A Stream is Not a Stream: How Geography Affects the Economics of Music Streaming

When it comes to the value of music royalties, some artists have an advantage based on where they live.

Nigerian artists earned more than $43 million from Spotify in 2024, according to the streaming giant’s latest Loud and Clear report. A “significant” portion of those royalties came from outside Nigeria, with exports of the country’s music increasing 49% over the last three years. In other words, people in other countries — many of which provide better royalties than are available in Nigeria — are listening to Nigerian artists, effectively sending their money to the West African country.

Spotify’s Loud & Clear report provides good insight into how royalties are split between superstars, merely popular artists and everybody else. In 2024, 71,200 artists earned at least $10,000 in royalties from the streaming service, up from 66,000 in 2023, while 670 artists earned more than $2 million, an increase from 570 the prior year.

Read between the lines of the Loud & Clear data and you’ll see that royalties have different values to musicians in different countries. If you’re a recording artist in India, where free, ad-supported listening dwarfs relatively cheap subscriptions, you’re better off receiving your royalties from a country like the U.S. where subscriptions are many and prices are high. If you’re an Afrobeats artist in Nigeria, a U.S. stream is worth more than a stream at home.

Economist Will Page found that almost a third of all streams inside the U.S. in 2023 came from artists outside the U.S. The top music exporter to the U.S. was the U.K. — which has roughly the same royalty rates as the U.S. — but the No. 2 exporter was Mexico, a country where a Spotify individual subscription costs the equivalent of $6.49. Colombia, where a Spotify subscription costs the equivalent of $4.12, was No. 6. As Page wrote in his roundup of 2023 global recorded music revenues, Mexican artists’ U.S. streams were worth more than three times what they would have earned had they originated in their home country. For Colombian artists, their U.S. streams were worth more than six times what they would have earned in their home country.

In a global music business driven by streaming platforms, artists can earn more by tapping into more lucrative markets. A Nigerian artist should want more U.S. fans. A Colombian artist gets more from a U.S. stream. It’s a form of arbitrage — buying low and selling high.

In the digital era, choosing where to live is also a form of arbitrage. People with the ability to work remotely are increasingly choosing to live somewhere more affordable. Millions of Americans have moved to states with lower costs of living in recent years, with some leaving the country for safe havens in Europe as political discourse turned sour. States such as Texas, Florida and Tennessee are attractive for the (relatively) cheaper costs of living and lack of state income tax. Digital nomadism goes internationally, too, as people work remotely from faraway places — co-working spaces have sprouted on the Indonesian island of Bali, for example — with a substantially lower cost of living. Dozens of countries offer a digital nomad visa, called a remote working visa.

Musical nomadism isn’t a thing — yet. And this is more of a thought experiment than a serious proposal. Moving to a foreign country would take artists away from a large, lucrative concert market. And unless a musician plans to infiltrate the local music scene in their new home, they would be without the networking and personal connections that foster both creativity and commerce. An artist with children and a spouse would also have to pull deep roots to leave the country. But if an artist only wants to record and release music online, living elsewhere — not just Texas or Tennessee, but a country where the cost of living is far lower than in the U.S. — would improve the economics of music streaming.

Given the value of listeners in mature streaming markets, a stream in the U.S. and U.K. is worth far more than a stream in many other countries. Spotify costs $11.99 per month for an individual in the U.S. In Nigeria, an individual Spotify subscription costs the equivalent of $0.84 per month. And if Nigeria is like other developing markets, ad-supported streaming — which returns less value to artists and rights holders — is far more popular than paid subscriptions.

In Nigeria, $1 in the U.S. has the spending power of over $8, based on the difference between Nigeria’s gross domestic product in nominal dollars and purchasing power parity. In other words, goods that cost $1 in Nigeria would cost $8 in the U.S. Other countries provide similar boosts in spending power. In Indonesia, $1 feels like $3.30 in the U.S. In Colombia, $1 has the spending power of $2.70. In Mexico, having $1 is like having $1.90 up north.

Differences in costs of living would make royalties seem far more valuable. A typical 0.35-cent per-stream royalty would feel like 2.8 cents in Nigeria, 1.2 cents in Indonesia, 0.95 cents in Colombia and 0.66 cents in Mexico. An American artist who earns $5,000 from a synch placement would get more from that income by walking across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Musicians who are hesitant to become digital nomads can find solace in the slowly improving streaming economics in developing markets. Mature streaming markets are driven by subscriptions, while developing markets tend to be driven by ad-supported streaming. But it’s widely believed that subscription uptake will improve over time, making those foreign streams worth more over time. And in the U.S., artist-centric policies, rising prices and upcoming super-premium tiers will bring more value to artists and rights holders. In other words, don’t dig out your passport just yet.

Related Images: