Royalties
Page: 5
As part of our continuing efforts to serve the music industry and its creators, Billboard now features a royalty calculator for Spotify and Apple Music for readers. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Created by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a legal and consulting firm that specializes in […]
As part of our continuing efforts to serve the music industry and its creators, Billboard now features a royalty calculator for Spotify and Apple Music for readers. The calculator below was created by Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a legal and consulting firm that specializes in music industry law; and is based on the firm’s analysis […]
Global music rights revenue collections reached €10.83 billion ($11.4 billion) in 2022, according to CISAC, the trade organization of collective management societies. That’s a new record that reflects growth of 28% over 2021, as live concert revenue continues to recover from the pandemic and digital income keeps growing.
Income from concerts — the royalties collected from the public performance of songs being played live — was up 185.7% based on a sample of 100 societies, since different organizations account for that revenue differently. And since these numbers are from 2022, when the concert business still hadn’t fully recovered, next year’s numbers will be better still.
The real change is in digital, though, which is now worth €4.08 billion ($4.3 billion), up 33.5% from 2021 and almost double its value from 2019. It now accounts for 37.7% of collections revenue — marking the first time it has been the biggest category — and is likely to be the main engine of growth for years to come. The TV and radio category, traditionally the largest source of revenue, is now No. 2 behind digital with $3.55 billion.
The CISAC Global Collections Report tracks money taken in by collective management organizations for authors’ rights — composers and publishers in the music business, plus audiovisual creators, writers and more. (Neighboring rights revenue for recordings is not included.) More than 90% of the money comes from song rights — specifically, the funds that flow through societies rather than through direct deals.
By any measure, the growth in the CISAC report is remarkable — a record both for the revenue collected and year-on-year growth. And while some of that reflects the unprecedented disappearance and return of the live business, digital growth has been, and will continue to be, steady.
“This is a remarkable return to growth as our whole sector fully recovers from the disastrous three-year pandemic,” said CISAC director general Gadi Oron in the announcement of the results. “While live and public performance have bounced back strongly, the recovery is driven most of all by digital which has now become creators’ largest source of income.”
Much of this growth reflects the changing role of collecting societies in the streaming era. Rather than just represent and license rights in the market in which they operate, societies also compete online. The biggest of the societies — PRS, SACEM and others — now license online rights from writers in most countries.
The growth is worldwide, too. All of the top ten music markets increased collections revenue, with an average growth rate of more than 25%. The biggest market is the United States with €2.616 billion ($2.759) and 30.5% growth; then France, with €1.325 billion ($1.398 billion) and more than 39% growth. Rounding out the top 10 are the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy, Australia, Canada, Spain and Korea.
Deezer is partnering with French collective management society SACEM to explore the potential impact that “artist-centric” streaming royalty payment models will have on remuneration for songwriters and publishers.
In a joint announcement on Wednesday (Oct. 25), Deezer and SACEM said they were carrying out an “in depth” study that will analyze streaming data to evaluate the viability of different economic models “aimed at remunerating songwriters, composers and publishing rights owners more fairly.”
A representative for Deezer tells Billboard that the first stage of the study commenced earlier this month using data from paid subscription accounts in France in the first quarter of 2023.
The next stage of the project, which is expected to last several months and focuses purely on the French digital music market, will see Deezer and SACEM specifically evaluate the impact that an artist-centric streaming model would have on the society’s 210,000-plus members and international partners, which include Universal Music Publishing Group and Wixen Music Publishing, as well as collective management organizations (CMOs) SOCAN and ASCAP.
“Songwriters, composers and publishers play a crucial role in the music industry as the creative driving force behind the songs we love, and it’s time to evolve how we reward these efforts,” said Deezer CEO Jeronimo Folgueira in a statement.
The joint initiative comes less than two months after Deezer announced it was partnering with Universal Music Group (UMG) on what it calls an “artist-centric music streaming model” for recorded music.
The new artist-centric model for recorded music replaces the traditional pro-rata model whereby one stream equals one play and the total number of plays is divided up by artists and labels according to how many they each accrue.
Since launching Oct. 1, the model has been exclusively limited to France, Deezer’s home market, and, so far, only applies to artists signed to UMG and French independent label Wagram Music. However, a spokesperson for Deezer says discussions are ongoing with all labels and content providers and that the company plans to have achieved “a full rollout with all providers and countries” in 2024.
The new model promises royalty “boosts” for “professional” artists whose music is actively searched for by users, as well as boosts for artists who maintain a level of 1,000 streams per month from at least 500 unique accounts.
It also includes a monetization cap of 1,000 streams for each user, meaning that every single user’s contribution to the royalty pool is counted as 1,000 plays no matter what the actual amount is. (If a subscriber listens to 2,000 streams, for example, then their streams will count half.) Deezer says the cap will help tackle fraud and ensure that royalties are shared more fairly between artists and rights holders.
Following in Deezer’s footsteps, Spotify is understood to be planning similar changes to its streaming royalty model that will come into effect in 2024. These are reported to include introducing minimum annual stream thresholds and financial penalties for music distributors and labels committing fraudulent acts, as well as a minimum play-time length for non-music tracks, such as bird sounds or white noise, before they can generate royalties.
Over the past two years, several other streaming services, including Soundcloud and Tidal, have either introduced or announced that they are exploring different economic models to the standard pro rata streaming model following criticism from creators over low royalty payouts.
In a statement, SACEM CEO Cécile Rap-Veber said the launch of the study into how alternative remuneration models will impact publishers, authors and composers was an “essential” development, “which we hope will make it possible to increase the value of streaming for our members.”
Spotify is planning to implement changes to its streaming royalty model in early 2024 that would affect the lowest-streaming acts, non-music noise tracks and distributors and labels committing fraud, sources tell Billboard.
Conversations have been going on for weeks with the major record labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, as well as independent labels and distributors, sources say. While the new royalty system will keep its existing pro-rata model, it introduces new floors that will grow the pool for more established artists and rights holders.
The changes to Spotify’s royalty model, which were first reported by Music Business Worldwide, include:
A new threshold of minimum annual streams that a track must meet before it starts to generate royalties. The threshold, according to MBW, will de-monetize tracks that had previously received 0.5% of Spotify’s royalty pool.
Financial penalties for music distributors and labels when fraudulent activity on tracks they have uploaded to Spotify has been detected.
A minimum play-time length that non-music noise tracks, such as bird sounds or white noise, must reach to generate royalties.
The specific benchmarks of these changes and how financial penalties will be calculated or implemented are currently unclear.
Spotify will need new agreements to the royalty structure changes with most record labels and distributors to implement the plan, but that doesn’t mean entirely new licensing renewals. Changes can be made specifically for these elements, sources say. And since the major labels — which all negotiate their deal renewals with Spotify on different timelines — are likely to benefit from the new terms, they are all likely to sign onto them.
When reached for comment, a Spotify spokesperson said in a statement, “We’re always evaluating how we can best serve artists, and regularly discuss with partners ways to further platform integrity. We do not have any news to share at this time.”
The standard, existing pro-rata streaming model has been a major topic of consideration this year, ever since Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge called for an “updated model” for the business that will be “an innovative, ‘artist-centric’ model that values all subscribers and rewards the music they love” in his annual New Year’s letter to staff. Following, UMG announced partnerships with Tidal, Deezer and Soundcloud to explore alternative models, and reports surfaced that similar conversations were underway with the other leading streaming platforms.
