Spotify CEO Daniel Ek sparked an online backlash after a social media post in which he said the cost of creating “content” is “close to zero”.

The boss of the streaming giant said in a post on X: "Today, with the cost of creating content being close to zero, people can share an incredible amount of content. This has sparked my curiosity about the concept of long shelf life versus short shelf life.

"While much of what we see and hear quickly becomes obsolete, there are timeless ideas or even pieces of music that can remain relevant for decades or even centuries.

“Also, what are we creating now that will still be valued and discussed hundreds or thousands of years from today?”

Music fans and musicians were quick to call Ek out, with one user, composer Tim Prebble, saying: “Music will still be valued in a hundred years. Spotify won’t. It will only be remembered as a bad example of a parasitic tool for extracting value from other peoples music. (or “content” as some grifters like to call it).”

Musicians weighed in too, with Primal Scream bassist Simone Marie Butler saying: “Fuck off you out of touch billionaire.”

  • brunogron
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    7 months ago

    I do understand the critics backlash.

    But to be fair, with all the no quality garbage published on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, the possibility to generate music with suno – the cost is close to zero.

    Quality content in the other hand, do cost money and the creators should be better compensated.

    • KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The problem all around, IMO, is just how extremely broad the term content is. Content can be a complex hour-long video on a subject with amazing editing, or a beautiful piece of artwork, but it can also be a quick selfie at a club or any given platform’s equivalent of shitposting.