The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Best Digital Distribution or Aggregator
View Poll Results: What's the best Aggregator (Digital Distribution)?
CD Baby
5 Votes - 22.73%
TuneCore
2 Votes - 9.09%
ReverbNation
0 Votes - 0%
AWAL
2 Votes - 9.09%
MondoTunes
2 Votes - 9.09%
Catapult
1 Votes - 4.55%
Other (specify in your post)
10 Votes - 45.45%
Voters: 22. You may not vote on this poll

Old 15th March 2014
  #31
labelworx
Old 2nd February 2019
  #32
I use Distrokid

A couple of years ago I did some research and found that the cheapest options (small yearly fee for unlimited) were Distrokid and Symphonic. CDBaby is quite dear.

I went with Distrokid. I have found them very good. Some of my music is classical. Shortly after I joined and started submitting tracks, they notified me that there was a problem with metadata for classical and they could not put my stuff on Itunes because of that. Therefore they gave me a Premium upgrade for the whole year free. I have dealt with their Customer Service a couple of times and found them excellent. I am not sure how much they take - I think it is 15%. This did not concern me because I knew my sales would be very small.

Symphonic has changed their model and now you have to apply for a partnership with them and their emphasis is on Hip-Hop and EDM. I don't know of any aggregator that specialises in Classical. There was one called Dart Music but they went bust.
Old 3rd February 2019
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyMelbourne Down View Post
A couple of years ago I did some research and found that the cheapest options (small yearly fee for unlimited) were Distrokid and Symphonic. CDBaby is quite dear.

I went with Distrokid. I have found them very good. Some of my music is classical. Shortly after I joined and started submitting tracks, they notified me that there was a problem with metadata for classical and they could not put my stuff on Itunes because of that. Therefore they gave me a Premium upgrade for the whole year free. I have dealt with their Customer Service a couple of times and found them excellent. I am not sure how much they take - I think it is 15%. This did not concern me because I knew my sales would be very small.

Symphonic has changed their model and now you have to apply for a partnership with them and their emphasis is on Hip-Hop and EDM. I don't know of any aggregator that specialises in Classical. There was one called Dart Music but they went bust.
Actually, for their basic service, Distrokid doesn't take anything except your annual artist fee ($20 or less per artist); for most works there are no upload fees and they don't keep a percentage. (There are a few things like cover song licensing that cost extra. Can I Upload Cover Songs? – DistroKid )
Old 10th February 2019
  #34
distrokid is great.
Old 23rd March 2019
  #35
Gear Nut
 
SpikeWolf's Avatar
I have been using DK for a couple of years now. I also use a couple of other agg's. With that being said, DK is a solid company. They are pretty cut and dry in the process of uploading and navigating their site. Recently I have noticed a few things that have become a moderate concern for me. First, they are inconsistent with their payouts. Other services I use have a standard payout date from all streaming companies (1st of each month, 15th of each month, third Friday of the month, etc.) DK states they pay as they receive. What I've noticed is there is no consistency from month-to-month. I'm not sure why/how these other companies are so on the spot yet DK is so sporadic? The second thing I have noticed is that DK distributes to Napster, however, they are not receiving royalties from Napster. Napster is not even listed on the streaming services on their payout list. I asked DK, about a month ago, what is the situation with this problem. The response was "We are still in BETA with Napster, but this should be taken care of soon." I will continue to use DK because I think they are a great bang for the buck. If they could simply get these two concerns taken care of, I would have absolutely no issues with them.
Old 31st March 2019
  #36
Here for the gear
 

Hmm DK seems to charge a whole lot of money I think.

I have been using this lately, which I think gives your more bang for the bucks:

FanRaizd – Upload & Network – Digital Music Distribution

Unlimited ISRC codes, UPC codes etc, and as many albums or uploads as you want, for 48 euros / year.

When it comes to physical+digital distribution, I think CD Baby is the king of services though.
Old 31st March 2019
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freguz View Post
Hmm DK seems to charge a whole lot of money I think.

