Artist-Centric Royalties Is a Good Idea — But It Won’t Solve Everything (Guest Column)

Earlier this month, Deezer announced a new “artist-centric” royalty model with Universal Music Group, under which the streaming service will distribute royalties under what amounts to a weighted system, rather than simply pro rata. The weighted system will attribute a doubled value to streams of “professional” artists, defined as those with 1,000 or more streams per month by 500 or more users, and would double that value again for tracks that fans searched for as opposed to those served up by the platform. 

Assigning more value to music that subscribers deliberately choose to hear is clearly a good idea. In some ways, algorithmically served songs might be more akin to non-interactive radio, which under U.S. law has always generated significantly lower royalty payments.  

Giving additional weight to music from more successful artists simply because they are successful is a less obvious move. Some have said that this new system sounds like a cynical reverse-Robin-Hood move that essentially takes money from the long tail of unsuccessful artists and hands it to the likes of Taylor Swift and Jay-Z simply because big artists are powerful enough to demand it. In fact, however, the proposed cutoff for defining “professional” artist status is pretty low – 1,000 streams per month from at least 500 monthly users. Long tail “noise” would be ineligible for the bonus, though, while even mildly successful developing artists would be treated the same as superstars.

What will all of this mean in practice?  

Deezer says in its press release that “97% of all uploaders on the Deezer platform generated only 2% of the total streams. Whereas only 2% of all uploaders—those artists attracting a consistent fanbase—had more than 1,000 monthly unique listeners.” It’s not clear what percentage of uploaders constitute UMG’s group of professional”artists with more than 1,000 streams from at least 500 monthly users, or what share of total streams they command. But if 2% account for more than 1,000 monthly streams and 3% make up 98% of all streams, then under any reasonable assumption those having at least 1,000 streams from at least 500 monthly users must make up at least 99% of the streams.

If 99% of streams were weighted three-fold under this artist centric policy – all would get doubled, but presumably many tracks would still be served up algorithmically – then, mathematically, that would increase their share to 99.66% (3×99 divided by (3×99+1)). So, the bottom, “noise”, uploaders would see their share of streams and revenues diminished by 0.66% from 1% to 0.34%. 

And what does it mean in real money?

Applying this calculated reduction to IFPI’s published wholesale audio streaming market number of $12.7 billion for 2022 would imply a squeeze on the “noise producers” of $84m (assuming that all labels would eventually follow the UMG model). That’s hardly a large number, but as UMG EVP Digital Strategy Michael Nash says, “we’re fixing the roof while the sun still shines” – the industry leaders want to quash the value of the long tail while it’s still relatively small. Assume that the streaming market grows at 10% a year to over $20 billion within the next 5 years, then assume that, left to the status quo, the revenue take of long tail noise would grow to 5%. If that’s true, UMG’s artist-centric system would cut the noise producer share from 5% to 1.70%, a squeeze of 3.3%, and the professional artist share would go from 95% to 95×3 divided over 95×3+5, or 98.3%. That would amount to a redistribution of $660 million to professional artists, an amount of money that would certainly register.

That means artist-centric royalties do make sense, although they feel like more of a tweak to the existing system than a fundamental change.  

As has been often noted, the current pro-rata model essentially takes subscription money from users who spend less time on a platform (lower intensity users) and passes it to the artists favored by those who spend more time there (high intensity users, or super fans). This redistribution of subscriber revenue does not reflect the proportional tastes of all fans in the market, so it disadvantages deep catalog artists and creators in genres favored by less active users, who tend to be older, such as classic rock, jazz and classical music. Besides being perceived as unfair it also reduces the funds that support a more diverse music landscape and contributes to more streamlined and monolithic business driven by megastars and TikTok. The artist-centric royalty system doesn’t even address this.

It also doesn’t do anything about the fact that heavy users still pay the same low monthly price for access to essentially all the music ever recorded as those who stream far less. Combining a higher monthly price for heavy users with a fan-centric royalty model could represent the leap forward that the industry needs, increasing average revenue per user (ARPU) from heavy users, who would be the least price-sensitive, while distributing the resulting royalties to better reflect the music preferences of everyone who pays for a service. Such a change would grow the overall business and at the same time fund the creative development of a more diverse music landscape.

Thomas Hesse is the former president of global digital business & US distribution at Sony Music Entertainment, and the president and chief digital officer of Bertelsmann. He currently builds and supports the next generation of media companies.

Related Images: