Streaming…Again!
Like it or not, streaming is now the dominant way most of us consume music. It is convenient and immediate, and for listeners, it feels almost limitless. Sometimes I actually feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of music that’s avaialble, and I only use one streaming service. For a monthly payment that is less than the price of a single CD not that far back, we have access to nearly the entire recorded history of modern music. That’s insane if you stop and think about it for a minute. For artists, though, that convenience to the end user has come at a huge cost. Despite their importance, the way streaming services recompense musicians is often confusing, and, for far too many of them, insufficient – from my point of view, anyway.
The reality of streaming payments can be a tad scary when you look at the numbers. I make no excuses for asking AI to find me these figures. On Spotify, widely regarded as the largest streaming service, payouts average roughly $0.003 to $0.005 per stream. That means that even a track with tens of thousands of plays earns only a few hundred dollars before it’s then split between rights holders and collaborators. Apple Music supposedly pays a bit more, with AI telling me it pays from $0.007 to $0.01 per stream. Amazon Music, it reckons, pays somewhere near $0.004 per stream, while services like Tidal, which position themselves as more artist-friendly, can pay around $0.0128 to $0.013 per stream. YouTube Music usually pays around $0.002 per stream. Qobuz, which has an average payout of about $0.01873 per stream, pays a tad higher than most of its competitors. I’m informed that these figures are approximate and vary by region, subscription type, catalogue agreements, and how rights holders divide the money, but they illustrate a fundamental and worrying issue: streaming plays are rarely worth enough on their own to sustain a career unless an artist racks up millions of them. Whereas bands once relied on folk buying physical copies of their music, streaming has, for the most part, taken that away.
In a recent interview with LouderSound, Jay Jay French of Twisted Sister described this new reality pretty bluntly when he commented on why live gigs have become so expensive. “You make money touring, and you give your music away for free,” which is something I’d not really considered in any great detail, though I have looked at the price of tickets to gigs and thought them pretty pricey affairs. In the past, artists could expect income from physical record sales and then supplement that with touring. Today, recorded music seems to function as promotion for the tour itself, not a revenue stream. That then obviously feeds into ticket prices for gigs. If musicians are forced to tour constantly to make ends meet, and if streaming pays only tiny amounts per play, the economics drive ticket costs higher as bands try to break even, let alone make a profit. I’ve moaned about ticket prices before, and I’ve recently seen people on socials commenting about ticket prices for gigs, and whilst I accept that for some bands this elevated ticket pricing is a necessity, I can’t help but think that some bands are cashing in on this and effectively fleecing their loyal fans. I’ll not mention names, but one band celebrating its 50th anniversary recently announced a reunion that came up a lot during my social searches whilst researching this piece. I’m not going to rush out and buy those tickets, but some of them were eye-wateringly expensive!
I’m reliably informed that most major streaming platforms use a pro-rata model, where all subscription revenues are pooled and then divided according to each track’s share of total streams. That system obviously gives the advantage to the most-streamed superstars and, in turn, disadvantages more niche and newer artists who have smaller but passionate audiences. Platforms like Spotify distribute roughly 70 % of revenue to rights holders (record labels, publishers, and digital distributors) who then pay artists according to their contracts, often leaving artists with only a fraction of the gross payout. So that already seemingly paltry “per stream” figure is actually further diluted when it comes to the actual artists themselves.
So what can be done? If streaming has become the main thrust of the music economy, perhaps it’s time for it to evolve into a system that properly rewards creativity and distributes its profits more equitably. As I’m writing this, I can hear some shouting, “Here comes the commie agenda…” One frequently discussed proposal is a system where your subscription fee would be allocated only to the artists you personally listen to, rather than pooled with everyone else’s. For independent artists with dedicated fanbases, this could give much better returns than the current model, where a small percentage of mega-hits dominate the revenue share. This takes me back to the point I made about there being just so much music out there, and, like many, I guess, I only listen to a few handfuls of artists regularly.
I also reckon that greater transparency from streaming platforms would also help. I’ve seen musicians and industry professionals point out that the current royalty calculation methods are opaque, and it can be hard to know precisely how much a given artist has earned from streaming in any given period. Clearer reporting on revenue splits, how free-tier and paid-for streams are valued, and how contractual arrangements affect payouts would allow artists and labels alike to make more informed decisions and potentially negotiate fairer terms. Obviously, this clarity would be great for artists, but I’m guessing that it wouldn’t be so good for the record labels.
Another opportunity that I see lies in features that let listeners directly support artists within the streaming ecosystem. Platforms could integrate tipping, patronage systems, or fan funding tools that allow fans to contribute directly to bands and artists they love. Some services already experiment with these ideas, but wider adoption could significantly boost income for artists who may not have large streaming numbers but have intensely loyal followings.
Streaming platforms could also act as the bridge between digital and physical media. Vinyl and physical formats continue to generate some decent revenue for many artists, especially in niche and audiophile communities. If streaming services offered seamless ways to purchase physical releases or limited editions through artist pages, they could help reconnect listening with money going directly into the artists’ coffers. Bundling exclusive content such as high-resolution audio, bonus tracks, or behind-the-scenes material with physical gubbins might attract fans who are willing to spend more than the standard subscription fee. I don’t know how feasible and what kind of infrastructure streaming services would need to invest in, but something has to change.
Live-streamed performances represent another area of relatively unexplored potential, I think. While some artists have experimented with ticketed livestreams (particularly during lockdown), there is no dominant platform that combines high-quality video, reliable monetisation, and fair revenue splits – do get in touch and tell me I’m wrong, if I am! If major streaming services offered properly priced, professionally hosted livestreams with revenue shared properly with artists, this could create new income streams that don’t depend on punishing touring schedules or inflated ticket prices. This might also help with the number of venues closing; we all want to be present at a gig, but it’s not always possible, and properly done live streaming could help here. Can’t get tickets for your favourite band’s gig? Then throw a party and watch the live-streamed gig with your mates.
Platforms also have enormous influence over discovery through playlists and algorithms. This power could be used to help broaden exposure for a wider diversity of artists rather than funnelling attention to the few with the largest number of followers. Prioritising editorial playlists, personalised recommendations based on listener behaviour, and support for emerging local scenes could make for a fairer system. I have to say, even with the likes of ROON, which I use loads, I do find that the algorithms just seem to feed me stuff I know, and I have to actively seek out new stuff – often looking to friends and social media for recommendations.
None of these changes is simple to implement, and streaming companies have their own commercial considerations to think about. Subscription prices have remained insanely low for many years, and raising them risks a backlash from those now used to the bargain-basement low prices. However, if music really matters, not just as content, but as art, then the money should reflect that belief. Convenience should not mean devaluation, and access should not come at the expense of sustainability. I suppose the question here is, would folk actually pay more to streaming services, or have we gone too far down the “everything for free (or nearly free)” rabbit hole?
Streaming has solved the distribution part of the equation, but it has not solved the remuneration to the artists’ side of things. It has made music ubiquitous, but it has not guaranteed that those who create it can thrive… or even survive in some instances. When artists are forced to rely almost entirely on touring to make ends meet, ticket prices go up, schedules get mental, and burnout becomes the norm. That is not a healthy model for the scene. But if streaming platforms, artists, and listeners can collaborate on new ways of thinking about payment models, transparency, commerce integration, and direct support, there is (perhaps) reason for a bit of cautious optimism. After all, music is not just zeros and ones on a server; it is human expression, emotion, and connection, and it deserves a system that recognises its value and rewards the people who bring it into our lives.
Stu
Read More Sunday Thoughts.
Join the conversation over on Facebook.