I have been using this lately, which I think gives your more bang for the bucks:

FanRaizd – Upload & Network – Digital Music Distribution

Unlimited ISRC codes, UPC codes etc, and as many albums or uploads as you want, for 48 euros / year.

When it comes to physical+digital distribution, I think CD Baby is the king of services though.
Not sure what your thinking is there. Distrokid is $19.99 per year per artist (and can go down from there slightly with more artists).

That's less than €18 per year. As opposed to €48.

And they don't keep any of the royalties either. (I wasn't able to get the precise charges in the EU nations where DK operates, so YMMV.)


I'm not (necessarily) saying they're 'best' -- I think what's best probably depends on the artist's situation -- but I don't see how they are expensive.
Old 7th May 2019
  #38
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Not sure what your thinking is there. Distrokid is $19.99 per year per artist (and can go down from there slightly with more artists).

That's less than €18 per year. As opposed to €48.

And they don't keep any of the royalties either. (I wasn't able to get the precise charges in the EU nations where DK operates, so YMMV.)


I'm not (necessarily) saying they're 'best' -- I think what's best probably depends on the artist's situation -- but I don't see how they are expensive.
Yes it may depend a bit on the situation...

But if you consider that Fanraizd has one fixed price, with unlimited artists, albums and UPC/ISRC codes... no hidden extra costs.
I think that is a fairly good deal, especially if you have more than 1 artist ... :-)

Just saw now that Fanraizd price is cut 50%, 24 EUR/year.

Have anyone seen this "stem.is" site? Seems interesting with the royalty splits and stuff (kind of same concept as fanraizd seems to have)
Old 6th July 2019
  #39
Gear Nut
 
Holden Sandman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freguz View Post
Yes it may depend a bit on the situation...

But if you consider that Fanraizd has one fixed price, with unlimited artists, albums and UPC/ISRC codes... no hidden extra costs.
I think that is a fairly good deal, especially if you have more than 1 artist ... :-)

Just saw now that Fanraizd price is cut 50%, 24 EUR/year.
My advice is avoid Fanraizd like the plague.

I've just finished helping a local artist extract themselves from Fanraizd, complete and utter disaster from start to finish for this guy. I'd stick with DistroKid. There comes a point where if it's free or overly cheap then you have to question how they make any money to provide a decent service.
Old 6th July 2019
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Sandman View Post
My advice is avoid Fanraizd like the plague.

I've just finished helping a local artist extract themselves from Fanraizd, complete and utter disaster from start to finish for this guy. I'd stick with DistroKid. There comes a point where if it's free or overly cheap then you have to question how they make any money to provide a decent service.
Thanks for sharing their story. I hope things go better for them.
Old 17th October 2019
  #41
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
 

I would have went with Distrokid if I haven't found that they actually charge you 1$ for EVERY song , EVERY year if you want the Shazam option...I went with CD Baby instead.
Old 17th October 2019
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceman View Post
I would have went with Distrokid if I haven't found that they actually charge you 1$ for EVERY song , EVERY year if you want the Shazam option...I went with CD Baby instead.
To be clear, one CAN get the Shazam/Siri service or the other extras on a per-song (or in some cases per-album) basis, so one could restrict that to just his new singles (likely to get media play), letting them drop out of the identification service after they slip off the air/media waves (in the unfortunate event that eventually happens ).

https://distrokid.zendesk.com/hc/en-...stroKid-Offer-

[The underlined items in that linked post are NOT links to more info; but I just checked the upload page and, for sure, there's an opt-in checkbox for each type of extra, there. So you can pick and choose.]
Old 25th October 2019
  #43
To be clear to the OP, AWAL/Believe/the Orchard and some others are curated. You can’t just “sign up” - they’re by far the best option as far as exposure goes (they’re tied in with Kobalt/Sony etc- I know the guys who run the orchard over here) but you need a profile to get to release with them.

I really hate the ids of having to pay yearly to keep your material available. None of us doing original stuff are doing it for the money; one off payments work best by a long shot!
Old 31st October 2019
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
To be clear to the OP, AWAL/Believe/the Orchard and some others are curated. You can’t just “sign up” - they’re by far the best option as far as exposure goes (they’re tied in with Kobalt/Sony etc- I know the guys who run the orchard over here) but you need a profile to get to release with them.

I really hate the ids of having to pay yearly to keep your material available. None of us doing original stuff are doing it for the money; one off payments work best by a long shot!
psycho_monkey's observations have been echoing in my head.

Before uploading any more, I'm looking into options that take a slice instead of a maintenance fee. (Distrokid is only $36 a year for annual maintenance of a basic 2-artist label tier with no back-end slice, so that's really stupid cheap -- but, damn, things could get lean around here... or I could end up babbling in some dementia ward. There's a certain appeal to 'self-sustaining.' And what I have up, largely unpromoted, isn't exactly cleaning up, I have to say. Betting against myself? Maybe.)

In addition to a test track on Distrokid, I already have an ambient album on Soundrop (who take 15%) and, I have to say, you don't get much info from Soundrop (but they DO make covers cheap up front if you're into that -- $10 upfront, but, of course, with them getting a backend slice.) Distrokid is at least more itemized in your distribution numbers than Soundrop.

I only recently heard about United Masters (which is 'invitation only' -- I suspect I got accepted earlier today because it is either really easy or they measure your 'net profile/exposure -- I have a long established blog and some other stuff -- or some combination thereof); they take only 10% with no upfronts or annuals and claim to offer good fanbase direct marketing tools. (Not that I have any ancillary products to pitch. I don't imagine my superfans walking around with my face on their T-shirts. But I COULD book-up the microfiction from my blog, maybe with some filler art, since it's, you know, microfiction, and try hawking that. We'll see.)

United Master's promo materials seem mostly oriented to the hip hop community (territory I've only sliced through obliquely, myself) -- but interestingly, their promo materials heavily promote their NBA hookup bigtime, promo about which one indie reviewer on YT noted that the NBA submission guidelines would preclude a lot of indie hip hop because of licensing issues (no lease beats, heavy restrictions on samples in general for NBA submissions through them).


All the above having been said, I haven't pulled up stakes at DistroKid, either, so I dunno.

Last edited by theblue1; 31st October 2019 at 02:07 AM..
Old 31st October 2019
  #45
Deleted 509ab36
Guest
I think the whole idea of an annual upkeep fee is a really bad one for artists/labels to get into, but the one major issue I really have is with Spotify partially owning Distrokid. Regardless of the amount, I personally think its shady AF how they're double dipping into the royalty "stream".
Old 31st October 2019
  #46
Distrokid doesn't take any royalties. It's all about the yearly account maintenance fee and the several add-on services (https://distrokid.zendesk.com/hc/en-...s/360013534274) they offer. They give you 100% of your stream revenue in exchange for the yearly artist/maintenance fee (about 20 dollars for a single artist or $36 for two artists and some extra 'label' features -- like custom release dates and such). They have 'tiers' that go up from there for larger artist rosters -- not sure about those details.

Here's an article from last year on the minority stake Spotify took in Distrokid: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKCN1MR325
Old 31st October 2019
  #47
Deleted 509ab36
Guest
Come on. They absolutely do take a cut of any and all royalties for their "services" (one example being 20% of Youtube money royalties). Even if you opt out of all extra services on offer, you still need to pay the mandatory annual fees. You can try to minimize it any way you like, but the fact is Spotify is getting a cut from both streaming and any other money Distrokid collects, fees paid and/or deducted, royalty % or otherwise. That is double dipping and very shady business practice. Both Spotify (which I expect nothing less from) and Distrokid, for not disclosing any of this on their site, are equally to blame for this little scam they're running. We're talking about billions, with a "b", of dollars each and every year.

