this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
191 points (98.5% liked)

Science

3155 readers
1 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Can you imagine if you needed to subscribe to a different service just to listen to a single band? Hell right you'd be back on the high seas.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I really enjoyed "The Strike" when I discovered them on Spotify, but all of a sudden I noticed all their best songs were gone from my playlists and I found out they made specific albums/songs exclusive to their Bandcamp/physical copies, so I bought them off Band Camp.

I've always been kinda mixed on that move like, they clearly know which of their songs people really wanted, and decided to paywall them outside of a service I already pay for, which feels bad in principle. But at the same time, I like their music and I agree with them getting paid what they think they're worth.

I hove no clear cut thoughts or conclusions, but I can totally imagine different bands/artists trying to find the monetization strategy and platform that works for them and leading to bad experiences for consumers.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think artists shouldn't primarily see Spotify etc as a source for monetization, but a way to market their music. Like putting it on YouTube. Most money comes from tours and merch anyways.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And that's where Netflix etc went wrong. They still think it's optional to offer the whole catalogue, but long-term it's the only way these services can survive. Either via this or account sharing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Netflix was kind of not at fault in this. After they pioneered the streaming industry, proving it can be massively profitable to the very resistant studios, the studios yanked their licenses and content off Netflix and spun up their own crappy service, charging just as much as Netflix did for everything. Paramount with Star Trek is a great example of that. Oh, but that wasn't enough. After getting everyone who was going to subscribe to Paramount for Star Trek to actually subscribe, then they sold the rights to HBO. They'll slice the pie as many times as they can, selling the ever shrinking pieces for the former price of a whole pie. Netflix saw this coming years ago, which is why they tried so hard to create their own quality content, but it's just not enough, and usually not good enough to stay subscribed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Netflix saw this coming years ago, which is why they tried so hard to create their own quality content, but it's just not enough, and usually not good enough to stay subscribed.

Which is why you have to lick the boots of the studios as a streaming service. There's not much more you can do if you want the whole catalogue. But mb that's sth that's just not profitable at this point. Because their cut would endanger your economic sustainability.

But fucking over streaming services is also not a long-term successful strategy for studios if they want to battle piracy.

So either they find enough common ground or illegal streaming etc will grow.