Streaming has been a point of contention for several years, but as we continue to shift to that being the dominant form of listening, the complaints of artists continue to grow louder. Spotify, in particular, is a target of ire from many, due to their size and ubiquity. With payouts that require millions of streams to see the kind of royalties that came from even nominal record sales, they make an easy target. When they then make a big deal of announcing they are spending HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to acquire notable podcasts, anything they have to say about the fault of musicians will fall on deaf ears.
Their CEO has managed to choke on his own foot here:
"But unequivocally, from the data, there are more and more artists that are able to live off streaming income in itself.
"There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can't record music once every three to four years and think that's going to be enough.
"The artists today that are making it realize that it's about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans."
There are two angles we need to take when dissecting these comments.
1) He is both right and wrong about what artists need to do.
With the speed of life we can't seem to avoid, perhaps it isn't possible for any but the biggest of artists to take years off in between releases. If your music is not resonating deeply with people, it is absolutely the case that it can easily be forgotten by the time you are ready for your next release, given the torrent of new music that never stops. While I still prefer albums, I can absolutely see how releasing EPs more often can keep momentum rolling with fewer interruptions.
There is a new band that put out their first single this year. I really loved the song, but the band has been silent for almost six months since then. I don't mean silent in that there hasn't been another song, but silent in that they haven't even posted on any of their social media outlets. In a case like that, yes, it is absolutely the band's fault if they are forgotten.
However, let's be honest about something; Spotify is pushing artists to release music as singles, whether it's good for them or not. The impatient listening and preponderance of playlists is a system psychologically driving listeners to consume only their absolute favorite songs from artists, as well as whatever is new. The very foundation of what streaming is focuses on individual songs. By doing that, Spotify is pushing the industry to a release format that limits how much money artists can make. Singles don't sell for as much as albums, nor do they accumulate as many streams as a full album could if listened to as often, which depresses the potential revenue the artist sees. Perhaps it was inevitable, but Spotify doesn't seem to have any realization of their role in this situation, nor any remorse.
2) He ignores Spotify's responsibility to fairly compensate artists.
I have defended streaming payouts in the past, based on the simple concepts of math. If Spotify brings in a certain amount of money, there is a finite amount to be split up across billions of streams, minus the costs of running the service. The number we would think is 'fair' to pay per stream would bankrupt a streaming company, since there just isn't enough money out there to do it.
I can't say that any longer, not with Spotify paying $500 million to be the exclusive outlet to noted bigot Joe Rogan's podcast. If the company has that kind of money, they could have increased payouts to artists, rather than tie their name to a man who is both openly transphobic and a conspiracy theorist. Spotify was built on music. They did not grow into the industry leader through their selection of podcasts. Spotify is, first and foremost, the pre-eminent library of recorded music. For the company to be lavishing giant payouts to people who were not at all involved in the development and growth of the company, and who will likely never bring in a fraction of that payout in new subscriber revenue, instead of paying the artists whose work is what actually brings people to their platform is absurd.
What we have is the classic case of rich people taking care of rich people, whether they are new money or old. Once you have money, it seems all you can relate to is money, and Spotify is now making it clear they intend to take care of the most well-off content creators only, because they can't afford to alienate the people who have the power to speak out against them. The entire house of cards that is streaming relies on the most in-demand artists playing along.
Streaming doesn't make money. Spotify is not a company that turns an annual profit, and yet they are the gatekeepers to the entire industry at this point. We should talk about them accurately; Spotify is a failure. To run a business for a decade, to bring in as much financing and investment as they have, and to never turn a profit, is pure failure. Other than Tesla, I can't think of another company that is publicly lauded, given an astronomical market valuation, and yet doesn't do what business is supposed to; make money. For the CEO of a failure to criticize anyone else for not being successful is contemptible.
Maybe all of this would be moot if Spotify was successful, and could make enough money to pay artists. It is Spotify's failure that keeps everyone in the music industry poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment