[reaperman]

Which is why spotify should pay a percentage of MY subscription fee to only the artists that I listen to. My money shouldn’t go to Taylor Swift if I don’t listen to Taylor Swift.

That would eliminate direct financial payment from botting. But botting could still affect trending or “related” recommendations for indirect financial boost.

[suzumer]

The issue there is that the listens from people who listen to less music would be worth more than the listens from people who listen to more music.

[reaperman]

That's not an issue, that's accurately reflecting reality. If I'm paying the same $10/month just to listen to $OBSCURE_ARTIST for 10 plays per month, then each play of that _is_ worth more to Spotify than each play from a 10-year old listening to the same track of $SUPERSTAR one thousand times in a month.

In one case, 10 plays brought in $10 of revenue to Spotify, and those 10 plays should get $PERCENT of that $10.

In the other case, 1000 plays brought in $10 of revenue to Spotify, and those 1000 plays should also get the same $PERCENT of that $10.

[knutzui]

A fixed monthly subscription amount with unlimited usage will always carry this deficiency. A solution that addresses this would be usage-based pricing.

[reaperman]

I don't understand how this is a deficiency.

[imtringued]

That's not an issue. That's the entire point. You track listens per account and if you're only listening to a single niche musician, all your money (not someone else's) goes to that musician.

The real mystery is why it should work any differently, because the cross subsidy seemingly creates a perverse profit incentive for bots to scalp off some of that cross subsidy. The economics are broken. This is socialism for the rich and popular.