"…journalist Liz Pelly has conducted an in-depth investigation, and published her findings in Harper’s—they are part of her forthcoming book Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist.
…
"Now she writes:
‘What I uncovered was an elaborate internal program. Spotify, I discovered, not only has partnerships with a web of production companies, which, as one former employee put it, provide Spotify with “music we benefited from financially,” but also a team of employees working to seed these tracks on playlists across the platform. In doing so, they are effectively working to grow the percentage of total streams of music that is cheaper for the platform.’
In other words, Spotify has gone to war against musicians and record labels."
Prior to spotify, people bought songs or albums, and were locked into their favorites or pirated music, which obviously contributed nothing to artist’s pockets.
Spotify is not the evil entity here, in my opinion. Record labels are.
There are literally musicians with Only fans accounts because Spotify makes then such a pathetic amount of money. Every single artist I’ve ever seen comment on Spotify who hasn’t been amongst the most popular bands in their genre for decades have always said that Spotify is absolutely awful for artists.
Albums/singles traditionally weren’t money makers, merch and concerts were. Nobody is saying record labels weren’t and aren’t shitty, but believe it or not it’s possible for both of them to be shitty at the same time.
Your point feels like a false cause or an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It’s not Spotify’s responsibility that some artists choose to leverage their platform to promote OnlyFans or other side ventures. Artists have the autonomy to seek alternative income streams or even pursue entirely different careers if they find Spotify’s payouts insufficient. Blaming Spotify for these decisions ignores the broader context of the music industry and the role record labels play in revenue distribution.
Additionally, streaming platforms have helped reduce piracy and provided exposure to artists who might not have had it otherwise. The issue is much more nuanced than streaming services bad.
Being an artist doesn’t inherently entitle someone to make a lot of money. Success and income in any field depend on demand, skill, and market conditions. For example, writers often face similar challenges—many authors spend years creating books that may never generate significant income, and only a small percentage achieve financial success. Like musicians, they must often supplement their income through other means, such as teaching, freelancing, or speaking engagements.
Just as no one expects every writer to become a bestseller, it’s unrealistic to assume every musician will earn a substantial income solely from their art.
That said, given my views, I also do not want to be on platforms like Spotify. The music industry as a whole needs to make meaningful changes—finding a way to pay artists fairly, provide a robust recommendation engine, and maintain affordability for consumers. Until these systemic issues are addressed, the current model will continue to leave many artists struggling.
Sure, Spotify could raise their rates 100% and increase their payouts, but that wouldnt stop the record labels from taking their 80+%, as part of the contract the artist signed, and the consumer would end up falling back to piracy.
It’s normal if you accept it. You do not have to accept it. There’s also a good chance that it’s illegal in Spotify’s case, if not in the US then likely in Europe.
I suppose you could argue that Spotify can abuse its position in the same way that Walmart bullies its suppliers and Microsoft freezes out competition, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening here. Like I said, it sounds like they’re just preferring cheaper sources.
From the article:
"…journalist Liz Pelly has conducted an in-depth investigation, and published her findings in Harper’s—they are part of her forthcoming book Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist.
…
"Now she writes:
‘What I uncovered was an elaborate internal program. Spotify, I discovered, not only has partnerships with a web of production companies, which, as one former employee put it, provide Spotify with “music we benefited from financially,” but also a team of employees working to seed these tracks on playlists across the platform. In doing so, they are effectively working to grow the percentage of total streams of music that is cheaper for the platform.’
In other words, Spotify has gone to war against musicians and record labels."
Once they get maket shared they start extracting…
To normal people this is called enshitification
This should theoretically at least be illegal, as they abuse the power of the platform to favor certain tracks unfairly.
Any action would require a government that pretends to care for the pedons.
Spotify is AFAIK Swedish, so there you go.
PS:
I guess you mean peons.
Pedons is apparently types of soil: https://www.britannica.com/science/pedon
All western regimes sold out us out, mate
Exploiting us is the MO as workers and customers
Can someone explain why this is bad? It seems like normal behaviour of corporations.
Or has spotify previously committed to being a fair market?
This is like a soup joint that’s trying to see how much they can piss in the broth before customers notice.
This is a completely disingenuous comparison.
yeah, it’s more like they piss directly into peoples mouthes, but it turns out a few people are into that and can’t get enough of it
According to the RIAA, Spotify is a leading contributer to music revenue going up over the past decade plus https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2022-Year-End-Music-Industry-Revenue-Report.pdf
Prior to spotify, people bought songs or albums, and were locked into their favorites or pirated music, which obviously contributed nothing to artist’s pockets.
Spotify is not the evil entity here, in my opinion. Record labels are.
Edit: Unsure how reliable of a source this is, but steaming reduced piracy levels by ~20% https://www.alliotts.com/articles/streaming-has-a-consumer-and-a-piracy-problem-the-answer-lies-in-the-music-industry/
I do think that we have become far removed from the old days, because music piracy was extremely prevelant before these services came out.
There are literally musicians with Only fans accounts because Spotify makes then such a pathetic amount of money. Every single artist I’ve ever seen comment on Spotify who hasn’t been amongst the most popular bands in their genre for decades have always said that Spotify is absolutely awful for artists.
Albums/singles traditionally weren’t money makers, merch and concerts were. Nobody is saying record labels weren’t and aren’t shitty, but believe it or not it’s possible for both of them to be shitty at the same time.
Your point feels like a false cause or an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It’s not Spotify’s responsibility that some artists choose to leverage their platform to promote OnlyFans or other side ventures. Artists have the autonomy to seek alternative income streams or even pursue entirely different careers if they find Spotify’s payouts insufficient. Blaming Spotify for these decisions ignores the broader context of the music industry and the role record labels play in revenue distribution.
Additionally, streaming platforms have helped reduce piracy and provided exposure to artists who might not have had it otherwise. The issue is much more nuanced than streaming services bad.
Being an artist doesn’t inherently entitle someone to make a lot of money. Success and income in any field depend on demand, skill, and market conditions. For example, writers often face similar challenges—many authors spend years creating books that may never generate significant income, and only a small percentage achieve financial success. Like musicians, they must often supplement their income through other means, such as teaching, freelancing, or speaking engagements.
Just as no one expects every writer to become a bestseller, it’s unrealistic to assume every musician will earn a substantial income solely from their art.
That said, given my views, I also do not want to be on platforms like Spotify. The music industry as a whole needs to make meaningful changes—finding a way to pay artists fairly, provide a robust recommendation engine, and maintain affordability for consumers. Until these systemic issues are addressed, the current model will continue to leave many artists struggling.
Sure, Spotify could raise their rates 100% and increase their payouts, but that wouldnt stop the record labels from taking their 80+%, as part of the contract the artist signed, and the consumer would end up falling back to piracy.
That would be a health hazard, so it’s not really comparable.
It seems more like a soup joint using cheaper ingredients in their dishes, which is just… normal? I don’t get what the big deal is.
It’s normal if you accept it. You do not have to accept it. There’s also a good chance that it’s illegal in Spotify’s case, if not in the US then likely in Europe.
Under what law?
Likely antitrust.
That said if you’ve gone down the path of reasoning that says things that aren’t illegal are okay, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I suppose you could argue that Spotify can abuse its position in the same way that Walmart bullies its suppliers and Microsoft freezes out competition, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening here. Like I said, it sounds like they’re just preferring cheaper sources.