"DistroKid is an independent digital music distribution service" (wikipedia) .. yeah, right
Old 31st October 2019
  #48
I’ve been delving into the cdbaby world for an artist I’m producing - it’s very interesting, but a bit slow cos you’re constantly waiting for the next step.

I’m currently waiting for Spotify artists/Apple artists to become available (as far as I can work out, Apple just takes a few days after you submit stuff, Spotify you have to get cdbaby to send you the info). Then it’s all systems promo!
Old 31st October 2019
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantbunnyrabbit View Post
Come on. They absolutely do take a cut of any and all royalties for their "services" (one example being 20% of Youtube money royalties). Even if you opt out of all extra services on offer, you still need to pay the mandatory annual fees. You can try to minimize it any way you like, but the fact is Spotify is getting a cut from both streaming and any other money Distrokid collects, fees paid and/or deducted, royalty % or otherwise. That is double dipping and very shady business practice. Both Spotify (which I expect nothing less from) and Distrokid, for not disclosing any of this on their site, are equally to blame for this little scam they're running. We're talking about billions, with a "b", of dollars each and every year.

"DistroKid is an independent digital music distribution service" (wikipedia) .. yeah, right
They don't take a cut (that is, they do not take a percentage of your back end) -- they charge a flat, annual rate (essentially 'per artist') up front. (The exception with regard to the add-on YouTube service is noted along with other up front charges on the add'l services page.) Beyond that exception and those fees, all the artist/label revenue from subscription stream services is delivered straight through.

Look -- I don't have a dog in this fight -- I'm strongly considering going with someone else and have made preliminary moves to do so. (But I have had a Distrokid account for a couple years and have seen no funny business or anything to turn me against them; I just wonder if a different approach might work better for my circumstances.)

You seem to feel I'm trying to put something over on you. Hardly.

I'm just trying to share some of the info I've found.
Old 31st October 2019
  #50
Deleted 509ab36
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Distrokid doesn't take any royalties.
You responded to my post with a very matter of fact statement which is false. Just clarifying that in fact they do take a percentage of royalties, which Spotify does get a cut of. My only point in posting here is that they're double dipping and people outta know about these sort of shady tactics before signing up.

Just look at the Distrokid site and see how they strategically place Spotify's brand everywhere. And how they are not being fully transparent about their "services" - you must first join, handing over your personal data (what all of this is really about anyway), to even read about "special" features, extras and pricing! Then we have the A-list artists they sponsor to write glowing testimonials on their site, all in hopes of luring in hopeful newbie suckers. No matter how hard they try to bury the information, which they clearly do, both companies have a very checkered past. It is disgusting just how extremely deceptive Spotify and Distrokid business practices are.

I really cant understand why as a musician anyone would minimize or mislead the less informed reader on this forum into believing otherwise ("no royalties" etc.).
Old 31st October 2019
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantbunnyrabbit View Post
You responded to my post with a very matter of fact statement which is false. Just clarifying that in fact they do take a percentage of royalties, which Spotify does get a cut of. My only point in posting here is that they're double dipping and people outta know about these sort of shady tactics before signing up.

Just look at the Distrokid site and see how they strategically place Spotify's brand everywhere. And how they are not being fully transparent about their "services" - you must first join, handing over your personal data (what all of this is really about anyway), to even read about "special" features, extras and pricing! Then we have the A-list artists they sponsor to write glowing testimonials on their site, all in hopes of luring in hopeful newbie suckers. No matter how hard they try to bury the information, which they clearly do, both companies have a very checkered past. It is disgusting just how extremely deceptive Spotify and Distrokid business practices are.

I really cant understand why as a musician anyone would minimize or mislead the less informed reader on this forum into believing otherwise ("no royalties" etc.).
I'm afraid you are in error. Additionally, you seem to be accusing me of something, which I find a bit offensive, to be frank.

You have provided NO EVIDENCE to support your contentions. I have provided links to their public business materials -- if they were to do business under false pretenses, that would be criminal fraud.

Further, I have inspected the accounting materials from them over several years now and I see no irregularities or sign that I'm not getting 'standard' artist/label royalties from the various subscription services.

