• MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The article contradicts the heck out of itself.

    Says billboard estimates she earns roughly $4k a day from Spotify streams. Then they speculate she makes roughly 8k a month from OnlyFans.

    That would be like $120k a month from Spotify and $8k a month from OnlyFans.

    That is FAR from more money from OnlyFans. Even if those numbers are hugely off I don’t see how the discrepancy would be THAT large.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 minutes ago

        Hmm, so we may have a culprit in the case of the missing money.

        And although I like Lily, she’s not really done a lot of music recently, and was never really that big outside the UK.

  • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Perhaps this just means people value her feet more than music? I’m not into feet, but I really didn’t like her music, so maybe this is reasonable.

    • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Not really. It just means onlyfans pays more than Spotify… which seems obvious to me??? A direct subscription to an artist vs only a few cents per play… yeah, no brainer, the artist is going to make less money in the latter deal.

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Something I’ve noticed in British media as of late is that OnlyFans makes some serious money - enough so that a creator can essentially use local journalism as an outlet for promoting their page.

    I doubt some of the figures, but if you were to dig into them you’d probably see that number after the media have basically told people “look! Lily Allen has OnlyFans!”

    Alongside that, funny enough, OnlyFans is probably one of the UK’s biggest tech success stories. They make a lot of money, have only a few employees, and are basically leaders in their field. That’s probably another weighing towards this being a promo piece.

  • Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Seeing how this thread is full of hate for Spotify by seeming large number of people who are fans of streaming music/podcast services, I’ll pos this question here:

    What are the better alternatives for someone seeking to get their favored audios, in terms of library selection, able to form custom playlists and how much if any support to the artist/content creator actually gets to them and what is pocketed by the app?

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Buy CDs, rip them to FLAC, and self-host something like Plex + Plexamp. Plexamp is a very nice app, but I’m sure there’s others.

    • polographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Go to their concerts, buy the official merchandise and get CD’s or pay the whole albums like on qobuz (they also have streaming, but they sell hi-res flac)

      Streaming is not designed to benefit the artist

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Tidal, or buy albums and self host if you’re up for it but I feel like that’s not a real option for most.

        • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          At a recent (niche) music festival, they said it takes 50,000 streaming songs to pay the artist as much as a single CD sale.

        • nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          That is a complex question but my line of thought is this: artists have accepted legal agreements on how to sell/stream their work and how much they get for it. You as a consumer don’t need to worry about this. If there is a way to buy/stream the product legally then the artist has approved of getting money that way.

          Basically i don’t think this should be a point to discourage buying audio and owning it. The alternative is never owning music and tough luck if a song gets pulled because of legal disputes or whatever.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            tough luck if a song gets pulled because of legal disputes or whatever.

            This is the thing I hated about Google Play Music. I had some playlists where half of the songs were missing due to various issues between Google and the music labels.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      There are none.

      All of the services steal from artists, so I’d recommend ripping MP3 tracks from Youtube. There are several tools online for this purpose. Yes, the artist gets nothing, but the more important thing is the services stealing from the artists don’t get anything either.

      Do this and then compensate the artist in other ways. Buy music directly from them if you can, or buy their merch, or something of that ilk.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I’d recommend ripping MP3 tracks

        This is how you end up with a library of very low quality tracks. YouTube’s compression isn’t great.

        Yes, the artist gets nothing, but the more important thing is the services stealing from the artists don’t get anything either.

        Why do you feel that YouTube is different to those other services? Does YouTube pay more per view than Spotify pays per listen?

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Totally, man.

          I’m sure they miss the two bucks a year they get off Spotify more than they like the $25 they get for a t-shirt from me.

          The thief is Daniel Ek, and no one knows that better than recording artists.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            If you really do that with every artist you listen to then sure.

  • Lenny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I’m a girl, in a healthy BMI and with nice hair, pretty and freckled face, but my feet are super crappy. Like, crusty, toes bend at weird angles, hard skin in random places. Even my own husband is like “plz no, stop” if they get too near to him.

    I’m now wondering if there’s a market on the other end of the scale…

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Due to the people being people, who knows who has what kinks. I suppose there is only one way to find out.

      And no, I’m not into feet myself.

    • neidu2@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It is my first belief that, given a proper pitch, ANYTHING can be sold at a profit.

      Also, there’s rule 34: If a thing exists, it’s someones fetish.

      • Joeffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If it exists there is porn of it… Not sure where you got that other version from

        • skye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          You can probably extrapolate from “if it exists, there is porn of it (no exceptions)”.

          If there is porn of something, the most likely reason is that someone has a fetish for it.

          If the person making the porn doesn’t have a fetish for said thing, then they’re making it for an existing market of people.

          QED, you can say “if it exists, someone has a fetish for it”

          P.S: What if there isn’t porn of something? Rule 35 states that if it doesn’t exist, it will be made.

          • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Just because you can extrapolate something from it, doesn’t mean you can change the words in the rule. They got the rule wrong, simple as that.

          • untorquer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            You have fundamentally misunderstood millennial meme culture ca. 2006 (roughly when the rules were made).

            No one having a fetish for it would be extremely motivating to create such porn. People realized after it was made that they had a fetish for it. See: Shrek.

            So technically you can still say “if it exists, someone has a fetish for it” but you’ve relied on correlation to determine causation and gotten it backwards. This is a great example of why we don’t do that.

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Post pictures of them on Onlyfans.

      Add the caption “Listen up, degenerates. I’ll only warn you once. I will release a new photo, closer than the previous, every hour, on the hour, until my subscriber goal is met.”

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      15 hours ago

      There is. There’s a fetish for everything. Certainly when it involves your feet, I’d ask your husband if he’d be ok with some internet strangers paying you every month to see your feet, the worst is he says no, and on the other hand if he says yes you have a second source of easy income

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I used to know a dude that would have gotten hard at your written description here. No bullshit. Dude was obsessed with feet, and what he called “real feet” were his particular favorite. Feet that had seen some life, had been used was one of the few things he would talk about. Literally obsessive about feet.

      I guarantee he is not the only one. The only question is if there’s enough like that to make any useful money out of a feet only business.

      There’s something about foot fetishists that’s extra obsessive compared to any other fetishists I’ve run across over the years.

      • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        See, I can kinda get it for some elegant and well kept ones and I’d definitely down for some foot play in such cases. But I don’t know if that would even classify as a foot fetish when I constantly hear about how bad people have it for the (pardon) “ugly” and unkempt ones, which I just find weird.

        But yeah… I mean, there’s like 8 billion people on this planet. There’s always some niche where one fits into that would get someone off and could be capitalized if they’d be willing to do so. Just keep in mind that you’re, in the end, still selling your body for sex in a way.

        • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 hours ago

          To be honest, I’d rather sell my body for sex instead of selling my body to backbreaking warehouse work

      • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I wonder how onlyfans pay model works. If they take a percentage and you don’t need to put any initial funds down to start then you’ll basically have nothing to lose.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Some people just don’t like feet / being near them etc. Had girlfriends who would freak out if we somehow touched feet (even with socks on).

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Some years ago, an artist who was not a mega-star but was on all the major music services published an article detailing how well each one paid. I’m now kicking myself for not bookmarking it. I clearly remember Spotify being among the worst, if not the worst.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I love how the whole crowd of people that used to be all “what, you don’t have a Spotify account?!” Are now starting with the “wait a minute, these guys are domineering and bad!” Like the signals for crowd abuse aren’t plain as day.

    This exploitative behavior will be down by literally any company that sets themselves up to be “the streets” that you gotta navigate to interact with someone else or their media. That means YouTube, Facebook, and also all those physical places on Earth.

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I had a 6 month trial of Spotify for $1 so I thought I’d try it to see if it would help me discover new music. It only has about 70% of the albums in my collection. I wasn’t willing to lose 30% of my music so it’s back to USB in the car and plexamp everywhere else.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        USB in the car and plexamp everywhere else.

        Why not Plexamp in the car too? If you don’t have great mobile data, in Plexamp you can download playlists for offline playing.

        • bitchkat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I prefer to use native music app in my car. The same music is on USB. I use the same rsync script to copy media to USB drive and my plex server. I did just have a rental for two months and it had android auto which supported plexamp.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Makes sense.

            I’ve got an older car (2012 Mazda 3) but years ago I replaced the radio with a Pioneer one that supports Android Auto. I like it and Plexamp works great on it.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      So come on over, what you waiting for?

      No strings attached, no you won’t be ignored!

      We could be family; you’ll be comfortable

      Ever expanding; fully functional!

      You won’t have to answer to anyone!

      You’ll always have room to breathe!

      We all worship at the house of fun!

      We are the well intentioned!

      We only fight in the name of peace!