How Often Does Listen Count Update On Spotify

If you lot're following music acts, odds are you're already seeing Spotify-generated stats and graphs from artists. At that place'due south a backfire to the practice – and with adept reason.

First, before I sound immediately anti-Spotify or anti-streaming, this isn't necessarily about that. There are reasons to distribute music to streaming services, and ways of leveraging that distribution to financial benefit (admitting largely indirect).

Putting aside the streaming business model itself for a moment, though, let'southward consider what artists are doing here. Spotify sent an email final week to all artists registered for the Spotify for Artists program, with a link to "2019 Wrapped for Artists." You need to be an artist with music on Spotify, simply that's it – the company even says you just needed 3 (!) listeners prior to the terminate of October to authorize for the "Wrapped" written report. (Mine for some reason isn't available, and so I'1000 guessing there's some lag from need.) The service coincides with a "Wrapped" report for listeners/fans, which shows which tracks they streamed almost. (Richard Lawler wrote this upward for Engadget.)

The artist electronic mail email concludes with the educational activity to "share your highlights with your fans on social."

Hither'southward where things get weird – a whole bunch of artists just read that, and did as instructed. (Meridian tip to those artists: if you get a deal from a Nigerian prince or someone promising to, uh, improve some attribute of your anatomy, I suggest applying some caution before you human activity. Cough.)

Ironically, I heard almost the backlash to the wrapped artists before I started seeing reports. Here's one good example:

Practise not mail service your Spotify wrap posts fellow artists, it's crass and I'm tired of reminding you all that yous're being tacky and perpetuating the idea of music as but some other commodity in our current capitalist sea despair, don't yous dare @ me, I'll post this again adjacent year
— Telefon Tel Aviv (@telefontelaviv) December 5, 2019

To that thread alone, there were some compelling responses:

Honestly, even looking mine up would just exist discouraging and defeating. If I focus on metrics similar that to define myself, I'm gonna rip myself down before I tin can write anything new.

It'south not worth my fourth dimension to look those stats up. Who cares. Make art for art, right?

— Derek Roberts (@teigMusic) December five, 2019

If you live by the numbers your career as well dies by the numbers
— Scott Harris (@ScottHarrisM) Dec 6, 2019

But then once they began actualization, the flood of reports posted to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter has become unnervingly commonplace. With apologies to those of you who did share this for some reason already, here's why I think critics are justified in sounding an alert.

What stats are included:

Total fan hours streamed
Highest number of fan streams per hour
Increases in followers, total listeners, new listeners, streams, and playlist adds
Number of hours fans streamed betwixt 1am – 6am
Number of countries where fans are based
Country that grew by the highest percent of listeners
Number of fans that had the creative person as their #1 artist

Source: Hypebot.

Note that of these, only one chemical element – growth past state – is actually useful for gathering data about how you'd want to expand your fan base of operations or, for instance, where to tour. (SoundCloud has offered similar data, too, for years, in greater particular.) The rest is all about feeding Spotify's goals, which is to say, increasing the amount of streaming engagement on Spotify. Even without because the pittance of income that generates for artists, it isn't nearly you. It's most edifice Spotify's business concern, Spotify's growth, Spotify'south cadre data – improving engagement for them, on a platform they own and control.

But why should I make that argument, when Spotify makes that argument for me?

In a statement, the visitor says they're "defended to growing careers and sustaining momentum." The key is how they define "momentum," which is driving up playback stats and getting music "on echo." But unlike a platform similar Bandcamp, that doesn't include buying of the music or any fashion to offering merchandise (which generates more than revenue) or ownership of listener statistics, which might assistance you in planning a tour or connecting with fans direct. And even if more Spotify streaming helps y'all get gigs by increasing your fan base of operations, or helping people find your music through playlists, that nevertheless doesn't explain why y'all need to share those stats with fans.

https://artists.spotify.com/weblog/artist-wrapped-2019

Growth, growth, growth. Every bit Spotify puts it, "for 2019 nosotros're focused on growth and velocity: all the ways your career grew, your music exploded, and your fans had yous on repeat."

What is that growth for, exactly? Well, information technology drives Spotify's membership, and crucially it allows them to collect information they can offering back to advertisers.

It's sick and twisted. By pushing you to focus on streaming stats, and and then to share those aforementioned stats with your ain fans, Spotify is driving home the idea that musical success is not how well you're making out financially or how securely fans intendance nigh your music or how it'south doing critically or your individual artistic satisfaction or literally any metric other than how much valuable user infomatics it is generating for a third-party corporation.

If they were merely doing this to you, that would be 1 affair. But then they're request y'all to telegraph the very same bulletin to your own fans.

Having made you lot do all of the piece of work of making the music and promoting the music and then figuring out how the heck to get people to find it on their closed-box platform, they now desire you lot to do additional piece of work of pushing their corporate propaganda to anybody yous know. (Heck, even in a pyramid scheme, yous at least sell some inventory. Hither yous requite it away for free and however lose out to the folks at the top.)

Here's the only answer you really need to offer:

"Only await, isn't all of this valuable to me? Shouldn't I exist grateful to what this service is offer me in promoting my music?" Okay, while I try to sort out the weird BDSM human relationship we all now have with this corporation, hither'southward more evidence they actually don't accept your interests at heart. In the aforementioned argument unveiling the service, they proudly denote:

"[Nosotros have a] steady stream of new features and resources, dedicated to growing careers and sustaining momentum; tools similar Canvas, which lets artists add together looping visuals to their music, and Marquee, which gives artists and labels the ability to sponsor new music recommendations."

Let'southward simply translate there. they're now giving you the ability to produce visuals for their platform on superlative of the well-nigh-gratuitous music you lot're providing, and and then to give you the "ability" to pay them money to go your music out there.

Wheee! So I tin celebrate with my fans how much I'm office of a faceless algorithmic streaming service for which I earn nothing, punish myself for not getting heard that much, and so pay the service to try to go heard more than! Oh, and like make animated loops for them. Fun!

Because that'southward the other evil part of this: the more Spotify dominates music listening, the more their ability to charge artists and labels for the privilege of being heard rather than the other manner around. Information technology's just the onetime-fashioned pay-for-play scheme. I don't doubtfulness that some artists are blowing up this way, in which example, cracking! But the rest of united states should delete this idea and motion on.

Oh and by the manner – this system benefits large industry conglomerates who are put of why Spotify is able to grow so fast. Those industry giants will often lock you into contracts where you pay them to pay for playlists and other exposure to become into the nigh-streamed music on the service.

This is not to say that streaming itself is evil. Streaming on its surface is just a different way of delivering digital files. And if your music is distributed at all on Spotify – either via your own cocky-released music, via distributor, or via another label – it makes sense to register for Spotify for Artists. By registering, you tin can track stats and control how your contour is seen, also equally discover some other resource. Read the FAQ on that. It'south merely dubious that you lot should join in sharing statistics, fifty-fifty though normally thanking fans is skillful practise.

There is at least some hope that we could see a ameliorate business organization model for it. On Bandcamp, streaming is already tied to buying – and at least for my part, I dearest streaming that music from the Bandcamp app even equally I was happy to pay for downloads (or sometimes cassettes or vinyl or merch) on the site. Beatport's streaming service for DJs is new, and the jury is however out on whether it'due south good or bad for independent artists, just at least information technology attempts to a) gear up higher subscription fees for listeners, b) get a bigger chunk of coin back to producers and labels, and c) drive casual DJs to spending more on serious consumption. I'thousand still researching whether the service delivers on the company's claims, but even as far every bit the claims, this is a far cry from Spotify, who seem to openly gloat the fact that they're screwing you over for stats and acquirement for someone else.

And over again, maybe you're happy with how Spotify is working for yous. In that case, though, I'd still enquire if you want to exist sharing stats, assuming yous're in this music concern to be in the business of really making music.

In this rapidly shifting landscape, nosotros demand to keep a critical view of these tools, and constantly suit to brand them piece of work for us, not turn into corporate shills for their agenda. That may well include actively engaging Spotify, merely information technology almost certainly doesn't include "sharing" corporate media with your fans.

I'll tell you what makes me happy, though. I'm deeply satisfied that artists are striking back, and often in witty and hilarious ways.

And so, Spotify, if y'all expect to "see the states in the 20s" every bit you lot so proudly proclaim through a deep fog of corporate positivity – you may be seeing more than of the states in a way you didn't expect.

Artists generally having fun:

Many artists are sharing their stats, and then sharing how little they earned (these guys got twelve bucks):

Music Without Borders editor Anil Prasad shared this detailed takedown, which as well deals with Spotify'due south corporate backers:

Here'southward a thought: share music instead.

Oh and … no, listeners aren't necessarily happy either:

Spotify Wrapped: users alarmed by their ain listening habits

Maybe in the next decade, we'll determine that all these stats aren't such a good thing.

More memes and text

Here is Anil'due south full text, and so it isn't locked away on Facebook (reused by permission of the author):

The streaming truth no-i wants to hear or deal with: We're all being hit by tons of "Spotify Wrapped" and "Spotify for Artists" propaganda, currently. Artists are engaged in a creepily-competitive, private-parts-waving campaign to show the magical number of streams and listeners they have, notably excluding the consummate lack of survivable income any of information technology generates.

Over again, I'm going to lay out why things are the way they are in the streaming universe. Here is precisely why musicians don't get paid annihilation meaningful. It's a lot to take in and involves sitting there and pondering the monumental, corrupt area of it all. So, here it is. Choose to understand or continue living in bullheaded ignorance, selfishly feasting on "free" without worrying well-nigh the macro, unsustainable consequences. It's upwardly to yous.

The authenticity of what articles on "How streaming saved the music concern" written past the sick informed encompass is six major businesses: Spotify, Apple tree, Google, Warner Music, Sony Music, and Universal Music. The first three are engineering companies. The latter 3 are in fact, non music companies, merely pieces of mega-media multi-billion-dollar conglomerates. Warner Music is part of Warner Media. Sony Music is part of the larger Sony umbrella. Universal Music is owned by Vivendi. All six companies are publicly traded on the stock marketplace.

The latter point is the most critical. Before delving into that, retrieve that Warner, Sony and Universal are all investors in Spotify. None of these companies are interested in the vagaries of music, musicians and royalties remotely as much every bit they are interested in stock performance, valuation and market capitalization. It is why at that place is such callous disregard for the musicians and indie labels so drastically affected by their actions.

All these companies intendance about are amass numbers: the hundreds of thousands of new streaming accounts, paid or unpaid (it almost doesn't matter) added and the hundreds of millions of streams that occurred across the current fiscal quarter.

These numbers are then revealed to the companies' investor communities on quarterly earnings calls. These "operation metrics" then quickly interpret into investor interest and if the numbers are good, ship the stock cost higher, increasing market place capitalization value.

Specifically, this is why all that matters is streaming numbers. Physical sales are irrelevant, equally are download sales. It is also why artists are pounded on to promote and boost their streaming numbers to the exclusion of everything else. The corporations say this is in the artist's' interests. No, information technology's exclusively most how to heave their stock price.

Now, in the example of Warner, Sony and Universal, they win in multiple ways. As investors in Spotify, they benefit from Spotify's stock value increasing. And when Spotify's stock value increases, guess what? It has a positive effect on their own stock. Boom. In that location's the rub. Those three also benefit from the same awful contracts that paid out next to goose egg in the physical realm. They go along the lion's share of all streaming royalties too, leaving musicians with next to nothing, insufficiently. Yes, it's a wonderful triple play for them. You may want to re-read the final paragraph again. It is literally the crux of "How streaming saved the music industry."

If any commodity you lot read on streaming and the music manufacture doesn't mention whatsoever of the above, the writer almost certainly has no idea what they're actually talking near. Sadly, that's pretty much every writer. These concepts are way too heavy for the average, superficial music journalist to contemplate and the streaming companies love that fact and use it to their advantage.

Do what you will with this information. If you actually made it this far, congratulations. You've swallowed the red pill and get to contemplate the bitter, uncomfortable reality it delivers.
Anil Prasad is editor of Music Without Borders.

Over again, I would actually go further than he does, which is to say conglomerates like Universal now also offering distribution and marketing services. They're effectively double-dealing: in a world where a growing number of people want to be artists, they can accuse for the privilege of promoting music, and so collect those same charges (if they command the playlists), then negotiate their ain fees to make money again from the music existence streamed. This isn't so different from the kind of model that fueled the industry before, but at that place you run into where this "we saved the industry" idea came from. It wasn't your industry they were saving.

And in that location's a darker side, too – they could starve out the very people wanting to make music in the first place, partly by decision-making what gets streamed. And that, in turn, is why y'all should avoid the stats.

This obviously deserves more investigation, and if you lot haven't read a lot about it, that could exist because there's some pretty strong disincentive to people blabbing about it.

On the other mitt, it looks good if you're a Universal investor, I estimate. Give away your music, make somewhere else, and buy stock? Dunno.

The problem there – the whole affair could burn out greenbacks and implode. And so there's that, even for the investors. Worse, the remainder of music has to climb out of the crater that'due south left, now with everyone'south expectation having shifted to music being "free" and people forgetting how to collect music on their own without algorithmic help. Fantastic.

Some other memes that have been circulating, though I couldn't locate a source (if someone wants to claim them):