are most of your videos! I have a question: Where is all of the music stored? On the Spotify servers or the distributors servers (cloud)? I'm just curious about what happens to the music should a distributor go out of business... Thanks. 😊
Thank you for your insightful presentation! After a lot of recent research you are the best!! Despite major financial constraints, I'm eager to venture into the mainstream with my music. I independently sold 4,000 copies of two solo piano albums during the CD era (60 and 70-minutes long) without ever touring, which gives me hope for success. Your suggestion to release individual songs rather than entire albums aligns with my current understanding. I've received encouraging feedback also with my Indie Folk songs (guitar, harmonica, vocals), including a favorable review from a TH-cam music reviewer and features on prominent platforms like a string distribution company and a major Bob Dylan website. Could this growing interest in my music alleviate the need for complex venue outreach? I’m afraid to submit to your website as I think it costs over $500 minimum, right?
IMHO it is important to analyse IF Spotify is really worth the efford for your kind of genre/music. If it is not your main point of streamings (for me it is only ~2%) - simply do not publish on Spotify, there are enough other Streaming Services that even pay better ;)
I think Spotify is worth it if you treat it like a social media platform. You can get a ton of awareness through the Spotify Algorithm just like getting on the FYP on TikTok or Discover Page on Instagram. The benefit with Spotify is that you also get paid a small royalty in addition to the brand awareness. So it's not totally the worst platform to use if you want to reach new ppl. Lmk your thoughts!
@@IndieMusicAcademy There is a world of music lovers outside of Spotify that we somehow need to reach. Older Millenials, Gen-Xers and beyond are out there and they still love music, they're at the shows and they have money to spend. TikTok just ain't gonna cut it for them and FB is a colossal flop for music promotion. The TH-camr, influencer or even distributor who cracks that market could win big.
@@IndieMusicAcademy The problem is that in general, virtually nothing ever gets discovered on Spotify unless a) people are already searching for you specifically or b) you promote it there yourself, and why would you pay $100 to get $0.20 worth of streams when you could get far more in sales by promoting your BandCamp instead?
This is a huge problem with Spotify. You can get picked by one of those bot playlist and Spotify automatically will flag and acuse you of fake streams. That happend to me. Even if you report those playlist and user, Spotify will not remove them from their platform. They will penalized and remove the artist. For that reason, I decided to remove all my music from Spotify.
Do I think it was wise for Spotify to implement this 1000-stream minimum? Well - while I understand their reason (the issue with micropayments getting stuck in the distributor’s account and never getting paid to the artist anyway) - and therefore agree that a quota system was needed -- I believe that the way they went about it is wrong. What they should instead to is (1) instead of making the quota be per-track, it should be per-artist and (2) instead of making the quota be per-year, it should be per-however-long-it-takes. If these differences would require them to set the quota at 10,000 streams rather than 1000 streams, then fine! An artist who has one track that gets 9000 streams is more of a micropayment risk than an artist who has 30 tracks that generate only 900 streams each.
ill keep putting my stuff on spotify as long as people listen to it there. i was never there for the money, if i were i wouldve left a long time ago. potentially not getting paid for half my music is a kick in the teeth though. and sure, a song or two with under 1k streams a year isnt a big deal, but ive got ~200 tracks around at this point, if i get 800 on half of those it ads up over a while. especially if i'm already over the payment threshold from songs that do get the required streams. it's not a great argument to just be like "well you werent gonna get that money anyway" but i guess thats life when we're nothing but statistics to these companies. also i'm a little confused at the waterfall release thing, youve been advocating for cdbaby a lot lately, but wouldnt waterfall releasing a 15 track album take the cost of that album to 150 dollars instead of 10? or am i missing something important there?
I borrowed the gallery artists system of having rotating sugar momma benefactors to keep me in the fashion I deserve to be kept, it’s the only way for the debonair raconteur to make money on Spotify But you gonna have to put out 🤷🏻♂️ Or the right wing sugar momma alternative is a sugar daddy or your actual mumsies basement
Totaly not agree with your number 7. Spotify is stealing the money from the poor and give it to the rich. I get all the pays from spotify even when it''s it really little and all these little payments sum up. I''ve got one advise for musicians just give up on Spotify and focus your energy on all the other platforms.
You're probably using the "boost post" feature which limits your options. Check out this video to see how to set up your ads with ALL the settings so you have more control: th-cam.com/video/7CfKd1TdQFc/w-d-xo.html
And a minimum of $100 for like 2-3 days of useless advertising on Spotify (resulting in maybe $2 worth of additional streaming revenue, IF the tracks even monetize, and adding listeners at a cost of maybe $0.80 per listener, few if any of whom end up being actual followers or long-term fans, or stream any of the artists' other releases).
@@IndieMusicAcademyTheir latest statement refers to “bots” which is the computer software that manipulates the stream count of a given song or playlist. “Repeating on a computer or on a portable device” is not mentioned in that statement from Spotify. Because not only is the 🔁 function a “button within the app” - you can also loop a song from your favorite artist and they get paid for every stream (there’s no numeric cut off value for the number of “repeats” any given song can receive within a 24hour period. These scenarios are blocked only if there’s a maximum number of “repeats” a song can receive in a day. Spotify and Apple Music are the only platforms that allow for this to work (I’ve completed 2 years of testing this out on all major music streaming platforms. I have extensive firsthand experience with everything that I’m claiming). All that matters is: If your account is a Premium subscription. Add a VPN on top of that and you’re good to go until they alter the value of “repeats” a song can get per day.