In July, during UMG’s second quarter earnings call, Grainge announced a “newly expanded agreement” with Spotify, under which he said “they have committed to continue to work to address” what he outlined as key components to the “artist-centric” approach: Fairly rewarding “real artists with real fanbases” for “the platform engagement they drive”; applying “stricter fraud detection and enforcement systems” and “ensuring real artists don’t have their royalties diluted by noise”; and “better aligning the relationship between artists and fans by promoting greater discovery and promotion of real artists.” Two out of three of these priorities are now being pursued by Spotify.
In September, UMG and Deezer outlined a new model for what they called “artist-centric streaming.” That model was similar, albeit more severe, than what Spotify is planning. It included royalty “boosts” for “professional” artists whose music streamed above a threshold, while promising to crack down on fraud and replace “non-artist noise content” with its own functional music that would be excluded from the royalty pool.
Unlike Spotify — which relies heavily on industry-leading algorithm-recommended playlists and auto-play, lean-back listening — Deezer’s plan also demoted passive listening royalties by “boosting” artists who are actively searched for by users. Unlike Deezer, Spotify is planning to roll this out will all major labels and leading independent labels and distributors.
Rarely does an accounting issue move markets and surprise people throughout the music business. But that’s what happened Monday when Hipgnosis Songs Fund, the publicly traded investment trust backed by the catalogs of such artists as Neil Young and Stevie Nicks, announced it will cancel a planned quarterly dividend payment to shareholders.
According to Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s board of directors, the decision was the result of the company’s independent valuation expert, Citrin Cooperman, reducing its expectations of “industry-wide” retroactive payments from the Copyright Royalty Board’s Phonorecords III (a.k.a. CRB III) ruling that increased the royalties music publishers receive from on-demand music streaming services for the years 2018 to 2022. Billboard estimated that the music industry would gain over $250 million in total, and another industry expert recently told Billboard they estimated the industry-wide retroactive payment will approach $400 million.
Hipgnosis’ adjustment was substantial: down roughly 54% from $21.7 million to $9.9 million. Meanwhile, Billboard continues to stand by its previous estimate and no other publishers or rights funds that spoke for this story have had to decrease their projections.
“Frankly, I’m shocked… I really do not understand this,” says one music publishing executive.
Multiple sources say there have been no new updates regarding CRB III in recent weeks that would cause a publisher to cut their expectations for accruals by more than half, and it must be an accounting error unique to Hipgnosis and Citrin Cooperman. “None of the data points have changed,” explains another publishing executive. “The ruling is what it is, so they must’ve made a mistake here.” Citrin Cooperman did not respond to Billboard’s request for comment.
The fallout Monday was immediate: With the sudden change in expected retroactive royalties, Hipgnosis Songs Fund was forced to cancel a dividend payment to not risk violating the debt covenants for its $700 million revolving credit facility. That dividend — 1.3125 pence per ordinary share — was announced on Sept. 21 and was to have a payment date of Oct. 27. The company’s share price dropped 10% on Monday’s news. Dividends are an integral component to the fund’s strategy of providing investors with stable returns from proven, successful music catalogs. Since its initial public offering in July 2018 through March, Hipgnosis Songs Fund had declared dividends of 21.6 pence per share, according to the latest annual report.
While the retroactive CRB III payments would be less than Hipgnosis Songs Fund expected and impacted a dividend payment this quarter, the resulting cash crunch likely won’t happen until 2024. Streaming royalties due for the period 2018 to 2020 will be paid directly to rights holders, with everything after that flowing through the Music Licensing Collective with a Feb. 9, 2024, deadline. Most of the adjustment will come from the 2021-2022 royalties owed to the MLC, according to sources. Considering the time it will take the MLC process the distributions, publishers probably won’t receive this tranche of royalties until the spring 2024.
In August, the Copyright Royalty Board stated its final determination for how songwriters and publishers would be paid for the period of 2018-2022. These rates were hotly contested between the music business and streaming services over the past six years. Though rates were nearly finalized in 2018, some streamers remanded it back to the CRB in 2019 in hopes of getting more favorable terms. In the meantime, the streaming services paid songwriters and publishers under the guidelines set by the previous period, Phonorecords II, which was lower than what was ultimately set for 2018-2022.
Ever since, the music business has been preparing for when the 2018-2022 rates would finally be settled, and streaming services would have to undergo a massive recalibration of what they had previously paid out. When the judges released their final determination in mid-August, it proved that these streaming rates overall would lead to more money for publishers and songwriters.
Other publicly traded publishing companies have also announced the amounts of their expected adjustments ahead of receiving the money. Universal Music Group-owned Universal Music Publishing Group, one of the world’s largest music publishers, expects to book a catch-up adjustment of nearly 30 million euros in the third quarter of 2023 related to Phonorecords III, UMG said in its July 26 earnings call. Warner Music Group, which often ranks as the third largest publisher, according to Billboard’s Publishers Quarterly, recognized a benefit of $20 million — less than the amount of Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s initial estimate — in the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2022, resulting from the CRB’s ruling July 1, 2022, ruling.
Reservoir Media accrued less than $3 million in royalties in the third and fourth quarters of calendar 2022 related to the CRB III decision, says CEO Golnar Khosrowshahi. Reservoir Media doesn’t expect to adjust the size of the CRB III adjustment. “We continue to believe our estimates are accurate,” says Khosrowshahi. “We’ve applied an appropriate level of conservatism in recording that revenue.”
The amount of the expected windfall appears to have received a great deal of consideration inside Hipgnosis Songs Fund. According to Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s latest annual report, the company compared the Phonorecords III accrual estimates to estimates provided by the independent valuer — Citron Cooperman — as well as the fair-value appraiser for the City National Bank-led revolving credit facility. The 182-page report mentions the term “CRB III” 49 times and includes lengthy discussions of the company’s regulatory environment and how the CRB III determination raised the headline royalty rate due to music publishers by 44% from 10.5% to 15.1%.
CRB III will give publishers less than a 44% rate increase, though. The amount owed to music publishers is a complicated formula that includes minimum per-subscriber fees and percentage-of-revenue calculations. Publishers typically received above the headline rate from streaming services from 2018 to 2022, meaning extra amounts owed retroactively will be less than they would otherwise. Sources tell Billboard the effective rate for some streaming services was in the range of 12% to 13% of service revenue rather than 10.5%.
Hipgnosis did not respond to Billboard’s request for comment.
BMI has released its annual report for its fiscal year and, for the first time ever, it hardly contains any financial information.
Such information as how much it collected or distributed in the recently completed year is not revealed in the annual report, even though BMI has historically revealed detailed financial information every year. The report also doesn’t show how much collection and distribution amounts changed from the prior year’s $1.573 billion and $1.471 billion, respectively.
The only information indicating BMI’s financial performance in the year is an observation by BMI president and CEO Mike O’Neill that “every distribution we issued in our last fiscal year was higher than the corresponding one from the previous year.” No further specifics were provided.
The only numbers in the entire annual report that give any indication of how much activity BMI tracked in the year was a note that the performance rights organization processed 2.61 trillion performances, while its membership grew 7% to 1.4 million affiliates, and that it licenses and collects on behalf of 22.4 million works. Dollar amounts only appear once in the 24-page report, when O’Neill states in the opening note that BMI’s November distribution is forecast to be $400 million — which he labeled another record “that would make BMI the first ever PRO to ever distribute this high an amount in a single quarter.” The November quarter is in its current fiscal year, and not a part of the completed year covered in the annual report.
Last October, BMI announced it was switching from a not-for-profit model to a for-profit one. Now, in an opening note to this latest report, O’Neill disclosed the organization’s goal is to distribute 85% of the licensing revenue it collects to songwriters and publishers. The other 15% of collections, he wrote, will cover overhead and allow BMI to achieve a modest profit margin, noting that expenses typically comprise about 10% of revenue. In recent years, BMI’s distribution has been about $90% of revenue.
