'Uptown Funk' making $100,000 per week on Spotify

Despite what Taylor Swift would have you believe, there is money to be made on streaming services like Spotify.

Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars' hit song 'Uptown Funk' is a certified hit and one of the most popular tracks in the world. According to MBW, the song is making nearly $100,000 per week on Spotify alone thanks to millions of plays.

Since its release on the streaming service on November 10th, 2014, the track has been played 125.9 million times. Spotify estimates $0.007 is paid to rightsholders per play, meaning the song has brought in nearly $900,000 in revenue.

At around 15 million plays per week, the song is bringing in $100k per week, a number shared by Ronson, the record label, the publisher and any co-writers.

As reported previously on Afterdawn, how much the artists get is a subject of debate. If you do not include taxes or platform costs, the labels take 73 percent, songwriters take 16 percent and artists get 11 percent, but it is hard to imagine an artist struggling while getting $11,000 a week from just one platform.

Source:
MBW

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 15 Feb 2015 17:26

scorpNZ

11000.00 after tax or before ? regardless seems a pitiful amount & what happens when it's not a hit

http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/
http://www.realmodscene.com/

15.2.2015 20:09 #1

ZippyDSM

Helps when your audience baths and knows WTF the internet is..... FFS....

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

15.2.2015 20:41 #2

scorpNZ

lol

http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/
http://www.realmodscene.com/

15.2.2015 20:46 #3

ZippyDSM

Originally posted by scorpNZ: lol I bringz the brunz.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

15.2.2015 21:28 #4

DVDBack23

Originally posted by scorpNZ: 11000.00 after tax or before ? regardless seems a pitiful amount & what happens when it's not a hit $11k per WEEK, from ONE service. :)

AfterDawn News
AfterDawn Guides
One of the largest collections of software on the Web: AfterDawn Software Section

15.2.2015 21:38 #5

djgizmo

Unfortunately,

Afterdawn has very little clue on how little a performer (Artist) actually makes.

I used to work for one of the largest distributors of EDM (Symphonic Distribution) and basically everyone gets a piece of the pie. It starts from the retailer. The retailers sell the track to a consumer (Itunes, Amazon, Beatport, juno, trackitdown, traxsource etc), They give say 60% of the $1-$3 to the distributor. They in turn give about 70% to the music label. The label then gives 16% to the writer off the top, and then the performer gets about 15% BEFORE cost recuperation. Then the label deducts studio time fees, any kind of physical manufacturing costs, poster printing, and various 'payola' costs to get the song on the air. So out of a $2 song, the artist probably sees around 7 cents (+$0.07)

Streaming is even worse. The performing artist receives around $0.0007, which is 7/100 of one penny per stream.

Now, large (well performing/in demand artists) have a lot of wiggle room to negotiate.... but only the upper 2% of the music industry can actually say they are well off.

-Sean-

17.2.2015 22:08 #6

ZippyDSM

Originally posted by djgizmo: Unfortunately,

Afterdawn has very little clue on how little a performer (Artist) actually makes.

I used to work for one of the largest distributors of EDM (Symphonic Distribution) and basically everyone gets a piece of the pie. It starts from the retailer. The retailers sell the track to a consumer (Itunes, Amazon, Beatport, juno, trackitdown, traxsource etc), They give say 60% of the $1-$3 to the distributor. They in turn give about 70% to the music label. The label then gives 16% to the writer off the top, and then the performer gets about 15% BEFORE cost recuperation. Then the label deducts studio time fees, any kind of physical manufacturing costs, poster printing, and various 'payola' costs to get the song on the air. So out of a $2 song, the artist probably sees around 7 cents (+$0.07)

Streaming is even worse. The performing artist receives around $0.0007, which is 7/100 of one penny per stream.

Now, large (well performing/in demand artists) have a lot of wiggle room to negotiate.... but only the upper 2% of the music industry can actually say they are well off.
A shame such a system is heavily broken(and by system I mean the way all IP rights are sold), it would be better to calculate total profit minus mid to high end bonuses and wagers, then calculate what each IP made from the service via each instance played and time played, IP owners would get 30-60% of profit their IP generated.

You pay for the basic operations of a project(anything below mid to high end bonuses, wages and such) then from the profit made you shell out to IP owners based on time used at a 30% or 60% rate whatever is left over goes to mid to high end bonuses, wages and such.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

18.2.2015 03:31 #7

AfterDawn: News