Kate Nash and Lily Allen on OnlyFans should be a wake-up call for the music industry
Kate Nash and Lily Allen on OnlyFans should be a wake-up call for the music industry
With paltry streaming royalties and a cost-of-touring crisis, it’s harder than ever to make money as a musician. Claudia Cockerell on the household names who are taking up side hustles, and what it says about the state of the music industry
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, that is a shitton of money. Yeah, it really sounds like the music industry is shit and broken like everything else.
Spotify pays artists less than any major streaming platform (Apple music, tidal, etc.)
Do they actually pay less or do they pay less per stream? Because those two things are not the same.
Good question. I'm speaking per stream, not sure overall.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Others might pay more, but the point is, that Spotify pays so much more than what ends up with the artists.
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.
There's been years of anti Spotify propaganda. It's not surprising that it sticks.
Wow, what a strange world, she have any photos where she grips stuff with her feet?
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.
Oh, the studios are making enough money. It's just the artists who get fucked.
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.
I just had a look and her feet do look incredibly nice. If I were so inclined, subscribing to her account might feel worth it.
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.
It looks like it's just crazy foot people and she's not actually exposing anything lol.
It's an awareness stunt. I get the point - but its also hard to feel bad for very successful music superstars who are having a few down years. That being said these music industry shills running ticketing, touring etc. Are awful so bringing that to attention is a worthwhile cause.
But who else is going to make people aware of the issue but a successful music superstar?
If me, Joe Musician who tours the regional small clubs, puts my feet on OnlyFans, no one gives a shit. Lily Allen has charted multiple times (although she's nowhere near as popular in the U.S. as she is in other countries).
Yes that's what I was trying to say. It's an awareness stunt more so than I woe is me type of complaint.
To be fair, artists are one of the original intended uses for OnlyFans. While it is sexually focused now, that's more a side effect of it being one of the very few creators subscription sites at the time it started up.