If BMI creates new M&A opportunities, however, or enters new businesses or offers expanded services, O’Neill said that BMI “will look to take a higher margin on any revenue generated, though always with the goal of sharing that new growth with our affiliates.” In other words, for those business, BMI may not limit itself to a 5% profit margin.
O’Neill also noted that “if BMI decides to seek outside capital or borrow money to invest in new services and opportunities, any repayments will come out of our retained profits and not distributions.”
In the current fiscal year, O’Neill reported that under the new business model BMI’s February distribution was its largest ever, up 6% over the previous year. That was then surpassed by the May distribution, which was up 15% over the corresponding year-earlier period. O’Neill predicted that the next two distributions for the remaining calendar year will follow that trend. For the full calendar year, distributions are projected to be 11% above calendar 2023, the report noted.
Going forward, O’Neill said BMI will announce percentage increases, but apparently will continue to withhold all other financial information.
Seemingly responding to immense pressure from the songwriter community and music publishers who have publicly expressed their unhappiness about BMI’s switch to profitability and its evasion of the many questions they asked, after disclosing the 85% distribution goal, O’Neill’s opening note repeats many of the thoughts he has already shared through open letters on the issue. “We changed our business model last year to invest in our company and position BMI for continued success in our rapidly evolving industry,” he wrote. “Our mission remains the same, to serve our songwriters, composers and publishers and continue to grow our overall distributions as BMI has done each year that I have been CEO. In order to continue this trajectory, we need to think more commercially, explore new sources of revenue and invest in our platforms to improve the quality of service we provide to you. I’m pleased to say that we have already made great progress on delivering these goals.”
He also reiterated that BMI changed its business model to better position the company for success in a rapidly evolving industry. “Our mission remains the same, to serve our songwriters, composers and publishers and continue to grow our overall distributions as BMI has done each year that I have been CEO,” O’Neill wrote. “In order to continue this trajectory, we need to think more commercially, explore new sources of revenue and invest in our platforms to improve the quality of service we provide to you.”
While BMI can accomplish its plans and goals on its own, O’Neill wrote, “We also recognize the opportunity to substantially accelerate our growth by partnering with a like-minded, growth-oriented investor with a successful history of building businesses. Of course, that partner would need to share our vision that driving value for our affiliates goes hand-in-hand with growing our business and building a stronger BMI.”
As Billboard previously reported, BMI is in an exclusive period with New Mountain Capital in a deal to sell the PRO — which is currently owned by radio and television broadcasters — at a $1.7 billion valuation. The valuation, however, sources say, is under downward pressure as negotiations continue.
While stating nothing has yet been signed, O’Neill wrote that the for-profit business model and the strategy outlined “will hold true for BMI whether or not we move forward with a sale.” In other words, BMI will continue to be a for-profit business, regardless of whether it sells or not.
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?
Thomas Hesse
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.
In its first legal response to a SoundExchange lawsuit alleging underpayment of $150 million in artist royalties, SiriusXM claimed in a court filing Friday (Sept. 22) that SoundExchange’s numbers rely on a “so-called audit” that was a “flawed and biased examination” and insists the satellite-radio giant “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange in all material respects.”
The filing, which demands a change of U.S. court venue from Virginia to New York or Washington, D.C., also bashes the royalty collection and distribution service for trying to “justify its existence, lofty executive salaries and luxurious operating style through repeated litigation against its biggest contributor.”
In a phone interview before the filing, George White, SiriusXM’s senior vp of music licensing and royalties, says the SoundExchange lawsuit, filed in August, caught his company by surprise. “We were discussing settlement with them,” adds White, a former longtime major-label executive. “We really took some time to review it.”
