|
Post by Disappointed on Aug 1, 2024 0:53:24 GMT -5
The point I am making is... You aren't making any points, you're just throwing around a bunch of BS. You have no evidence that you can "generally" triple the Spotify revenue based on streams on other sites or know what they pay. You don't even know what rate Spotify pays, because they don't pay a set rate, according to Spotify themselves: " Contrary to what you might have heard, Spotify does not pay artist royalties according to a per-play or per-stream rate; the royalty payments that artists receive might vary according to differences in how their music is streamed or the agreements they have with labels or distributors." support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Aug 1, 2024 7:14:27 GMT -5
The point I am making is... You aren't making any points, you're just throwing around a bunch of BS. You have no evidence that you can "generally" triple the Spotify revenue based on streams on other sites or know what they pay. You don't even know what rate Spotify pays, because they don't pay a set rate, according to Spotify themselves: " Contrary to what you might have heard, Spotify does not pay artist royalties according to a per-play or per-stream rate; the royalty payments that artists receive might vary according to differences in how their music is streamed or the agreements they have with labels or distributors." support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/
I am well aware you may not be particularly quick when it comes to math, but this conversation has been had in this forum enough that you should have figured it out by now. Of course, you are likely being willfully ignorant, but just in case you are as stupid as the statement you made, let's go through it again.
Spotify, as with all streaming platforms, pays by making a pool based on their revenue for a set period and using a formula to calculate what percentage you make of that revenue. The income per stream could vary according to how many users their service has at a given time, how many are using the free ad-supported tier vs. the paid subscriber tier, and a few other minor factors. Yet, given their consistently large base of users, the payment has been remarkably consistent with the outcome hovering around $0.003 per stream as has been published on various occasions in Billboard. As a legal consideration, they have to make the point that it can vary, but barring the industry undergoing a remarkable reconfiguration over the next few years, this trend will continue.
In more general terms, Spotify has a contract with the major labels to pay a set percentage of the allotted payment to the label (that averages out to about $0.02 per stream) to artists, songwriters etc. Other labels pretty much fall in line with whatever the major labels decide. The current contract is given out as indicated in this article:
As you see, 16% is given to the artist and 16% of $0.02 is $0.0032 although it is usually rounded off to $0.003 in most articles. The caveats here are that the labels subtract any advance money they have given the artist and the remainder is held in escrow until the label's cut (64% or $0.0128 per stream) overcomes their expenses on the release and they begin making profit. However, since I was discussing future income from a back catalogue, that would not be an issue.
As for the doubling and tripling income, Spotify is among the lower paying streamers due to them having an ad supported tier that makes up the majority of listeners. Amazon also has a lower tier of those who are Prime subscribers and get a more limited access to songs vs paid subscribers who get access to complete catalogues. Apple, Tidal, and Deezer (the other main services) pay a higher rate as they are completely subscriber based. Spotify makes up 30%-50% of the streaming market depending upon the general area. It is dominant in Europe but less so in the US. So, given the location of an artist's fans can determine the exact percentage Spotify makes up of their streams. Unfortunately, they are the only service that is relatively transparent with statistics so we can only estimate. If an artist's listeners are in areas where Spotify is strongest, then doubling the income is a good approximation. If they are in an area where Spotify is weakest, then tripling would be the best approximation. Since Spotify is among the lower paying streamers, this is probably a slight underestimation of income.
Placing a monthly stream tally of 3,500,000 in a month and multiplying it by 0.003 gives $10,500 a month. The rest is just more math. As an added point, more recent estimates have the per stream average for Spotify going up. This may be due to the new agreement with labels coming into effect and also streaming growing well beyond its initial use by younger listeners. As the user base begins to include parents, they will be more likely to use the subscriber service that has a higher per stream average payout. However, this could be a momentary aberration so I went with the stats that have a long track record.
Now I know math is hard and your obsession requires you to respond somehow, but at least do some research apart from cherry picking quotes you don't understand. You could, for example, make the case that Jackie will never reach that status of x streams per month and then at least there would be a conversation. But denying things that everyone already knows by quoting a "cover your a$$" legal clarification is not much in the way of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Aug 1, 2024 8:03:37 GMT -5
I trust amg1977 post more than Disappointed’s cherry 🍒 picking!
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Aug 1, 2024 12:02:45 GMT -5
You aren't making any points, you're just throwing around a bunch of BS. You have no evidence that you can "generally" triple the Spotify revenue based on streams on other sites or know what they pay. You don't even know what rate Spotify pays, because they don't pay a set rate, according to Spotify themselves: " Contrary to what you might have heard, Spotify does not pay artist royalties according to a per-play or per-stream rate; the royalty payments that artists receive might vary according to differences in how their music is streamed or the agreements they have with labels or distributors." support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/
I am well aware you may not be particularly quick when it comes to math, but this conversation has been had in this forum enough that you should have figured it out by now. Of course, you are likely being willfully ignorant, but just in case you are as stupid as the statement you made, let's go through it again.
Spotify, as with all streaming platforms, pays by making a pool based on their revenue for a set period and using a formula to calculate what percentage you make of that revenue. The income per stream could vary according to how many users their service has at a given time, how many are using the free ad-supported tier vs. the paid subscriber tier, and a few other minor factors. Yet, given their consistently large base of users, the payment has been remarkably consistent with the outcome hovering around $0.003 per stream as has been published on various occasions in Billboard. As a legal consideration, they have to make the point that it can vary, but barring the industry undergoing a remarkable reconfiguration over the next few years, this trend will continue.
In more general terms, Spotify has a contract with the major labels to pay a set percentage of the allotted payment to the label (that averages out to about $0.02 per stream) to artists, songwriters etc. Other labels pretty much fall in line with whatever the major labels decide. The current contract is given out as indicated in this article:
As you see, 16% is given to the artist and 16% of $0.02 is $0.0032 although it is usually rounded off to $0.003 in most articles. The caveats here are that the labels subtract any advance money they have given the artist and the remainder is held in escrow until the label's cut (64% or $0.0128 per stream) overcomes their expenses on the release and they begin making profit. However, since I was discussing future income from a back catalogue, that would not be an issue.
As for the doubling and tripling income, Spotify is among the lower paying streamers due to them having an ad supported tier that makes up the majority of listeners. Amazon also has a lower tier of those who are Prime subscribers and get a more limited access to songs vs paid subscribers who get access to complete catalogues. Apple, Tidal, and Deezer (the other main services) pay a higher rate as they are completely subscriber based. Spotify makes up 30%-50% of the streaming market depending upon the general area. It is dominant in Europe but less so in the US. So, given the location of an artist's fans can determine the exact percentage Spotify makes up of their streams. Unfortunately, they are the only service that is relatively transparent with statistics so we can only estimate. If an artist's listeners are in areas where Spotify is strongest, then doubling the income is a good approximation. If they are in an area where Spotify is weakest, then tripling would be the best approximation. Since Spotify is among the lower paying streamers, this is probably a slight underestimation of income.
Placing a monthly stream tally of 3,500,000 in a month and multiplying it by 0.003 gives $10,500 a month. The rest is just more math. As an added point, more recent estimates have the per stream average for Spotify going up. This may be due to the new agreement with labels coming into effect and also streaming growing well beyond its initial use by younger listeners. As the user base begins to include parents, they will be more likely to use the subscriber service that has a higher per stream average payout. However, this could be a momentary aberration so I went with the stats that have a long track record.
Now I know math is hard and your obsession requires you to respond somehow, but at least do some research apart from cherry picking quotes you don't understand. You could, for example, make the case that Jackie will never reach that status of x streams per month and then at least there would be a conversation. But denying things that everyone already knows by quoting a "cover your a$$" legal clarification is not much in the way of evidence.
Until you post a picture of Jackie's tax return with all of the applicable numbers, you're just some schmuck on the internet who's obsessed with trying to make himself sound important by regurgitating numbers and doing "math". My math skills are just fine, thank you. But if you don't have the actual facts to put in the equation, it's just a load of malarky. Even several big names have said they get nowhere near that .003 figure that is tossed around. You conveniently gloss over that with your caveat/back catalog comment but realistically only popular artists with popular songs make any significant money from older recordings. Look, here's another person on the internet who sounds like less of a schmuck and appears to know more than you do. I will cherry pick and highlight the appropriate details for you: "Spotify pays $.0037 for ad-supported streams and $.006 for “paid” subscription streams (premium streams) but that’s not just for the artist - that is for record labels that will distribute to artists, music writers, record producers, all those people agents and their own cut as investors on publishing the music and marketing costs. Usually the artist only gets something after all costs are paid. On average only 5% to 10% of that value goes directly to Artists after initial recording and marketing costs are ALL paid (more if the artist is also the songwriter or/and producer as also gets a cut from that). Around 85% of Spotify streams are ad-supported so for example (taking 85% of ad-supported streams into account): 1 million = $3 145 (from ad-supported streams) + $900 (from paid streams). That’s a total of $ 4 045 to pay to everyone and everything. The artist gets $202 to $404 from that. 10 million = the artist gets $2k to $4k100 million = the artist gets $20k to $40k 1 billion streams = the artist gets $200k to $400k If the Artist is also songwriter and producer will get more than that but let’s not forget that the record labels gets a big slice so even with those into account 10 million streams would give the artist from $6k to $12k on the best scenario (when the artist is also songwriter and producer). Bigger stars get more money as they have better contracts with record labels (some may gain slightly more but if they do it was not turned public). A-list Artists and legends like Madonna, U2, Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, Justin Bieber or Drake (among others) have some of the best rates making 15% or even a bit over that (Madonna is the one that makes the most - 25% plus her cut as songwriter and producer from most of the songs as well) - but we are talking just around 5000 Artists at the max getting 15% or more in the whole world. New artists get the smaller amount as they have standard record deals give them usually just 5% and well known artist get more until 10% (as 2021 there were 11 million different artist at Spotify). Independent Artists with NO RECORD LABEL and that own all production and copyrights for the song will get ALL the money, so 1 million streams will give them around $4045 and 10 million about $40 450. These values are for streams coming from US and a few more countries that pay these kind of values. Most streams from the majority world countries ( Most South America, Africa, Asia and even some from Europe) pay less (sometimes 10 times less per stream). So where the streams are from also counts to get to the final number." www.quora.com/How-much-money-does-an-artist-make-from-Spotify-streams
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2024 13:21:41 GMT -5
We really can't tell how much someone makes because there are so many variables even spotify its hard to say just how much they receive. You can get a better idea from their life style. I doubt anyone making a million dollars a year is going to live in a trailer park.
More than likely they are going to live around other in the same financial statutes. Yes their are exceptions. When we talk about young celebrities that started at an early age it's hard to tell how much of their income was kept by their parents. Jackie I doubt that her parents left her with much as they seem to like the idea of spending the money she earned. Grace Vanderwaal should have a good amount because her parents are wealthy and don't seem to even want to be involved in her career except for making sure she had the right people behind her but I haven't seen Grace really make any big purchases like a house, I am sort of surprised she lives in an apartment unless it is a Condo that she bought. The Z-Girls parents are also very wealthy and it seems they used their own money to help support their career. As soon as they turned 18 they both had money to buy 1 million dollar + places to live and still spend money like money grows on trees. JoJo Siwa the same way she bought a 5 million dollar house and give things like new cars as gifts, and even rented the entire 6 flags amusement park for her birthday party plus having the band Queens there. I am not sure about Olivia Rodrigo, Tate McRae, Jenna Ortega as they should be doing quite well but haven't seen any big purchases but they have been on the road so much they may not have had the time to really look for a place. Olivia did get an apartment to live in NYC.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Aug 1, 2024 13:22:50 GMT -5
Just call Disappointed the cherry 🍒 picker!
