Should journalists be holding music streaming services to account more?
A number of high profile artists have pulled their music from Spotify in recent years citing unfair practices and a lack of royalties, but are journalists doing enough to call out them out?
Journalism can be powerful. We’ve seen this in politics and music, and can have some serious repercussions for those on the tail ends of reports. The MP Expenses Scandal uncovered by the Daily Telegraph sent shockwaves through Parliament, with some losing their jobs or even being prosecuted. The story did more than just uncover MPs spending tax payers money on duck ponds and Hobnobs. It uncovered serious crimes such as false accounting or mortgage fraud. Journalism really has the power to shake up industries and expose injustice.
The evidence is there that journalists can possess a lot of power, so are they using it adequately against large streaming companies which many have continued to complain about? Radiohead’s Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich removed the band’s music from Spotify in 2013, arguing that the platform paid ‘f*ck all’ to its artists, and has frequently voiced their views on the platform in past years, even though their music is now back on the platform. In 2014, one of the most listened to artists in the world, Taylor Swift, removed her entire back catalogue from the platform, as she stated her disagreement with Spotify’s free tier, arguing that ‘valuable things should be paid for’.
In an even more shocking move, an open-letter written to Spotify by big songwriters in the music industry expressed their disgust that the company decided to appeal a decision by the Copyright Royalty Board (CBR) to increase songwriter’s streaming pay by nearly 50%, meaning that for every $3.82 made, writers and publishers would get $1. Artists and songwriters rejoiced at the decision, which many platforms decided not to appeal, but Spotify faced largescale backlash from the music community for appealing the rate increase which CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association David Israelite called ‘the best mechanical rate scenario for songwriters in US history’.
There is clearly largescale demand for streaming platforms to be held account for their actions, but are journalists doing their job properly when it comes to reporting on injustices within the music industry? It’s not just artists that have battled against the companies, but Apple Music recently found themselves in hot water with Spotify themselves. The service argued that Apple Music was using unfair practices to compete against the platform, hiking prices for apps that wished to use Apple’s billing system, meaning that users were unable to upgrade to Spotify premium within the app without adopting the system. When Apple Music launched in 2016, they were able to charge a significant amount less than Spotify for its subscription service, as Apple was not subject to its own billing service costs. Spotify was so enraged at their so-called ‘unfair practices’, that they launched a campaign and website against Apple called ‘time to play fair’, supposedly calling out Apple for their ‘anti-competitive behaviour’.
It can clearly be argued that should journalists have held Apple Music to account then Spotify would have not have had to launch this campaign, similar to how artists have had to make sacrifices by pulling their music from Spotify to make a stand against what they called unfair treatment. Artists appear to only win attention from the media when they make dramatic moves against streaming services, but it may be necessary to instead urge journalists to carry out more intensive investigations against platforms that take advantage of artists music and talent, before artists have to take action themselves that may be detrimental to them in the long run.
However, others disagree, with many arguing that music streaming services aren’t doing anything wrong, with some artists and labels even suggesting that they have had a positive impact for artists, helping to increase their following through its offerings, with streaming services being used by nearly a third of the US population alone in 2020. One tech reviewer and critic on YouTube sought to summarise the situation by echoing voices from those who believed Apple Music weren’t causing any issues, simply applying the same rules for all of their apps, not just Spotify. This could suggest that Spotify was merely launching a smear campaign against Apple Music. In Spotify’s statement justifying their appeal of CBR’s ruling, they argued that the move was not about the increase in artist revenue, believing that in fact, artists ‘deserved the raise’, instead justifying their appeal by citing ‘flaws’ in the rate structure.
Some artists themselves have even expressed their satisfaction with streaming platforms, and how free tiers help to engage fans in new music. Whilst Taylor Swift disagreed with Spotify’s free tier, believing that ‘music should not be free’, songwriter Daniel Broadley replied to a Twitter thread shared by Radiohead’s Thom Yorke by suggesting that smaller artists making songs that are highly genre specific can be catapulted by Spotify’s algorithm, as more users discover their songs in different playlists. One analysis by Pitchfork argued that streaming services don’t pay all their artists adequately due to the fact that over 99% of audio streaming is the top 10% most streamed tracks. Krukowski from Pitchfork argued that fans should instead be smarter about the ways they consume music, believing that the system is not unfair per se, but those wishing to listen to smaller artists should instead access their music in other ways, as fee models leave less than 1% of streaming revenue to artists that do not fall under the top 10% of most streamed categories.
This clearly begs the question; are streaming services actually doing anything that warrants investigation? Well, it is clear that many artists feel ignored by streaming platforms, and royalties appear miniscule for artists who are the ones behind the music on their platforms. Many artists have also expressed concern at free tiers on streaming platforms, and the unfair practices that allows fans to listen without charge, instead facing intermittent ad-breaks with revenue mostly reaching the streaming platform only. However, perhaps it is the mere business model of streaming services in general that create this divide, rather than unfair practices. Smaller artists may need to instead evaluate whether it would be cost effective to upload music onto platforms, or whether they would be better driving up sales through traditional methods such as iTunes or record sales, which are making a huge comeback for the music industry, as over 4.8 million were sold last year.
However, with streaming services gaining listeners everyday, and the likes of Spotify and Apple Music continuing to dominate the industry, perhaps journalists need to hold this power to account, reminding them that if streaming services are the new way to consume music for the masses, then they should remember that it’s the artists themselves that keep the industry moving.
