[comprev]

I don't use streaming services because I disagree with their insulting revenue for the artists.

Fortunately I've always been one to seek out more underground artists, and platforms like Bandcamp have been amazing. Not only do the artists get an order of magnitude more revenue, sellers can offer merchandise and physical media (vinyl, CD, cassette) too. These often include a digital copy.

Due to the closer connection between artists and fans I've received many signed/personalised records for the collection over the years. Artists can also gauge demand for future releases almost like crowdfunding.

To me Bandcamp has been the saviour of music in the streaming age.

[satyrnein]

I'm not sure why it would be an order of magnitude more money. Bandcamp takes 10-15% while Spotify takes 30%. So potentially 90 cents on the dollar instead of 70. Unless you're including other factors?

[comprev]

Bandcamp relies on fans buying the music, whereas Spotify relies on streams. It can take thousands of streams to reach the same cash that goes to the artist after one purchase.

[commandlinefan]

What IS the revenue agreement? This seems to be the most closely guarded secret in America.

[satyrnein]

The services have straightforward agreements to their suppliers, which are typically labels or distributors for most popular music. The complaint about the artist's eventual earnings is often actually a complaint about the artist's deal with their label.

[lifeformed]

For Bandcamp? They take 15%, or 10% if you're doing well. For streaming services, they split their income proportionally amongst all played tracks. That's about 0.3 cents per play on Spotify recently.