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Aug 1, 2024 13:27:03 GMT -5
I don’t see Jackie living on skid row ! We don’t know her financial situation, you are only speculating about her finances !
|
|
|
Post by Disappointed on Aug 1, 2024 14:01:45 GMT -5
Just call Disappointed the cherry 🍒 picker! That's right Colty! And it's tough picking those cherries out of all the piles of BS that gets flung around here!
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2024 14:34:39 GMT -5
I don’t see Jackie living on skid row ! We don’t know her financial situation, you are only speculating about her finances ! About all you can do is speculate. But this is a discussion site and we do have quite a bit of information on hand.
|
|
|
Post by msims on Aug 1, 2024 15:39:58 GMT -5
Her numbers seem ok to me, most streamed on spotify with yt numbers:
All of the Stars 8,156,692 (4,610,767 on youtube) To Believe 3,193,329 (2,222,019 and 910,050 on youtube) Hallelujah (feat. Jackie Evancho) 2,782,307 (7,934,295 on youtube) The Rains of Castamere 2,707,413 (1,053,207 on youtube) Can You Feel the Love Tonight 2,453,980 (896,789 on youtube) Nella Fantasia 2,301,857 (1,068,737 and 433,274 on youtube) O mio babbino caro 2,301,857 Safe & Sound 2,293,647 (1,758,675 and 534,972) (2,729,992 on youtube) How Great Thou Art 1,767,916 (344,735 on yt) Caruso 1,647,534 (709,926 on youtube) A Mother's Prayer (with Susan Boyle) 1,587,953 (975,584/544,842/410,290 on yt) My Heart Will Go On (with Joshua Bell) 1,451,658 (484,588 on yt, two pbs performances 4,830,419 and 4,134,972) Somewhere (feat. Barbra Streisand) 1,433,718 (719,783 on youtube) The Lord's Prayer 1,289,636 (3,233,407 on youtube) Apocalypse 1,094,468 (2,124,446 on youtube) Nessun Dorma 1,062,800 (2,707,601, clips of her BGT performance have 1,796,160/ 1,519,363/836,553, 2,878,502 on AGT '11 on youtube) Ave Maria 997,033 (5,622,842 on youtube) Come What May (with The Tenors) 943,386 (534,662 on youtube) Angel 929,719 (6,346,680 on youtube) Happy Xmas (War Is Over) [feat. Jackie Evancho] 918,311 (518,751 on youtube) The Music of the Night 898,667 (576,331 from MOTM on yt, 6,109,200 and 1,038,284 on AGTC on youtube) Ombra Mai Fu 869,445 (260,731 and 250,516 on yt) Lovers 800,467 (1,221,227 and 342,175 on youtube) I See the Light 796,092 (588,620 on youtube) All I Ask Of You 792,927 (678,783 on youtube) Think of Me 760,722 (3,613,580 on yt) Writing's on the Wall 754,526 (2,207,858 on youtube) Attesa 743,258 (586,931 on youtube)
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Aug 1, 2024 15:53:34 GMT -5
Her numbers seem ok to me, most streamed on spotify with yt numbers: All of the Stars 8,156,692 (4,610,767 on youtube) To Believe 3,193,329 (2,222,019 on youtube) Hallelujah (feat. Jackie Evancho) 2,782,307 (7,934,295 on youtube) The Rains of Castamere 2,707,413 (1,053,207 on youtube) Can You Feel the Love Tonight 2,453,980 Nella Fantasia 2,301,857 (1,068,737 on youtube) O mio babbino caro 2,301,857 Safe & Sound 2,293,647 (1,758,675 and 534,972) (2,729,992 on youtube) How Great Thou Art 1,767,916 Caruso 1,647,534 A Mother's Prayer (with Susan Boyle) 1,587,953 My Heart Will Go On (with Joshua Bell) 1,451,658 (two pbs performances have 4,830,419 and 4,134,972) Somewhere (feat. Barbra Streisand) 1,433,718 The Lord's Prayer 1,289,636 (3,233,407 on youtube) Apocalypse 1,094,468 (2,124,446 on youtube) Nessun Dorma 1,062,800 (2,707,601 and clips of her BGT performance have 1,796,160 and 1,519,363 on youtube) Ave Maria 997,033 (5,622,842 on youtube) Angel 929,719 (6,346,680 on youtube) Yeah, she was doing pretty good more than a decade ago. But we aren't talking about ancient history when her career peaked out, we are talking about today when her career is on life support.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Aug 1, 2024 16:05:21 GMT -5
Msims can only talk about the past, to bad Jackie didn’t have a great manager back than instead of poolside Mike back then that would have taken advantage of Jackie’s fame than maybe Jackie’s career would be in better shape today than what we can plainly see is a declining career!