White says the lawsuit comes down to a difference of opinion over SoundExchange’s “method of calculating their deduction.” He argues that SiriusXM has paid SoundExchange $5 billion in performance royalties for sound recordings over the last 10 years, and contributed “the vast majority” of the $805 million the service collected last year. “The rhetoric in the suit itself and the press release around the suit seems really unfair and wholly inappropriate,” White says. “In fact, we want to make every effort to ensure everyone is compensated fairly.”
SoundExchange, which collects royalties from webcasters and non-terrestrial radio services on behalf of artists and labels, argued in its Aug. 16 lawsuit that Sirius XM was bundling its satellite radio and streaming service, mixing the revenue in order to improperly reduce its royalty bill. The U.S. government mandates different royalty rates for satellite-transmitted services (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) and webcasting under so-called statutory licenses, but SoundExchange’s lawsuit declared that “Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
In its response, SiriusXM accused SoundExchange of “misguided allegations” and argued a “proper audit” would conclude the company “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange.” The company also criticized SoundExchange for taking advantage of what it called the Virginia court’s “rocket docket,” which, regional lawyers have said, results in fast-moving cases, little time for discovery and quick resolution.
“We’re very hopeful that we can proceed down the lines of having a productive settlement discussion,” White says. “I would far rather that we had a close relationship with SoundExchange that was about working to grow SiriusXM’s contributions to SoundExchange.”
SoundExchange didn’t immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
As the music streaming business matures, the way people listen to music could determine how artists get paid. Sitting back and letting a streaming service choose a song will result in a lower royalty than choosing the song yourself, if this week’s news of a new streaming model is any indication.
It’s not a phobia toward algorithms that’s driving the change. Rather, the approach rewards those artists who create the most active engagement. Songs that play in the background are deemed to be less valuable.
On Tuesday, French music streamer Deezer and Universal Music Group announced a partnership to reinvent how Deezer calculates UMG’s streaming royalties. The partnership will “[reduce] the economic influence of algorithmic programming” and reward “engaging content” with greater royalties, according to the companies’ press releases.
When they say, “algorithmic programming,” they mean the streaming service’s personalized recommendations about what song will play next. That’s a more passive, lean-back approach to listening than hunting and pecking on the app’s user interface to choose a song.
At some point between the launch of internet radio platforms and the present battle for better royalties, passive listening got a bad rap. What has the world come to, some people fret, when dreaded algorithms are deciding what music gets heard? What gives an algorithm such an important role in determining how royalties will be paid?
But algorithms are a common way to stream music. When given an on-demand streaming service, people often let an algorithm do the hard work of picking the next song. A 2021 MusicWatch survey found Spotify Premium users spent 25% of their time in “lean-back” listening rather than “lean-in” listening. That figure rose to 31% for Apple Music users and 32% for Amazon Prime Music users. In all, 48% of time spent listening to music was “lean back” listening on streaming services, broadcast radio and satellite radio.
Algorithms also drive helpful products such as Spotify’s Discover Mode, a promotional tool that allows artists and labels to find new listeners in return for a lower royalty rate. It works by increasing the likelihood a song will be recommended to a listener. It’s popular, too. From the first quarter of 2021 to the first quarter of 2022, Discovery Mode had a 98% customer retention rate, Charlie Hellman, Spotify’s vp/global head of music product said during the company’s 2022 investor day presentation.
When a streaming service does personalization well, it adds great value to a listening experience. Pandora was revolutionary when it launched in 2005 because it had a spooky sense of what people wanted to hear. Its Music Genome Project, a proprietary technology that classifies recordings’ various musical traits, gave it the ability to pick the right songs based on a history of giving other songs a “thumb up” or “thumb down” vote. Pandora took away the effort in digging for songs and provided a much broader catalog than broadcast or satellite radio.
Today’s music streaming services are superior to their predecessors — and their own previous iterations — specifically because they have mastered passive listening. Consider how far Spotify has come since it was launched. Spotify used to recommend songs based on a user’s social network — kind of an “if your friend likes it, you’ll like it” approach to song-picking. But it wasn’t a good listening experience. Spotify’s decision to acquire music intelligence startup The Echo Nest in 2014 was the cornerstone for a new approach to providing a personalized listening experience.