(As those conversant with streaming subscription payouts already realize, monthly per-stream revenue tends to vary with the traffic on individual stream services since most services essentially divide the number of streams into the percentage of subscription revenue their business model allots to artists/labels -- for instance, in 2017, Spotify disbursed 70% of gross revenue to artists or their labels. The figures I get from DistroKid comport with reported averages from journalistic sources as well as jibing with the revenue figures from other properties I've syndicated through another aggregator.)

I really don't know what you seem to think I'm trying to do here, but let me assure you, I just want to set the record straight.

And, as I noted, at this point I'm personally probably going to go with another service -- but not because there's anything wrong or underhanded about DistroKid, just that a different service might fit my particular needs better.

But the facts are the facts. And I do not appreciate in the slightest your seeming implication that I'm trying to deceive people.

If you've got real evidence, I suggest you put it up. Otherwise, perhaps you'll want to do more reading on the subject.

Last edited by theblue1; 31st October 2019 at 09:54 PM..
Old 1st November 2019
  #52
Deleted 509ab36
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I'm afraid you are in error. Additionally, you seem to be accusing me of something, which I find a bit offensive, to be frank.

You have provided NO EVIDENCE to support your contentions. I have provided links to their public business materials -- if they were to do business under false pretenses, that would be criminal fraud.

Further, I have inspected the accounting materials from them over several years now and I see no irregularities or sign that I'm not getting 'standard' artist/label royalties from the various subscription services.

(As those conversant with streaming subscription payouts already realize, monthly per-stream revenue tends to vary with the traffic on individual stream services since most services essentially divide the number of streams into the percentage of subscription revenue their business model allots to artists/labels -- for instance, in 2017, Spotify disbursed 70% of gross revenue to artists or their labels. The figures I get from DistroKid comport with reported averages from journalistic sources as well as jibing with the revenue figures from other properties I've syndicated through another aggregator.)

I really don't know what you seem to think I'm trying to do here, but let me assure you, I just want to set the record straight.

And, as I noted, at this point I'm personally probably going to go with another service -- but not because there's anything wrong or underhanded about DistroKid, just that a different service might fit my particular needs better.

But the facts are the facts. And I do not appreciate in the slightest your seeming implication that I'm trying to deceive people.

If you've got real evidence, I suggest you put it up. Otherwise, perhaps you'll want to do more reading on the subject.
Oh my... No, I am absolutely not in error. You are factually incorrect. Again. Period.

I haven't a clue as to why you're being so sensitive about this discussion. I am not attacking you. Chill out man. I said my piece. YOU directed a post towards me, calling MY statement into question(!), while making your own incorrect statements or "errors" as you call it, so I responded with facts for clarification. Isn't that what a public forum is about? YOU are trying to make this personal, not the other way around. I am not doing anything to YOU personally, rubbing it in, trying to make you look bad or whatever games people play. I am only clarifying the facts for others who may be considering signing up with this dynamic duo. You were wrong about royalties, big deal! Admit it and move on. Or don't and continue digging this hole.

Evidence? Look, it's simple. Spotify partially owns Distrokid (fact) and therefor gets a cut of any and all money Distrokid collects (fact), be it royalties from Youtube (of which they take 20%), annual membership fees or whatever extra service the member signs up and pays for. In doing so, if a member distributes their music to Spotify, Spotify is then collecting money from the streaming side AND the distribution side (fact). There is no way around it, there could not be a more perfect example of double dipping!!!

Distrokid does NOT disclose any of this information on their website (fact). If an artists decides against supporting Spotify, as MANY do, guess what, they have no choice in the matter! They're unknowingly handing over money to them regardless. That is flat out deceptive and frankly disgusting business practice. Their FAQ is extremely limited and they require a sign up for further information regarding pricing, extra services etc. (fact). Using clever keywords, one may find the internet littered with information, public documents, lawsuits, articles etc., damning both Spotify and Distrokid tactics and business practices. All without bringing up piracy and lawsuits against artists rights and royalties (I don't have time to go there). SHADY AS ****. And those are the FACTS, jack.

