this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
365 points (96.4% liked)

Not The Onion

12390 readers
1479 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] finitebanjo 51 points 1 day ago (28 children)

Hold on, Lily Allen is on OnlyFans? That's wild, lol, I guess a big part of her brand of feminism is embracing sexuality or something.

Power to em, idgaf.

[–] [email protected] 135 points 1 day ago (20 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 day ago (12 children)

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.

[–] nshibj 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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 10 points 23 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Others might pay more, but the point is, that Spotify pays so much more than what ends up with the artists.

[–] nshibj 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)