[lotsofpulp]

Executive compensation is part of a business’s expense, so it is not a separate issue from profit, since profit = revenue minus expense.

Also, Ek could have sold his equity years ago and made more money with less risk by sticking it in SP500. If he really loved money, wouldn’t he have gotten rid of stock in a business losing money and stuck it into something less risky?

My point is to say that Spotify is obviously in a difficult business, given the vendors it has to negotiate with, the competitors it has to compete with, and the customers it has to sell to. It is not some conspiracy or excess short term greed by executives that is hampering its success or ability to pay artists.

[kristiandupont]

>Executive compensation is part of a business’s expense [...]

Right. So when you said this..

>Spotify loves money so much it has yet to show a profit in almost 20 years.

..was your point that Spotify, the company, doesn't love money, even if the executives might?

[lotsofpulp]

Spotify “loves” money implies that Spotify is penny pinching because it is in such a powerful position that it can afford to alienate customers, whereas my point is Spotify is probably making a calculation to reduce expenses because it is not even known if it is a viable business yet.

Spotify’s executive compensation is what it is, it is still a large organization managing 9k employees with 600M customers, so they obviously want a carrot to work. Shareholders and board members can vote on compensation they think is undeserved.

In fact, Ek hasn’t even received compensation since 2017, so he’s just been offloading his existing equity from being a founder from way back when. And since Spotify stock has lost money relative to the market for 7 years, Ek has been working for free. He literally could have more money if he had quit working years ago.

https://fortune.com/europe/2024/04/29/daniel-ek-salary-spoti...