Whether or not you personally like these facts, or that I am disclosing them for others to be wary of, is totally irrelevant.

Done and doner. Ciao!
Old 1st November 2019
  #53
Does Spotify have a stock position in DistroKid? Yes. Already acknowledged. If Distrokid pays out dividends, Spotify as a stockholder will receive their share. If the value of DistroKid stock rises over time, and Spotify liquidates some or all of their stock, they will get the profit from that. That's not in dispute. There is no law, business rule, convention, or practice that suggests that companies must list their stockholders on their customer-facing websites. You might not like that, but that's the way the business world works under US law. Check with the FTC, if you don't believe me.

What IS in dispute is, in a nutshell, the first part of this statement: "They absolutely do take a cut of any and all royalties for their 'services' (one example being 20% of Youtube money royalties)." [bold added]

They charge a flat annual fee per artist up front. With the exception of the already acknowledged YouTube monteization/licensing service (listed on their additional services/charges page linked above), they don't list any other percentage cuts; there is no evidence I've come across that they are lying when they say they don't take any of artist/label stream revenue from the subscription stream companies. As I already noted, I have seen no evidence in the accounting material I've received from Distrokid that they are holding anything back, in comparison with another aggregators' payouts or to average payout ranges cited in news articles. And, additionally, doing so while saying they don't would be black-letter commercial fraud. And a VERY easy fraud to expose.

If you have evidence that they are not being truthful in this claim (a service model widely discussed in the trade press over the last few years -- and which has had an obvious influence in offerings from other aggregators), I suggest you lay it out now or, you know, perhaps do that reading on the topic as I had previously suggested.
Old 1st November 2019
  #54
Deleted 509ab36
Guest
This is getting old man. I get that this is the "shoot the breeze" forum, but I don't have a clue what you're going on about now. You initially said "Distrokid doesn't take any royalties.". And you continue saying they don't, but then say "with the exception of..".. so do they or don't they? Of course they do. And Spotify gets a cut of that. When you join Distrokid and pay the fee, Spotify gets a cut. Spotify gets a cut of the annual fees. Spotify gets paid even if you dont distribute to Spotify for streaming. If you do distribute to Spotify, they get paid on both sides.. double dipping. Nowhere does Distrokid disclose this information on their website. And that is shady AF. We're back to square one now.

Whats worse is that when you and others bring up stuff like "Spotify disbursed 70% of gross revenue to artists or their labels.", it sounds great (considering the first 10 years they only disbursed 50%)! and while that may or may not be true, because they don't fully disclose that information, regardless, 50, 70 or whatever % they come up with, of basically nothing, is always going to equal basically nothing. At the royalty rate they pay indie artist and labels, it will take 25,000,000 streams to earn what 1 entry to mid level employee is being paid there ($115,000. avg salary). Janitors and part-time interns are paid more than what an artist or label with 10,000,000 streams earns. When people say they're operating at a loss, not profitable etc., the fact is, Spotify is growing like wildfire, opening new office locations and expanding to new regions every year. Go figure. Look at pretty much any job site and you'll find a plethora of newly created departments with bizarre position titles and job descriptions at Spotify paying over $1,000,000. per year for each position. But clearly that isn't enough, they also need to double dip into the distribution side of fees and royalties?

Spotify partially owning Distrokid is just the tip of the ice berg. They've got their hands in multiple cookie jars. Original content creation, advertising, data, distribution, radio, it goes on and on. Since they began, Spotify has been acquiring everything it can get its hands on.