@@CraigScottFrost Sounds like a YOU problem that is also irrelevant to this thread. We’re here making passive income and sharing HOW we we’re doing that - all you’re doing is complaining on TH-cam 🤦♂️‼️
@@ModusVivendiMedia my girlfriend solved it: a percentage of what the listenere has payed for a specific month should simply be distributed to the music they played during that month.
I enjoy Distrokid/Spotify. Lots of back end analytics (thru both platforms) and also a consistent payout every month after 3-4 months of streaming. It’s been 2 years now for me
It all comes down to what pricing model you want to commit to. They are all very different in terms of fees and add-ons. You should check out this video and see if it helps with your decision: th-cam.com/video/V7FCEr0keUU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=iDfdU0a1i4WskNqN
I would only target smaller playlist. The bigger playlist i.e 10k plus might have bots in it. Just be safe and remember that Spotify allows 90% of bot streams for safety. So if you normally reach 100 streams a month you're allowed upto 90 bot streams just incase someone place you into a fake playlist.
The only way to know if a large (or small) playlist is bot free is to look at the historical data and see how the playlist is grown. At IMA we use Chartmetric to do this and we also have built relationships with the largest curators on Spotify and they've shown us their stats. That's why we can confidently place our clients in playlists and know they won't be getting bot streams. You can read more about it here (Google Doc): docs.google.com/document/d/19f7qxmCba4xHG3OGhgLVNKVZLcPH0Tg-HGQbcGSCrZo/edit?usp=sharing
Looking forward to a renaissance of brilliant underground music again. Streaming services have become like lame ass major labels from the past. Spotify? More like Popify.
LANDR is totally fine! Low-quality distributors would be "free" or very low-priced so that practically anyone can join and upload music of questionable quality. I would also consider a distributor with 100% automated customer support to be in the "low-quality" category because you wouldn't be able to get help if you ever had an emergency. LANDR doesn't fall into either of these categories.
@@IndieMusicAcademy Thanks for answering this. I had the exact same question. I have just started releasing music and I have been very happy with LANDR so far. I chose them because they have a decent path to legal cover licensing as well. I mostly do originals but I like having that option. Ps. thanks for the BMI video about how to properly submit. I just became a member and wanted to make sure I was doing correctly and that is when I found your video. Super helpful!
I like to join your spotify-growth-formula for free because I do not know if I get enough spotify listeners after joining the course. I assume you don't have a big issue with this because you think it's also ok that spotify don't pay for the first 1000 streams (which can add up if you have a big 20 year catalogue). So I thought the free thing is ok nowedays for you. I am looking forward for the inlog information
Really solid advice man! This video speaks to me a lot given that I'm about to release an EP. Not entirely sure how the -1k streams a month policy will effect me but taking it at face value it seems like it wont really effect anyone.
With the waterfall release strategy, could you include an additional song that wasn't pre-released? My thought with that is that it could get more people to go to the album since there would also be new music on it.
You didn't really mention Distrokid in terms of whether it will be more difficult due to its low price of entry. Sounds like you are implying that Distrokid will get hit hard by Spotify. Any more detail on DK?
Only time will tell, but I personally predict that Distrokid will run into issues since they have so many users and they are also the lowest cost of entry into the music distribution world. It's a simple math equation (but again this is only a prediction).
spotify owns part of DK and soo many DK members are being blamed for using bot playlist when their music was added without consent. alot of us are switching distributors bc of this nonsense.
There is no "artificial streaming detection technology" and the people at Spotify is not stupid enough to use it. Spotify depends on streams. If those are real or artificial doesn't really matter for Spotify. But if you removed all artificial streams, you would reduce the total number of streams to the point where it would affect the market share and the stock price.
There is currently an hour long training on this in the Pro Academy member's portal, but I'm working on a PDF version that will go on the website soon!
I had a question. Does this only apply to the 1st 1000 streams? Or this is a 1,000 threshold every 1000 streams? So I did 1.7k, year 2 ends I don't get the 700 for that year since I didn't pass 2k year 2?
The way that it's worded, you'll need to consistently get 1000 streams per track every year to get every royalty on that song. Prior years don't play a factor in the current 12-month period.
It's for every rolling 12 month period for each track. So if that track doesn't continue to keep getting over 1000 streams within the past trailing 12 months, it will be demonetized.
You say I should release one song at a time. But there are a few problems with this - and I wonder about the solution to these issues. For one thing - would this not require me to produce more artwork? Having to do separate artwork for each track invites all new kinds of burnout. Is there a way to avoid having to make separate artwork for each individual track if I employ this release strategy? Also - some distributors (such as CDBaby) charge per release. This can make releasing one song at a time quite expensive.
