The .00005¢ Handshake: More Reasons Why No Talent Buyer Cares About Streaming
Streaming services like Pandora and Spotify try to get artists to believe that their various artist data programs can have an affect on touring as in if you have activity in a particular location you’ll be able to tour there. YouTube also brays about number of views, etc. Of course the streaming boosters in the press accept this uncritically. Anyone who’s ever booked a gig–as in successfully booked a gig–will know how this goes. You’ll be lucky to get laughed at, because that would mean that you at least got the booker on the phone. Once.
If you ever believed this bunk, Digital Music News has a post that should make you go home and reconsider your life and demonstrates the fundamental reason why a talent buyer is never going to believe that streams matter absent a lot of other confirmation. And, of course, if they have that other confirmation, they don’t care about the streaming.
Why? Butts in seats, baby, butts in seats.
As Paul Resnikoff shows in How Much for 1,000 Spotify Plays? Just $5…, it’s all for sale and to one degree or another, the streaming services surely are aware of the problem–since it’s advertised on Craig’s List according to DMN:
But when it comes to inflated play counts in music, almost everything is now in play, including Spotify. In fact, Spotify seems to be an increasingly important menu item alongside the usual social media culprits.
This appeared on Craigslist this week in Los Angeles (and probably other cities as well). But $34.95? That is downright exorbitant compared to some alternatives, including Streamify, which offers artists 1,000 plays over a three-day span for just $5.