So in closing, I feel it is very important for artists and labels to know this information when choosing a distributor and deciding which stores and streaming sites to distribute their music to. Maybe you don't care (and I don't just mean you Mr. Blue1), but I certainly do.
Old 1st November 2019
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantbunnyrabbit View Post
This is getting old man. I get that this is the "shoot the breeze" forum, but I don't have a clue what you're going on about now. You initially said "Distrokid doesn't take any royalties.". And you continue saying they don't, but then say "with the exception of..".. so do they or don't they? Of course they do. And Spotify gets a cut of that. When you join Distrokid and pay the fee, Spotify gets a cut. Spotify gets a cut of the annual fees. Spotify gets paid even if you dont distribute to Spotify for streaming. If you do distribute to Spotify, they get paid on both sides.. double dipping. Nowhere does Distrokid disclose this information on their website. And that is shady AF. We're back to square one now.

Whats worse is that when you and others bring up stuff like "Spotify disbursed 70% of gross revenue to artists or their labels.", it sounds great (considering the first 10 years they only disbursed 50%)! and while that may or may not be true, because they don't fully disclose that information, regardless, 50, 70 or whatever % they come up with, of basically nothing, is always going to equal basically nothing. At the royalty rate they pay indie artist and labels, it will take 25,000,000 streams to earn what 1 entry to mid level employee is being paid there ($115,000. avg salary). Janitors and part-time interns are paid more than what an artist or label with 10,000,000 streams earns. When people say they're operating at a loss, not profitable etc., the fact is, Spotify is growing like wildfire, opening new office locations and expanding to new regions every year. Go figure. Look at pretty much any job site and you'll find a plethora of newly created departments with bizarre position titles and job descriptions at Spotify paying over $1,000,000. per year for each position. But clearly that isn't enough, they also need to double dip into the distribution side of fees and royalties?

Spotify partially owning Distrokid is just the tip of the ice berg. They've got their hands in multiple cookie jars. Original content creation, advertising, data, distribution, radio, it goes on and on. Since they began, Spotify has been acquiring everything it can get its hands on.

So in closing, I feel it is very important for artists and labels to know this information when choosing a distributor and deciding which stores and streaming sites to distribute their music to. Maybe you don't care (and I don't just mean you Mr. Blue1), but I certainly do.
Once again, you've failed to back up your contention that Distrokid takes a percentage of all royalties paid to the artist (aside from the YouTube exception, which is on the page of additional charges I cited at the beginning our our attempt at dialog and which I have acknowledged all along).

You can keep on chewing on this, if you want, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who will not acknowledge his own error when the facts are plainly pointed out to him. I've given you every chance to provide evidence of your claims. You have not.
Old 2nd November 2019
  #56
Deleted 509ab36
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Once again...
Wrong. You might consider getting some new glasses buddy. I NEVER once said or even so much as implied that Distrokid takes a cut of ALL royalties paid to the artist! NEVER.

Distrokid signup membership fee = Spotify gets a cut.
Distrokid>Spotify streaming = Spotify gets a cut (of both streaming royalties and Distrokid fees).
Distrokid Youtube FEE + 20% of royalties = Spotify gets a cut.
Distrokid annual fees = Spotify gets a cut.
Distrokid extra "services"? = Spotify gets a cut.
Distrokid "leave a legacy" = Spotify gets a cut.
Don't distribute to Spotify? = Spotify still gets a cut.

Any money Distrokid receives = Spotify gets a cut.

For those distributing music to Spotify, Spotify is double dipping into your royalty stream.

Distrokid website discloses none of the above.

Both are shady AF.

Those are the facts. Written in stone if you like. Debating these facts is pure delusion.

*If you're reading this thread and trying to decipher whats what from all of the smoke and mirrors, here is a MUST READ FIRST about Distrokid's intentionally convoluted distribution "service" (minus the FACT that Spotify partially owns Distrokid and therefor gets a cut of everything, of course).

I'll be here all week. Please tip your bartenders and waitresses. Done and doner 2. Thank you and good night!
Old 2nd November 2019
  #57
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantbunnyrabbit View Post
Come on. They absolutely do take a cut of any and all royalties for their "services" (one example being 20% of Youtube money royalties). Even if you opt out of all extra services on offer, you still need to pay the mandatory annual fees. You can try to minimize it any way you like, but the fact is Spotify is getting a cut from both streaming and any other money Distrokid collects, fees paid and/or deducted, royalty % or otherwise. That is double dipping and very shady business practice. Both Spotify (which I expect nothing less from) and Distrokid, for not disclosing any of this on their site, are equally to blame for this little scam they're running. We're talking about billions, with a "b", of dollars each and every year.