@@cblanchhiphop - Notwithstanding the issues that exist with using AI-generated artwork - there is still the issue of the mere _pricetag_ of releasing one song at a time. Given that many distributors charge per-release.
Ideally, when creating a waterfall release strategy, the artwork for all you releases should be homogenous. If you want to get creative and make something original for each track, while keeping them consistent in style then great - it can be an enjoyable creative project. But there's nothing wrong with creating an album artwork and using it for all your singles. So long as it's in keeping with your vision for the release and matches your artist identity.
I think it's a good idea, to weed out not the greatest songs and make the algorithm even greater(better). It also motivates to release more songs and only in singles. I release every friday from 2 years in a row already and better songs really perform better, so yeah everything makes sense. At least for me, with discovery mode activated you can easily get 1000 streams....
Thanks mate. Couple of questions. 1. What email messaging company do you use for communications? I've never had any luck with a lot of people opening my emails. 2. I'm interested in finding out more about content strategy and what they entail. Some are ovbious like cover songs.
What's amazing is that I had 2 questions before the chat started on your live video today. They were about the waterfall strategy with the new pricing on CDB and also include Tunecore & UnitedMasters aaaaand Boom, waterfall strategy video. 😁 Q2 was if you could do a video on pricing, options and strategies for "Labels" or Multi Artist accounts within all the distributors that offer it. Appreciate the work you do. TY.
Create your on website. Sell physical copies of your art. It sounds better and it’s better for the fans who support you. Boycott these ripoff artists streaming services.
What’s really sad is that I see alotta comments about ppl having trouble and tho some are talented alotta of y’all just don’t want to realize u don’t make good enough music! It’s hard because alotta artists feel they are up to pa with there music and the talent is simply just not there!
Just wondering which distribution to use for licensing? Been using Amuse for 3 years, and I have made 7usd....min 10 USD withdrawal. While paying 50. Euro a year for it
Artists with less than 1,000 plays would be making $0 a year anyway. I made very little money releasing music online for over a decade and make more money now through streaming royalties than I ever have before. There is a huge fraud problem on spotify and this would stop a chunk of it.
Sort of, but many artists have some tracks that get over 1000 streams, and some that don't. And artists may have many tracks released, not just one or two. If they have 100 tracks that get an average of 500 streams each (but none break 1000), then over a decade they'll be missing out on around $2150 in revenue. The characterization of it as being essentially zero is pretty dishonest, particularly when it adds up to $43 million per year now being funneled mostly to Spotify's major-label shareholders (and not having to be reported as taxable income by Spotify, by the way, since it goes out as an expense before profit is calculated).
@@ModusVivendiMedia That’s a good point. Hopefully the algorithm keeps getting major updates and everyone can break the monetization threshold someday.
This is simply not true. This change is going to cost me about $80 a year. That may be only $80, but it's $80 my stuff earned and Spotify taking that money and basically giving it to Drake and Taylor Swift whilst telling me "well you couldn't live off it so you can't need it it" is just offensive. As is them lumping in the back catalogue and obscure music with the fraudulent botted streams they've spent years doing nothing to address when it's been in plain sight the whole time.
Yep, and I'm sure they do. They also ignore the artist with fake streams who are signed to the Major Labels because Labels has financial stake in Spotify.
Boycott spotify now!
I started disliking Spotify since I uploaded my music on Spotify. They are not a good company, and the company is still claiming that they are removing fake streams. However, I know some people are still buying fake streams. I don’t like that company policy at all.
I believe in the phrase, "build a better mouse trap, build a better mouse". Cheaters will always find a way to cheat the system, so in the end this just seems another way to justify not paying the little guy their $0.00003 a year.
It's a constant battle of change. We will respond to Spotify and then they will make more changes...
Step 0: Don't worry at all about getting 1000 streams because it's not worth the effort to make $3 or whatever. I mean, your ideas themselves are all fine. But framing it in terms of "OMG YOU HAVE TO GET 1000 STREAMS" is missing the real point of the steps you recommend, which shouldn't be wasting time and money on your dogs, but to push your best tracks even higher.
Make good music???? 🤔
Funny how this is always taken for granted.... yet it's the most important thing 💪
Lots of very good music doesn't get streamed that much, especially deep cut tracks on an album.
It's not a good thing to withhold royalties, wish you music influencers would stop trying to reframe this as "a good thing" it's just not. If people listen to your music you should be paid for it. End of!
I'm giving up on Spotify entirely. It's been such a waste of time for me vs other revenue streams. Downloading the data on a 28 day schedule (and/or cleaning the data when inevitable gaps/overlaps occur), worrying about which month makes 1k streams on each song so that they can all be pushed for the following year, dealing with bot playlist attacks. All that time spent taking out the garbage gets in the way of doing things that actually generate revenue. I'm pulling out from Spotify.
is there an alternative? i don’t like spotify
@@tinycha0s depends on what you're using Spotify for. I sell physical and downloads at shows and bandcamp. Cassettes, after manufacture, make between $10-$!5 for me. Someone else can do the math and say how many streams that would be worth.
In terms of "discoverability" TH-cam, Bandcamp, Insta/TT have as many/more users and while they don't have great business models at least they aren't so actively degrading as doing all the chores for Spotify.
@@tinycha0sof course, there are many others streaming platforms that you can redirect your fanbase. Apple Music, Amazon Music, TH-cam music, Dezzer, your own website. You just need to let your fanbase know you are abandoning Spotify.
Spotify and other streaming services are useless and not worth having anything to do with.
Definitely very concerned because artists can end up on fraudulent playlists without their knowledge/consent and they’ll get punished for it. A couple times my songs have randomly been on some sus playlists, even for a day
I’m going through that right now and I’m very scared cause this song was doing well before it was added to a bot playlist and now I’m not sure what to do
this happened to me recently and distrokid is of course no help. they just blame the artist. spotify owns part of DK tho so theres that
Yay. I go from earning less than $2 a year from Spotify to absolutely nothing.
Sad Sad Sad.
It's such a lie that the money was getting stuck at the aggregators and not being paid. It's just gaslighting bullshit from Spotify.
First, Spotify pays distributors and aggregators for the aggregate of all plays of all tracks from all albums from all artists submitted through that distributor, not just separately for each single track by an individual artist.
Second, distributors pay artists/labels for the aggregate of all streams and downloads from all the artist's tracks on all DSPs, not just from Spotify.
Third, labels get payouts from the aggregate of all the artists they represent.
Fourth, even if after all that aggregation, there is some amount that temporarily does not meet the payout threshold, the aggregator holds the money briefly until more accumulates and it does meet the threshold, then they pay the money out to the label or artist.
In other words, the money falling under the aggregators' payout thresholds was just a rounding error, which was only held up temporarily, and then paid out. Spotify's characterization of the situation is so far from the truth that it's difficult to imagine them making that argument with a straight face (and even harder to imagine anyone else repeating it as a valid justification).
I also love how they characterize stealing money from independent artists to give to major-label artists as "helping independent artists". Just more bullshit gaslighting. I almost suspect one of their goals is to drive small independent artists away from Spotify entirely by alienating them (which their major-label shareholders would love, as a way to reduce the competition).
In the end, this IS about greed, by the shareholders of the major labels. Realize that the large majority of the royalties they will be stealing from smaller independent artists and labels is going to be paid instead to artists (who didn't earn those royalties) on the three major labels, and that most of the money sent to the major labels probably goes to the label (and hence their shareholders), not the artists. And don't forget that UMG and Sony, two of the three major labels, are significant minority shareholders of Spotify. So what Spotify is doing is paying more money (I forget, around $46 million per year?) directly to their shareholders, without having to report it as revenue (which might lead to a net profit), and hence without having to pay corporate income taxes on it. And they decided to steal it from the artists who presumably don't have large companies (and legal departments) behind them who would otherwise sue the shit out of Spotify for stealing their earned royalties on their copyrighted works, royalties which, combined with multiple other small income streams, artists hope to cobble together into a livable income (but will be much harder now that Spotify is stealing a significant chunk of it).
No matter what Spotify claims, this is nothing more than an asshole move to steal the money of hard-working aspiring musicians and give it to rich shareholders. And they don't care if it pisses off the small artists, because Spotify's shareholders would love to get rid of them anyway.
Even though I know the United States will do nothing, I hope the more enlightened and strict on copyright EU decides that Spotify cannot do that and enjoins them to reinstate the previous payment plan, or stop operating in EU countries.
Since not paying the artists also means not paying that share to the distributors and aggregators, I hope the aggregators who specialize in small artists decide to stop distributing to Spotify. I would be happy to participate in an effective boycott of Spotify, but I know that alone, any single small artist or label, or even a fairly large number of them, won't bother Spotify in the slightest, so it would take a large boycott, like CD Baby, TuneCore, and DistroKid all pulling their catalogs from Spotify, to have any effect.
its a 1000 per year, right..? so you can fall off the paid list.. I say we boycot Spotify/.... Plus, you think i should pay advertising dollars to get the perthetic payment.. Spotify SUCKS.. badley
Major artists use bots to get into the algorithm. They are just knocking unsigned artists off the platform. It's all about money. The problem is not just bots but they are only budgeting X amouint for artists. Spotify is going out of business.
I hope your prediction comes true. But then again, who will fill the void? Hopefully not something worse!
simple actually if they go out of business that places like tidal apple music will take over and if they all fail things will go back to cd here is why is possible last few years young teens been buying up vynal records which is older than cds and people still buy them as super fans to contribute to merch. It was much better selling cds cause all you had to do is invest in burn cds than copy songs to it than give 25 PERCENT to all mom , / pop stores AND 50 per cent to major stores now they market and sell your music for you cause I know most artist mainstream wasn't giving away 50 percent of proceeds plus this forces labels to start artist development again
Good overall video, but I can assure that the "study that Spotify made that showed money from
Spotify is a scam I wont even promote my songs on that platform they outright suck
So 5 months on, can any independent artist with 100k+ streams actually validate Spotify's claims that these royalties robbed from smaller artists are going to bigger artists?? Have your royalties increased? Or was it indeed a massive lie from Spotify?
I think it sucks for small artists with big catalogs. I have like 75 tracks on Spotify, and even if some of my tacks are doing way over 1000 streams a year, most of them are like maybe one stream a day. I think this is a problem spotify generated on purpose when they decided not to let smaller lables distribute on their platform themselves, just to keep distributors in the chain, as a pointless middleman, eating up the profits from most indie musicians. Always they are crying about not making enough money, however they are clearly splurging with money, who in a sense belong to musicians. I think this will get old real quick, and people will wake up to the reality of buying music directly from the musicians themself in the near future.
While I like the idea of people buying music directly from musicians themselves in the future - how can this be practical for very-small musicians?
Making CDs, for example, is very cheap if done in bulk - but really, really expensive to make one at a time. How does that work for an artist who is too small in audience to get 1000 streams per track? Well - that means that just to break even, you would have to either (a) know that you are going to sell a significant number of CDs (an amount that is huge for an artist who can not get 1000 streams per track) or (b) somehow manage to sell a few CDs for a price that far more realistically would drive your sales all the way down to zero.
What about artists that have lots of tracks that taken as separate entities may not be over the existing distributor payment threshold but collectively add up to being over the existing distributor payout thresholds? Now that Spotify require 1000 streams per year before royalties are paid there goes all or most of my Spotify royalties and I have been paid Spotify royalties every month since 2005. The other issue is say your track takes 11 months getting to 1000 streams and you just get over the 1000 stream threshold I don't think you get paid on the 1000 streams just the ones that are over 1000 streams and then guess what the year ends and the 1000 stream count eligibility resets. Have I got this right? If so, Spotify need to adjust their new royalty terms to take this into account otherwise it is blatant theft.
Hmmm...sounds like distributors are becoming labels. "Higher priced distributors and exclusive distributore are more likely go to bat for you." "Selecting a distributor is also selecting a fraternity of artists that your music will automatically be associated with." Ladies and gentlemen allow me to introduce to you, the new gatekeepers.
Why we ever messed with the old model is beyond me.
One MASSIVE issue is people botting just to be jerks. You can order 1,000 cheap plays from an SMM Panel for as little as 10cents. If you do that to an artist with 2 albums uploaded under 1k streams on all songs, you could spend $2 to incur a $200 fine for them, and get them banned. It also means indies falling prey to the playlist promo scam where they put you on for a day and bot you like wildfire hoping you reach out for more, will cause a $10 fine, and ban. This will not be sustainable. 1 angry commenter with $100 could practically destroy any artist who isn't famous. Just like that.
I had a bot playlist stalking me over 2 years and I kept banning them and they’d find me again. It was someone in the music industry attacking me. There was also one botted that was my mistake. And I also reported this. All of my other playlists were organic.
I think this is soon going to be considered a "cyber attack" ...Spotify edition.
@@IndieMusicAcademy It's really unfortunate because I reported it repeatedly and even chatted directly with spotify numerous times. It was still reported to my distributor putting my whole profile at risk and getting a strike.
@@MiraSthiraI have had that too someone put bot streams on one of my songs I had to delete it
Yeah this is fucked up it happened to me some one put fake bot streams on my song I had to delete it but now I think my artists profiles compromised and it's on spotify bad list now as having bot streams
That the money doesn't reach the artist is bad reasoning. First of, it's per song, not artist, so who knows how much an artist gets. Second If you won't hit the 1000 streams the first month it will take a long time before you make up for the first month. If you get 500 (unpaid) streams first month, then it will take 100.000 streams before you make up the lost streams. (According to Spotify's own numbers). So how they can say it is to prevent money being stuck at distributor is beyond me
So ... Where is all the money that the sub-1000 songs generate ... going?
Mostly to the three major labels, two of which are Spotify shareholders. This allows Spotify to pay those shareholders most of the $43 million per year of additional royalties (which those labels didn't earn) stolen from the people who earned them, without having to report the money as revenue or pay corporate income taxes on it. At the same time, they are (purposefully, I have to imagine) alienating the small independent artists, whom the major labels find to be annoying competition and would like to be rid of.
Thank you so much for this video. It was very informative as are most of your videos!
I have a question: Where is all of the music stored? On the Spotify servers or the distributors servers (cloud)?
I'm just curious about what happens to the music should a distributor go out of business...
Thanks. 😊
Sell CDs you’ll make more money than streaming
🔁 your own music is way easier and more affordable than duplicating, packaging, and selling CDs 😂
So sad im not gonna receive my $2.23 from streaming
One less grande black coffee at Starbucks
Thank you for your insightful presentation! After a lot of recent research you are the best!! Despite major financial constraints, I'm eager to venture into the mainstream with my music. I independently sold 4,000 copies of two solo piano albums during the CD era (60 and 70-minutes long) without ever touring, which gives me hope for success. Your suggestion to release individual songs rather than entire albums aligns with my current understanding.
I've received encouraging feedback also with my Indie Folk songs (guitar, harmonica, vocals), including a favorable review from a TH-cam music reviewer and features on prominent platforms like a string distribution company and a major Bob Dylan website. Could this growing interest in my music alleviate the need for complex venue outreach? I’m afraid to submit to your website as I think it costs over $500 minimum, right?
IMHO it is important to analyse IF Spotify is really worth the efford for your kind of genre/music.
If it is not your main point of streamings (for me it is only ~2%) - simply do not publish on Spotify, there are enough other Streaming Services that even pay better ;)
I think Spotify is worth it if you treat it like a social media platform. You can get a ton of awareness through the Spotify Algorithm just like getting on the FYP on TikTok or Discover Page on Instagram. The benefit with Spotify is that you also get paid a small royalty in addition to the brand awareness. So it's not totally the worst platform to use if you want to reach new ppl. Lmk your thoughts!
@@IndieMusicAcademy There is a world of music lovers outside of Spotify that we somehow need to reach. Older Millenials, Gen-Xers and beyond are out there and they still love music, they're at the shows and they have money to spend. TikTok just ain't gonna cut it for them and FB is a colossal flop for music promotion.
The TH-camr, influencer or even distributor who cracks that market could win big.
@@IndieMusicAcademy The problem is that in general, virtually nothing ever gets discovered on Spotify unless a) people are already searching for you specifically or b) you promote it there yourself, and why would you pay $100 to get $0.20 worth of streams when you could get far more in sales by promoting your BandCamp instead?
This is a huge problem with Spotify. You can get picked by one of those bot playlist and Spotify automatically will flag and acuse you of fake streams. That happend to me. Even if you report those playlist and user, Spotify will not remove them from their platform. They will penalized and remove the artist. For that reason, I decided to remove all my music from Spotify.
Do I think it was wise for Spotify to implement this 1000-stream minimum? Well - while I understand their reason (the issue with micropayments getting stuck in the distributor’s account and never getting paid to the artist anyway) - and therefore agree that a quota system was needed -- I believe that the way they went about it is wrong.
What they should instead to is (1) instead of making the quota be per-track, it should be per-artist and (2) instead of making the quota be per-year, it should be per-however-long-it-takes. If these differences would require them to set the quota at 10,000 streams rather than 1000 streams, then fine!
An artist who has one track that gets 9000 streams is more of a micropayment risk than an artist who has 30 tracks that generate only 900 streams each.
ill keep putting my stuff on spotify as long as people listen to it there. i was never there for the money, if i were i wouldve left a long time ago. potentially not getting paid for half my music is a kick in the teeth though. and sure, a song or two with under 1k streams a year isnt a big deal, but ive got ~200 tracks around at this point, if i get 800 on half of those it ads up over a while. especially if i'm already over the payment threshold from songs that do get the required streams. it's not a great argument to just be like "well you werent gonna get that money anyway" but i guess thats life when we're nothing but statistics to these companies.
also i'm a little confused at the waterfall release thing, youve been advocating for cdbaby a lot lately, but wouldnt waterfall releasing a 15 track album take the cost of that album to 150 dollars instead of 10? or am i missing something important there?
I borrowed the gallery artists system of having rotating sugar momma benefactors to keep me in the fashion I deserve to be kept, it’s the only way for the debonair raconteur to make money on Spotify
But you gonna have to put out 🤷🏻♂️
Or the right wing sugar momma alternative is a sugar daddy or your actual mumsies basement
F*ck this crazyness!!!
Totaly not agree with your number 7. Spotify is stealing the money from the poor and give it to the rich. I get all the pays from spotify even when it''s it really little and all these little payments sum up. I''ve got one advise for musicians just give up on Spotify and focus your energy on all the other platforms.
What are you talking about "It only costs a dollar a day for paid advertising?" It costs 50 bucks for 1 week of advertising on Facebook.
You're probably using the "boost post" feature which limits your options. Check out this video to see how to set up your ads with ALL the settings so you have more control: th-cam.com/video/7CfKd1TdQFc/w-d-xo.html
@@IndieMusicAcademy Thank you very much. I'll check it out.
And a minimum of $100 for like 2-3 days of useless advertising on Spotify (resulting in maybe $2 worth of additional streaming revenue, IF the tracks even monetize, and adding listeners at a cost of maybe $0.80 per listener, few if any of whom end up being actual followers or long-term fans, or stream any of the artists' other releases).
damnnn
Rough.
I’m afraid will Spotify remove my songs for real plays i mean how can they tell where those streams come from 😢
I want to know about these 6 different types of short contents
I am releasing a new album using the waterfall strategy. We would like to talk with you about a campaign. Do you do consulting?
Bro, you're appreciated! Thanks for this information. It needs a bit of getting used to though.
I leave my songs on repeat in the computer. Is that fake streaming? Thanks.
I’ve been doing it for years so … 😂
Recently there have been notices sent to distributors that Spotify will also be cracking down on this, so it is a practice to be avoided.
@@IndieMusicAcademyTheir latest statement refers to “bots” which is the computer software that manipulates the stream count of a given song or playlist. “Repeating on a computer or on a portable device” is not mentioned in that statement from Spotify. Because not only is the 🔁 function a “button within the app” - you can also loop a song from your favorite artist and they get paid for every stream (there’s no numeric cut off value for the number of “repeats” any given song can receive within a 24hour period.
These scenarios are blocked only if there’s a maximum number of “repeats” a song can receive in a day. Spotify and Apple Music are the only platforms that allow for this to work (I’ve completed 2 years of testing this out on all major music streaming platforms. I have extensive firsthand experience with everything that I’m claiming).
All that matters is: If your account is a Premium subscription. Add a VPN on top of that and you’re good to go until they alter the value of “repeats” a song can get per day.
@@CraigScottFrost Sounds like a YOU problem that is also irrelevant to this thread. We’re here making passive income and sharing HOW we we’re doing that - all you’re doing is complaining on TH-cam 🤦♂️‼️
Or we could just all boycot spotify and all start using more TIDAL 👌😏
Why boycott Spotify when you can 🔁 your own music to make money?😅
the problem is the price model for the listener: Spotify should start charge listener per stream and pay lineary.
Amen!
They should also pay per second of music played, not per "play", which would solve many of these problems and a lot more.
@@ModusVivendiMedia my girlfriend solved it: a percentage of what the listenere has payed for a specific month should simply be distributed to the music they played during that month.
@@matswessling6600 Yes, I think SoundCloud and maybe one or two others have shifted to that kind of model.
You're the best 😢
I want to use CD baby for distribution. I plan on focusing a lot of my marketing on Spotify. Should I consider another distributor?
I enjoy Distrokid/Spotify. Lots of back end analytics (thru both platforms) and also a consistent payout every month after 3-4 months of streaming. It’s been 2 years now for me
It all comes down to what pricing model you want to commit to. They are all very different in terms of fees and add-ons. You should check out this video and see if it helps with your decision: th-cam.com/video/V7FCEr0keUU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=iDfdU0a1i4WskNqN
Cd baby has a lot of scams behind them
what are your thoughts about daily playlists ? are they bot free ???.and for distributor I'm using ditto music . are they in good terms with spotify ?
I would only target smaller playlist. The bigger playlist i.e 10k plus might have bots in it. Just be safe and remember that Spotify allows 90% of bot streams for safety. So if you normally reach 100 streams a month you're allowed upto 90 bot streams just incase someone place you into a fake playlist.
The only way to know if a large (or small) playlist is bot free is to look at the historical data and see how the playlist is grown. At IMA we use Chartmetric to do this and we also have built relationships with the largest curators on Spotify and they've shown us their stats. That's why we can confidently place our clients in playlists and know they won't be getting bot streams. You can read more about it here (Google Doc): docs.google.com/document/d/19f7qxmCba4xHG3OGhgLVNKVZLcPH0Tg-HGQbcGSCrZo/edit?usp=sharing
Looking forward to a renaissance of brilliant underground music again. Streaming services have become like lame ass major labels from the past. Spotify? More like Popify.
Is LANDR considered a low caliber distributor?
LANDR is totally fine! Low-quality distributors would be "free" or very low-priced so that practically anyone can join and upload music of questionable quality. I would also consider a distributor with 100% automated customer support to be in the "low-quality" category because you wouldn't be able to get help if you ever had an emergency. LANDR doesn't fall into either of these categories.
@@IndieMusicAcademy Thanks for answering this. I had the exact same question. I have just started releasing music and I have been very happy with LANDR so far. I chose them because they have a decent path to legal cover licensing as well. I mostly do originals but I like having that option. Ps. thanks for the BMI video about how to properly submit. I just became a member and wanted to make sure I was doing correctly and that is when I found your video. Super helpful!
I like to join your spotify-growth-formula for free because I do not know if I get enough spotify listeners after joining the course. I assume you don't have a big issue with this because you think it's also ok that spotify don't pay for the first 1000 streams (which can add up if you have a big 20 year catalogue). So I thought the free thing is ok nowedays for you. I am looking forward for the inlog information
Really solid advice man! This video speaks to me a lot given that I'm about to release an EP. Not entirely sure how the -1k streams a month policy will effect me but taking it at face value it seems like it wont really effect anyone.
With the waterfall release strategy, could you include an additional song that wasn't pre-released? My thought with that is that it could get more people to go to the album since there would also be new music on it.
You didn't really mention Distrokid in terms of whether it will be more difficult due to its low price of entry. Sounds like you are implying that Distrokid will get hit hard by Spotify. Any more detail on DK?
I just watched your DK vs CD video, that explains a lot.
Only time will tell, but I personally predict that Distrokid will run into issues since they have so many users and they are also the lowest cost of entry into the music distribution world. It's a simple math equation (but again this is only a prediction).
spotify owns part of DK and soo many DK members are being blamed for using bot playlist when their music was added without consent. alot of us are switching distributors bc of this nonsense.
Most likely I'll use your services for playlist first then use more as I grow
Thank you for the video! It's very interesting about different categories forshort content form strategy. Would like to hear more about that.
Brthr please make a complete video of upload a music in all streaming platform step wise step and also how to get royaltie
Hey Ryan
Can you do an update video for AWAL
I first thought I heard: a BUTT free guarantee 😁
Super helpful. Thanks. Definitely need more info on the types of content to post.
There is no "artificial streaming detection technology" and the people at Spotify is not stupid enough to use it. Spotify depends on streams. If those are real or artificial doesn't really matter for Spotify. But if you removed all artificial streams, you would reduce the total number of streams to the point where it would affect the market share and the stock price.
