• can@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    9 days ago

    Lily Allen, who started selling pictures of her feet on OnlyFans over summer. She had the idea after seeing that her feet had a perfect five star rating on WikiFeet, a photo-sharing foot fetish website. Subscribers pay £8 a month to access her posts. In October, Allen claimed that shots of her well-pedicured trotters were earning her more money than Spotify streams – and that’s saying something, considering Allen has over 7 million monthly listeners and more than a billion streams on her top three songs.

    Feet pics apparently.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      9 days ago

      In another thread someone said Spotify is paying out 17k per month for her streams. And that’s only Spotify. If she’s making more on OF, that means there are a lot of foot people and the music royalty situation is completely fucked up, because I don’t think the money ends up with her.

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        I remember reading that Spotify pays out around 4k per day (~120k per month) for her streams but the majority of that payout goes to the rights holder and Allen gets pennies. I think Spotify is paying a reasonable amount (at least in my opinion but I’m far from an expert on the matter) and the music industry is the one screwing her over.

        • can@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 days ago

          Spotify pays artists less than any major streaming platform (Apple music, tidal, etc.)

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            9 days ago

            Do they actually pay less or do they pay less per stream? Because those two things are not the same.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                8 days ago

                Per stream can be very misleading because if Apple pays double per stream but the song gets double the streams on Spotify the payout is exactly the same. There’s an argument to be made that if you got as many streams on Apple as you do on Spotify you’d make more money but let’s be real, if Apple got as many streams as Spotify their per stream price would also be closer to what Spotify pays. These companies aren’t paying extra out of kindness. Their per stream pricing is higher because they know they (on average) won’t get Spotify number of streams. They can undercut Spotify to make themselves look better while most likely paying out roughly as much (or maybe even less than) what Spotify pays out.

                • can@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  You know, I’m generally with you there, but Tidal recently lowered the price of its Hi-Fi tier to match apple music’s price while Spotify still hasn’t made good on their lossless promise.

                  I just don’t get the appeal of Spotify aside from sunk cost. The podcast spam is enough for me.

      • nshibj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        I’m not saying that’s wrong, because I don’t have the information, but I have repeatedly read on different news articles that Spotify pays peanuts: way less than that to big artists. I will have to check for updated and reliable sources.

        • Dupree878@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 days ago

          They don’t pay as well as Apple and Tidal but they pay much better than YouTube

          When you’re indy you don’t make money from streaming. When you’re actually popular you do, but the record company gets it. It’s like when hard partying rockstars used to all go broke. It’s because they made millions but the corporations took it all and made them pay back the recording and partying costs out of their meager earnings. Then if the band was bust the company would write off the expenses as a loss while still collecting from the artists’ share.

          For Taylor Swift’s 1999 album, there was an article that showed Spotify had paid millions to the record company and Swift got about $200. That’s why she’s re-recording everything as “Taylor’s version.” So she can get the revenue.

          The singer of Cracker showed his earnings from streaming the song Low one month and TouTube had way more views than any streamer and had paid pennies. Seriously it was like .32.

          My last check from streaming was $12 and that was only split two ways.

          • nshibj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 days ago

            Thank you, I didn’t know that. I know that record labels have been screwing artists for decades… but I didn’t know that Spotify was actually paying good money for the listens, it just doesn’t reach the artist.

            • XTL@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 days ago

              There’s been years of anti Spotify propaganda. It’s not surprising that it sticks.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Damn, I’ve had so many friends and coworkers joke about selling feet pics and here she is actually doing it and making bank! That’s utterly crazy that she makes more from OF than Spotify. I’m surprised Spotify/streaming subscriptions hasn’t just been killed off by artists/studios if the revenue stream is that awful.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          In fact, the studios are probably making as much of the money as Spotify itself, if not more. While the artists get like 0.003 of a penny per stream. That’s fucking ridiculous!

          For all the celebrity status and glamour, their labor and creative output is still being exploited almost as badly as that of “regular” workers.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        I’m guessing, just because she’s famous, her feet could be ugly as fuck and there would still be a big enough market for her to make a decent living.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        I can’t believe I just searched up lily Allen’s feet. But what was most shocking is how much her looks have changed. I didn’t even recognize her.