"DistroKid is an independent digital music distribution service" (wikipedia) .. yeah, right
[bold added]
Old 2nd November 2019
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantbunnyrabbit View Post
Wrong. You might consider getting some new glasses buddy. I NEVER once said or even so much as implied that Distrokid takes a cut of ALL royalties paid to the artist! NEVER.

[...]
Indeed.
Old 3rd November 2019
  #59
Deleted 509ab36
Guest
Mate, I thought you were done and dusted?! Comical.

RE: Your [bold added] text theory. Yes, and? You seem to be having some reading comprehension issues blue..

Okay, so lets run through this once more.

"They absolutely do take a cut of any and all royalties for their "services" (one example being 20% of Youtube money royalties). Even if you opt out of all extra services on offer, you still need to pay the mandatory annual fees."

"Services" (their word, not mine), such as Youtube money streaming royalty, are not included in the annual fee, hence the extra! Which part of that statement is untrue? None. It's all fact.

Distrokid charges a $15 fee + 20% of ALL royalties for the Youtube royalty stream "service". Of which Spotify gets a cut.


You're now resorting to selective reading, choosing and twisting sections of sentences and paragraphs and words to fit your bizarre narrative. Taking words out of context, ignoring facts and/or trivializing those things that don't fit your narrative and your puerile attempts to muddy the waters of this thread and bury the facts wont work. When choosing a distributor, people have a right to know the truth, facts relating to the Distrokid/Spotify shady and deceptive distribution model which includes a double dipped streaming royalty scheme, and I am here to tell them all about it.
Old 3rd November 2019
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantbunnyrabbit View Post
Mate, I thought you were done and dusted?! Comical.

RE: Your [bold added] text theory. Yes, and? You seem to be having some reading comprehension issues blue..

Okay, so lets run through this once more.

"They absolutely do take a cut of any and all royalties for their "services" (one example being 20% of Youtube money royalties). Even if you opt out of all extra services on offer, you still need to pay the mandatory annual fees."

"Services" (their word, not mine), such as Youtube money streaming royalty, are not included in the annual fee, hence the extra! Which part of that statement is untrue? None. It's all fact.

Distrokid charges a $15 fee + 20% of ALL royalties for the Youtube royalty stream "service". Of which Spotify gets a cut.


You're now resorting to selective reading, choosing and twisting sections of sentences and paragraphs and words to fit your bizarre narrative. Taking words out of context, ignoring facts and/or trivializing those things that don't fit your narrative and your puerile attempts to muddy the waters of this thread and bury the facts wont work. When choosing a distributor, people have a right to know the truth, facts relating to the Distrokid/Spotify shady and deceptive distribution model which includes a double dipped streaming royalty scheme, and I am here to tell them all about it.
Firstly can we stay civil please? Thanks.

Secondly, I get what you’re saying as far as Spotify getting a cut as shareholders. Assuming a profit is being made.

I’m not sure I’d consider it “double dipping”. Are you suggesting distrokid should just be a free upload service since Spotify owns it and they’ll make money there? Aside from the fact it’s ONLY the Spotify uploads they’d make money from (not every other service), it’s not really how business works. You don’t buy up another company only to make it worthless. You also don’t necessarily advertise your business structures, even if it’s not really a secret.

Is it worth knowing? Sure. Is it dishonest or shady? Not really. Well, not compared to many issues in the music industry.

I think that’s what blue’s point is - there’s nothing really wrong with the model.

Do you know who owns the rest of Spotify, or whoever? Are you outraged that Apple sell Logic at an unrealistic price because it helps them sell more Macs? It’s just business.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump