Fans quitting Spotify to save their love of music

[jazzbo51]

To the best of my knowledge, which is miniscule, radiomstations and record labels once were set up so the labels paid the station personell to play their music. Somehow that was called “payola” and a bunch of people changed their careers. After that, it seemed like it was more of a free advertising setup, where the stations got free stuff to fill the airtime anf the labels and artists got free publicity. I recall seeing more than a few “rsdio promotion copy” labels on records.

I know of a college radio station that was streaming along with their broadcast, and the streaming royalties, along with the record-keeping requirements, convinced them to stop.

When I worked in radio promotions in the '80s, I never saw direct payments to radio stations from the labels. However, in many cases, you would need to hire an independent promoter and pay them to influence airplay or else many artists (especially up and coming) didn't stand a chance...and it wasn't cheap. As for promotional records, up until the aforementioned 'influencers' became so prominent, they were a major conduit to DJs who were allowed to format their own shows. Tons of free records were given to radio and record stores to distribute amongst the staff, who might hear something they liked and pass that on to their listeners. Of course there were free tickets to shows, open bar tabs, dinners, etc., but that's another story.

 

[mandrix]

I was driving home from work one evening many years ago listening to the radio, and an artist (Greg Kihn) that had several hit songs stated that one of his songs was played somewhere around the world constantly, and that he got a nickel per airplay IIRC. He also stated that the one song paid for his sons college tuition.

Spotify is something I use rarely but enjoy when e.g. with earbuds while waiting in a Doctor's office, or out in my shop with a BT speaker when I tire of the radio.
I've had a free membership since Spotify's inception and never been moved to pay for a subscription, although the jacked up volume on commercials and endless repetition of same has moved me to turn it off a time or two.

 

[Sal1950]

I rarely use streaming but have done so for many years. I stayed with Spotify for many years due to
my preference for their UI (user interface), I felt it was the best available. I did do a bunch of previews from the various "lossless" offerings when they first started to appear at reasonable costs but didn't hear that much of a difference to justify leaving the Spotify UI environment..
All that changed for me when Apple rolled out immersive and multich music at the same low cost of the others 2ch only. Now for me that was a "streamer to die for" even if they have IMO the worst UI of all. Topping it all off is Apple's streaming of all the various providers like Disney +, Paramount and the rest, with the best audio and video quality available short of a super-premium and expensive provider like Kaleidescape. Here's hoping (praying) that immersive streaming becomes popular enough to leverage Apple into the lossless streaming of Atmos TrueHD files.
I'm far from a Apple fanboy, in fact the 4K TV streamer box is the only thing Apple ever I owned. Also the juggernaut aspect of Apple does put a bad taste in my mouth. But for me Apple Music is a gotta-have part of my music system even if actually used only for previewing Atmos releases before the purchase of a lossless offering.
Still I feel it's too bad that Spotify sat on their BUTTS and let all the others pass them by with lossless, multich, and other offerings. I do also feel quite angry towards them for the BS claims of lossless "coming soon" for years now. May their tumble from the top of the latter to the bottom be bumpy and painful. LOL