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2024 16:10:20 GMT -5
Her numbers seem ok to me, most streamed on spotify with yt numbers: All of the Stars 8,156,692 (4,610,767 on youtube) To Believe 3,193,329 (2,222,019 on youtube) Hallelujah (feat. Jackie Evancho) 2,782,307 (7,934,295 on youtube) The Rains of Castamere 2,707,413 (1,053,207 on youtube) Can You Feel the Love Tonight 2,453,980 Nella Fantasia 2,301,857 (1,068,737 on youtube) O mio babbino caro 2,301,857 Safe & Sound 2,293,647 (1,758,675 and 534,972) (2,729,992 on youtube) How Great Thou Art 1,767,916 Caruso 1,647,534 A Mother's Prayer (with Susan Boyle) 1,587,953 My Heart Will Go On (with Joshua Bell) 1,451,658 (two pbs performances have 4,830,419 and 4,134,972) Somewhere (feat. Barbra Streisand) 1,433,718 The Lord's Prayer 1,289,636 (3,233,407 on youtube) Apocalypse 1,094,468 (2,124,446 on youtube) Nessun Dorma 1,062,800 (2,707,601 and clips of her BGT performance have 1,796,160 and 1,519,363 on youtube) Ave Maria 997,033 (5,622,842 on youtube) Angel 929,719 (6,346,680 on youtube) Would all those added together equal Olivia Rodrigo "Drivers License" Spotify 2,228,747,696, Youtube 536,445,399 And that is just one of her songs with over a billion streams on Spotify, and she still has to have a world arena tour to make a decent living.
Billboard and Pitchfork picked Guts World Tour as one of the most anticipated tours of 2024. In March 2024, Pollstar reported the tour has grossed a total of $4,233,293 with an attendance of 27,594, from only two shows. According to reports submitted to Pollstar, twelve shows from the first North American leg grossed $17,274,683 and sold 174,431 tickets, while the four shows at New York City's Madison Square Garden grossed a total $7.7 million. The first six European shows grossed a total of $8,584,559 and gathered a total attendance of 80,039, whereas Rodrigo positioned at number eight on the May 2024 reports of Pollstar's Live 75 chart with an average gross of $1,500,592 and attendance of 13,481 per show from five estimated dates
Who knows after paying her band and dancers Olivia may have only cleared 100k. So where does that put Jackie.
|
|
|
Post by msims on Aug 1, 2024 16:18:48 GMT -5
Yeah, she was doing pretty good more than a decade ago. But we aren't talking about ancient history when her career peaked out, we are talking about today when her career is on life support. Whenever you post, this is the bit you are doing in your donkey head. Much of the streaming numbers happened in the last decade, you do know that right and life support because only you and Caz have access to her bank accounts, right? Msims can only talk about the past, to bad Jackie didn’t have a great manager back than instead of poolside Mike back then that would have taken advantage of Jackie’s fame than maybe Jackie’s career would be in better shape today than what we can plainly see is a declining career! No colt her career today is fine and you know better than to believe the nonsense you have read by jealous insecure mean girls who have no clue about the business. As a child she could not be the sole decision maker, so it was between Jackie and M& L. But that changed in 2015, she still had Marc up until the pandemic. Smarten up. And quit the bath salts you two.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 1, 2024 16:33:41 GMT -5
One good thing Jackie's instagram follower went above 102k the first time since she posted BME when she had 102,229 followers. So she must have gained some new followers at least.
|
|