fiiiine

lolliver said:

goodbyeranch said:

With all due respect, artist payout is so close to zero, streaming on Apple Music is basically free. Only mainstream hit makers can see anything substantial when the payout is .0013 cents per song streamed. An artist would have to reach 23 million streams to make $30,000

Apple isn't paying per stream, they are paying based on a percentage of the subscription revenue they stream. If I was to pay my $10 per month for Apple Music and I only streamed 1 song, 1 time for the month that would mean $7 went towards the rights owners (Label, artist etc...) of that single stream of that 1 song.

I really hope this isn't true. This would reward artists with fans that barely play any music. These artists tend to be not very good, in my opinion. It makes me think of someone in particular in my Apple Music family membership, who used our $14.99/mo. membership to stream their 2 favorite songs, and barely at all. The way I always thought streaming services should do it is add up all their subscription fee profits for the month, then divide that by how many songs were streamed. That's the "rate" for a stream for that particular month. Say they made $80 million in profit one month with 15 million users, and people streamed an average of 150 songs that month. That's 2.25 billion streams (15 million x 150). Now I have no idea if that's more or less than what they would typically see, but since they made 80 million in profit, they'd divide that by the number of streams, and that's how much they'd pay rights holders for each stream. The final per-stream number in this example would be ~$0.035555556. So if I got 50,000 streams as a little indie artist, I would have made a cool $1,777.78 that month (50,000 x 0.035555556). Some months artists may get more, some months they may get less. But that seems to be the most fair thing to do. Is my math or thinking wrong on this?