Sorry should have put a disclaimer that it was just a rough estimate of $0.005 per stream payout (got from Google) and then dividing $10 by that. Of course, like you say, they might have other revenue streams and expenses so it’s not just simply “breakeven at 2k streams”. Maybe they also pay less than $0.005, etc… But it should serve as a ballpark estimate of when their other revenue streams will need to cover their losses. Though, like you also mentioned, with all their free and family-plan users, the average pay/user is probably a lot lower than $10, maybe even $5 or less per month.
Now, they have tons of super expensive engineers/managers employed so while their subscription model might breakeven at x streams, the company as a whole would probably need that to be 0.5x streams, or maybe even less, to be able to cover for all the engineers/managers.
So with all that in mind, it’s not weird that they’re not profitable. However, I don’t see Resonate ever being profitable either, no matter the model, if they were to have anywhere near the kind of spending that Spotify does.
The only way this would be possible afaik would be through having a higher subscription fee, closer to 15-20 a month.
Hmm yeah but not too odd perhaps, considering that one member fee of 10 covers 10.000 of those pennies (just as one example of why it may be possible).
This is definitely juicy stuff, 100% better (well, minus the lack of music-discovery features, but maybe eventually).
Sorry you’re right, I remember now. Thanks for referencing those again.
I like this argument. I dislike how really big artists probably, sometimes, make more than 1 euro per song from me simply because they get really good royalties and I also play some of their songs (like old classics) a lot.