Loading…

How did Spotify win the music wars and still can't make a dollar?

senior_slacker
Public 26 conversations 44 thoughts 424 upvotes 57 downvotes 0 series 1,006 views

Spotify is genuinely great. The app is excellent, the discovery is top-notch engineering, and it pulled a music industry that had been thoroughly looted by piracy back into being a business that pays. I open it forty times a day. None of that is the joke. The joke is that the most dominant music product ever built still cannot reliably make a dollar, and everyone there has decided to solve that by becoming something other than a music company.

In groups

Discussion content

Spotify is genuinely great. The app is excellent, the discovery is top-notch engineering, and it pulled a music industry that had been thoroughly looted by piracy back into being a business that pays. I open it forty times a day. None of that is the joke. The joke is that the most dominant music product ever built still cannot reliably make a dollar, and everyone there has decided to solve that by becoming something other than a music company.

Start with what they actually sell. Almost none of it is theirs. Spotify owns the app and the algorithm and roughly zero of the songs, which it rents from three major labels who take the lion's share and smile while doing it. So the headline business is a thin-margin reseller standing between you and somebody else's catalog, collecting a tip. Then it pays the artist. Per stream, the take comes out around a third of a cent, which means a song needs a few hundred plays to buy the musician one cup of coffee, and roughly a quarter million to clear rent. The artist tweets the screenshot every December. The label does not tweet anything...

Then the escape attempts, which are the funniest part. Faced with grim arithmetic, Spotify decided podcasts would save it and proceeded to set a hundred million dollars on fire for Joe Rogan, splurge on Originals nobody finished, overpay a buffet of celebrities to record fourteen episodes, and then quietly lay off the entire division it had publicly bet the future on. After that came the audiobook pivot, and somewhere in there the company stopped calling itself a music service and started saying "audio company," which is what you say when "music" stopped paying.

Meanwhile the actual work happens. A senior engineer spends an entire quarter A/B testing the shuffle button, then a quarter on where to bolt the "Made For You" shelf, while an editorial playlist team quietly decides which musicians get to eat this year. They invented squads and tribes, the org model every company on earth photocopied off a Spotify slide deck, and then Spotify itself reportedly walked it back, leaving a thousand imitators stuck in a system the inventor abandoned.

null
I saw this diagram one day, then 4 months later my girlfriend show me the same because they were also doing it ad their company.

And once a year they get the whole world to advertise for them for free. Spotify Wrapped is the rare marketing campaign where the customers produce the content, post it themselves, and tag the brand, all to discover that their top artist made a third of a cent off them. That is the trick of the place. It won the entire format, taught the planet how to listen, and built one beloved machine. It just never figured out how to keep more than a sliver of the money, so it pays the artist in pennies and asks the listener to do the marketing.

Thoughts

  • burnrate_betty

    The pivots all rhyme if you squint. Podcasts, Originals, audiobooks. Every one was a bid to own the thing instead of renting it, so the margin would finally be theirs. Rogan was a hundred million dollars to not pay a label. It didn't work because owning content is a different business than moving it around, and they were good at exactly one of those. A reseller trying to become a studio is just a reseller with a bigger burn rate.

    Permalink
  • free_cash_flow

    Gentle pushback on the premise: 2024 was Spotify's first full profitable year, and how they got there is the whole story. They raised prices twice, killed most of the Originals bet, and cut headcount hard. So can't make a dollar was true for about fifteen years and then stopped being true the moment they stopped trying to be an audio company and started behaving like a utility. The margin was always sitting there under the pivots. The footnote is that the profit came from charging you more, not from paying anyone else more.

    Permalink
  • eli5_money

    Okay dumb question, but if the artist gets a third of a cent and Spotify is only just barely breaking even, where does the rest of my ten bucks a month actually go? Is it all just the three labels skimming it on the way through? Trying to work out who the money in this story is even for.

    Permalink
  • Victoria1

    Spotify genera muchísimo volumen de reproducciones, pero eso no significa que los creadores obtengan grandes ganancias. En música, los pagos por reproducción suelen ser muy bajos y se reparten entre artistas, discográficas, editoriales y otros intermediarios. En podcasts, aunque Spotify ha invertido mucho dinero en el sector, la monetización depende de la publicidad, los patrocinios y los acuerdos exclusivos, que benefician principalmente a los programas más grandes. Por eso, para la mayoría de músicos y podcasters, Spotify funciona más como una herramienta de difusión y visibilidad que como una fuente importante de ingresos.

    Permalink
  • touched_grass_once

    It won the entire format, taught the planet how to listen, and kept a sliver of the money. Cleared the table, flipped it, and pocketed the loose change off the floor.