Cap
What do the content categories look like? Do you have an outline or explanation of what they are?
There is currently an hour long training on this in the Pro Academy member's portal, but I'm working on a PDF version that will go on the website soon!
I had a question. Does this only apply to the 1st 1000 streams? Or this is a 1,000 threshold every 1000 streams? So I did 1.7k, year 2 ends I don't get the 700 for that year since I didn't pass 2k year 2?
The way that it's worded, you'll need to consistently get 1000 streams per track every year to get every royalty on that song. Prior years don't play a factor in the current 12-month period.
It's for every rolling 12 month period for each track. So if that track doesn't continue to keep getting over 1000 streams within the past trailing 12 months, it will be demonetized.
You say I should release one song at a time. But there are a few problems with this - and I wonder about the solution to these issues.
For one thing - would this not require me to produce more artwork? Having to do separate artwork for each track invites all new kinds of burnout. Is there a way to avoid having to make separate artwork for each individual track if I employ this release strategy?
Also - some distributors (such as CDBaby) charge per release. This can make releasing one song at a time quite expensive.
Using AI tools for artwork can really streamline the process
Also; distributors like Distrokid are pay per year so you can upload an unlimited amount of songs
@@cblanchhiphop - Notwithstanding the issues that exist with using AI-generated artwork - there is still the issue of the mere _pricetag_ of releasing one song at a time. Given that many distributors charge per-release.
Ideally, when creating a waterfall release strategy, the artwork for all you releases should be homogenous. If you want to get creative and make something original for each track, while keeping them consistent in style then great - it can be an enjoyable creative project. But there's nothing wrong with creating an album artwork and using it for all your singles. So long as it's in keeping with your vision for the release and matches your artist identity.
I think it's a good idea, to weed out not the greatest songs and make the algorithm even greater(better). It also motivates to release more songs and only in singles. I release every friday from 2 years in a row already and better songs really perform better, so yeah everything makes sense. At least for me, with discovery mode activated you can easily get 1000 streams....
Great outlook! I love the positivity and I think that 1000 streams is definitely an achievable goal for artists with good music!
Spotty is a ripoff and rigged
Thanks mate. Couple of questions.
1. What email messaging company do you use for communications? I've never had any luck with a lot of people opening my emails.
2. I'm interested in finding out more about content strategy and what they entail. Some are ovbious like cover songs.
What's amazing is that I had 2 questions before the chat started on your live video today. They were about the waterfall strategy with the new pricing on CDB and also include Tunecore & UnitedMasters aaaaand Boom, waterfall strategy video. 😁
Q2 was if you could do a video on pricing, options and strategies for "Labels" or Multi Artist accounts within all the distributors that offer it.
Appreciate the work you do. TY.
Oh wow! SO glad to hear that DJ. Yeah I'll work on some more distribution videos soon!
Create your on website. Sell physical copies of your art. It sounds better and it’s better for the fans who support you. Boycott these ripoff artists streaming services.
What’s really sad is that I see alotta comments about ppl having trouble and tho some are talented alotta of y’all just don’t want to realize u don’t make good enough music! It’s hard because alotta artists feel they are up to pa with there music and the talent is simply just not there!
Just wondering which distribution to use for licensing? Been using Amuse for 3 years, and I have made 7usd....min 10 USD withdrawal. While paying 50. Euro a year for it
If you haven't signed an exclusive agreement and you own the rights to your song, you should be able to use multiple channels for licensing.
Artists with less than 1,000 plays would be making $0 a year anyway. I made very little money releasing music online for over a decade and make more money now through streaming royalties than I ever have before. There is a huge fraud problem on spotify and this would stop a chunk of it.
You're right! Streaming is still better than illegal song downloading!
Sort of, but many artists have some tracks that get over 1000 streams, and some that don't. And artists may have many tracks released, not just one or two. If they have 100 tracks that get an average of 500 streams each (but none break 1000), then over a decade they'll be missing out on around $2150 in revenue. The characterization of it as being essentially zero is pretty dishonest, particularly when it adds up to $43 million per year now being funneled mostly to Spotify's major-label shareholders (and not having to be reported as taxable income by Spotify, by the way, since it goes out as an expense before profit is calculated).
@@ModusVivendiMedia That’s a good point. Hopefully the algorithm keeps getting major updates and everyone can break the monetization threshold someday.
This is simply not true. This change is going to cost me about $80 a year. That may be only $80, but it's $80 my stuff earned and Spotify taking that money and basically giving it to Drake and Taylor Swift whilst telling me "well you couldn't live off it so you can't need it it" is just offensive.
As is them lumping in the back catalogue and obscure music with the fraudulent botted streams they've spent years doing nothing to address when it's been in plain sight the whole time.
most small artist would not make $80 a year releasing online music without spotify@@chopsmcp
Why can't they just delete the BOT playlist and the accounts that curated them
Couldn't Spotify just claim that any song it all has bought BOT views? Whether they do or not just so they don't have to pay the artist?
Yep, and I'm sure they do. They also ignore the artist with fake streams who are signed to the Major Labels because Labels has financial stake in Spotify.