Qobuz giving more back to the artists than other services

Great point! Qobuz really is exceptional in this regard. Figures I’ve seen show them paying the artist 4 times more than Amazon, and almost 10 times more than Apple. This makes me feel very good about supporting Qobuz. Thanks for bringing this up.

(Note: these rates are from 2018 and may have changed)

Qobuz $0.04390
Peloton $0.04036
iHeartRadio $0.01426
Amazon Unlimited $0.01175
Napster/Rhapsody $0.01110
24/7 Entertainment GmbH $0.01050
YouTube Red $0.00948
Tidal $0.00927
Deezer $0.00567
Google Play $0.00543
Apple $0.00495
KKBox $0.00435
Amazon Digital Services Inc. $0.00395
Spotify $0.00331
Loen $0.00205
Pandora $0.00155
Vevo $0.00109
Yandex LLC $0.00051
YouTube Content ID $0.00028
UMA $0.00013

What is the value of this type of comparison for services that cannot be compared? If qobuz were the size of spotify I’m not sure it would pay artists more. For an artist, the total remuneration of Qobuz is undoubtedly very lower than that of the other big services.

1 Like

Yes, but why wouldn’t it? The fact that a relatively small concern gives a greater percentage to the artists than a larger player is one of the points of the comparision.

1 Like

Those numbers are wildly out of date now. Qobuz have adjusted to more realistic numbers now they have completed their launch in the US.

1 Like

So, because Qobuz has a bigger market share they are now paying their artists less?

That seems especially greedy and mean spirited.

1 Like

something positive may come of this:

When growing a product, incentives usually work well. Once that is done you revert to a more realistic tariff.

I can understand incentives to subscribe to a product, but there’s no reason to lessen the incentives to artists except greed, but I know you aren’t defending that practice.

I think this is correct.

Spotify distributes so many more streams than Qobuz, and the overall payments to the artists are multiplied by the number of times the track is streamed. So it is entirely possible that artists are making more money with Spotify, and Qobuz may be paying artists more per stream because they have to in order to purchase streaming rights.

We don’t know the real reason Qobuz is (or was) paying more per stream to the artist. They say that it is because they want to support the artists, and this may be true, but it may be more complicated than that. It may also be that the artists (or their publishers) are not allowing Qobuz to have streaming rights unless they pay a certain minimum per year, and since they have relatively low streaming numbers this necessitates a higher price per stream given to the artist, and lower profits for Qobuz.

Qobuz may be accepting this loss of revenue for the near term while they break into the market, but it would not be surprising to see their payments to artist decrease as they acquire more customers. This doesn’t make anybody greedy, it’s just the nature of business.

Of course, all of this is a total guess. Just thoughts for discussion.

The calculation by flow has nothing to do with the contracts negotiated between labels and the streaming service. You must know the real amount paid and the number of flows. Streaming services donate most of their revenue and have no profitability.

Can you provide any data to support this?

I have searched and searched and cannot find any data newer than these 2018 rates.

The nature of the business is to lessen the rewards to those who had a role in the success of the business? What would you think if your remuneration was calculated that way?

It’s greed.

Huh? Don’t know what that means. A business that is not profitable because it donates its revenue.
What’s the point?

Ok, I’m done with this. :expressionless:

I buy my favourite latest releases from Bandcamp if I can (I still have the old need to own something - for the end of the world, or worse)

The label next, CD after that, streaming after that

I’ve never bought from the big digital outlets
HD Tracks had a few purchases from me, but they’re stupidly expensive, so no more

Supporting the artists (and everyone else in the chain) is essential and a moral duty

So bands now make most of their money at concerts, no probs - but I contributed directly, can I have a cheaper ticket please? A code I can key in.

I presume incentive was provided while Qobuz was trying to grow its base of contributors prior to launch in the US. A healthy cash incentive always brings people running. My guess is it would have been documented that the enhanced payments would taper or cease over time and become more normal. Still up there with the competitors but not significantly more.

I Googled it. I don’t remember the specifics but Deezer are paying the big bucks right now and that was after a change they made in September 2019 to the way they make payments.