    Permalink
  • posting_through_it

    a quarter million plays to clear rent and we call this the industry getting saved 💀 i open the app forty times a day too, no notes, im part of the problem

    Permalink
  • spicy_takes_only

    Spent a hundred million dollars on Joe Rogan and then laid off the entire division they bet the future on. That is not a pivot, that is a company speedrunning the five stages of grief in a press release.

    Permalink
  • main_character_no

    The bit about seeing the squads diagram and then four months later your girlfriend's company doing the same thing is so accurate it hurt. We adopted it at my last job off a deck someone screenshotted from a Spotify engineering blog, full tribes and chapters and guilds, the whole vocabulary. Nobody had read past the diagram. Two years later I read that Spotify themselves had basically dropped it. We were cosplaying an org chart the originators had already returned to the store.

    Permalink
  • local_menace

    Spotify invented the org model every company on earth copied and then quietly abandoned it. Single most influential thing they shipped and it wasn't a feature, it was a slide.

    Permalink
  • praxis_makes_perfect

    The post almost gets there and then flinches. A third of a cent per stream and a quarter million plays to clear rent is not a quirk of thin margins, it is the design working as intended. The value the musician creates gets split between a reseller and a rights-holder, and the person who made the song is the residual claimant by construction. Wrapped is the tell you flagged but underrated: the listener does the marketing for free and the artist supplies the product for pennies, so the only two parties doing labor are the two parties not collecting. Who benefits is not a mystery. It is the three names on the licensing contract.

    Permalink

Related discussions

  • Can you wear a Cartier Tank with dignity, or does it end up wearing you?

    The Cartier Tank is what happens when a watch looks so elegant that everyone wearing it immediately starts acting like they summer in places with inherited sailboats. Tank owners have this incredible ability to project generational wealth while answering Slack messages at midnight. You’ll meet a thirty-four-year-old creative director renting a one-bedroom apartment and somehow the watch makes you think his family probably owned railroads at some point. They don't.

  • Are the managers who bet AI would replace engineers being replaced the fastest?

    Last year my LinkedIn feed had a genre. A program manager or a "delivery lead" or someone with Agile in their headline would post a screenshot of an AI writing a function, add a line like "and they said this job was safe, just learn how to code" and collect four hundred likes from people who do the same job. The implication was always that the typing part of engineering was the engineering, and now that a model can type, the typing class was finished.

  • Do Amazon employees wear being used up as an achievement?

    Amazon is the most effective machine in tech and its employees have somehow decided that being the fuel is the same as being the engine. The leadership principles get quoted like scripture in a building that is on fire, and the eighteen-month median tenure gets worn like a deployment patch.

  • Does Google pay talented people a fortune to stop using their talent?

    Google hires the best engineers on earth, pays them a fortune, surrounds them with free food every thirty feet, and the result is a man who has not shipped code in three years but writes a design doc that could make you weep. It's better to pay them to be at Google rather than risk all these people creating a competitor...

  • Why does the Apple employee take a vow of silence over a phone?

    Apple makes the best phone on earth. I want that on the record before I start, because everything else I am about to say will be denied by people who legally cannot confirm what color their building is. The hardware is genuinely the best in the industry, the polish is really good, and the way the watch, the laptop, the phone, and the earbuds interact with each other is a thing no other company has ever managed to pull off twice. None of that is a controversy, I'm an Apple fanboy myself after…

  • Did you even have the patience to watch the moon landing on YouTube?

    Omega Speedmaster owners are physically incapable of allowing a conversation to exist without eventually bringing up NASA. You can ask a Speedmaster guy what time it is and he’ll answer like a substitute teacher halfway through a Discovery Channel documentary. “Well, actually, this was the first watch worn on the moon…”. There it is. Right on schedule. Just give me the time man. The Speedmaster is fascinating because it’s the only luxury watch whose owners genuinely believe they’re preserving…

  • Does wearing a Patek Philippe make you a protagonist, or just its caretaker?

    Patek Philippe is what happens when a watch brand decides time itself is a family heirloom. Most watch companies sell you a product. Patek sells you the idea that you are temporarily entrusted with a moral artifact that will outlive your personality, your opinions, and possibly your entire bloodline’s ability to dress correctly. The famous slogan—“You never actually own a Patek Philippe, you merely look after it for the next generation”—is doing an absurd amount of psychological heavy lifting.…

  • Is the bracelet the real watch, and your strap drawer a cry for help?

    A watch is not finished until its bracelet is on it. I need you to sit with that before you reach for the spring bar tool again. The case and the dial get the worship, the forum threads, the macro photography, and meanwhile the one component that touches your skin for sixteen hours a day gets treated like a placeholder you swap out before the watch even ships. Taking the bracelet off a watch that was designed around it is buying a sports car and bolting on wheelbarrow tires. It is hanging a…