The proliferation of smart speakers only adds to the need for algorithmic listening. About two-thirds of U.S. smart speaker owners wanted to own the devices to discover new songs, according to a 2022 Edison Research survey, and their share of time spent listening to audio through a smart speaker increased 400% over the previous five years. The joy of owning a smart speaker is allowing the device and streaming service to do all the work — it’s passive listening at its best.
Most Americans use their favorite streaming service when doing things around the home such as cleaning, relaxing, cooking, eating and entertaining guests, according to the same MusicWatch study. Most people stream music when exercising. More than half of people also use their favorite streaming service when driving, although satellite and broadcast radio were preferred in the car over streaming. Streaming service Songza, acquired by Google in 2014, was built on the premise that people chose music for moods and activities. That approach to curation has since been adopted by most — if not all — streaming services.
The UMG-Deezer partnership is evidence that background listening is on its way to getting a demotion. Deezer will remove tracks of white noise, which account for 2% of its streams, from the royalty pool. That leaves more royalties for professional artists who depend on streaming to earn a living. Throughout the year, UMG has been calling out “functional music” — a term that has come to mean low-cost or generic music built for moods or activities — and drawing a distinction between artists who draw people to streaming services and sounds that people play in the background.
Taylor Swift and Drake may rule the charts, but functional music is mainstream, too. Of U.S. music streamers who listen to playlists, many of them listen to playlists for white noise (36%), rain sounds (45%) and relaxation (61%), according to a 2023 MIDiA Research survey. In recent years, streaming services have broadened their playlists and radio stations to address the fact that consumers want a variety of sounds.
Artists with small followings will get less, too. Deezer will “boost” the royalties of “professional” artists with at least 1,000 streams per month by a minimum of 500 unique listeners. That will relegate hobbyists and artists early in their career development to a different tier. Exactly how many artists will be affected isn’t clear, but Deezer says just 2% of artists on the platform have more than 1,000 monthly unique listeners.
UMG and Deezer aren’t exactly taking an innovative stance, however. The music industry — at least in the United States — has already determined that active, on-demand listening is more valuable than passive, non-interactive listening. The Deezer-UMG partnership merely codifies for an on-demand service what is standard at internet radio. In the United States, non-interactive internet radio streams from the likes of Pandora pay 0.24 cents per ad-supported stream (and 0.3 cents per subscription streams). That’s less than any on-demand stream from a premium streaming service such as Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube Music.
In effect, a streaming service pays less for non-interactive streams because it gives the listener less value than on-demand services. To qualify for the lower royalty rate, a non-interactive streaming service cannot have the same robust features as an interactive one. At Deezer, a listener can stream any song from any artist any number of times. They can listen to playlists and build playlists, too. They can listen to songs shared by friends through SMS or social media. That’s all lean-in listening, and it’s more valuable because people will pay $11 a month to do it.
Until now, on-demand services’ standard pro-rata model hasn’t separated passive from active listening. When labels negotiated licensing deals with streaming services, they have always treated one stream the same as any other stream. A stream from a user-curated playlist is treated the same as a stream from an algorithmically created radio station. Whether the listener actively hits the play button to listen to a particular track isn’t taken into account. Right or wrong, that’s how the pie has been divvied up.
A couple of decades into the life of the pro-rata system, Deezer shows there is a greater willingness to treat active listening differently than passive listening. MIDiA Research’s Mark Mulligan called this demotion “a very welcome and long overdue move” that will “disincentivis[e] the commodification of consumption by rewarding active listening.” There’s certainly a logical argument to be made here: The artists people actively seek out arguably provide the most value — give the streaming service the most foot traffic, so to speak — while less popular artists play the important but less financially valuable role of giving breadth and depth to music catalogs.
Time will tell if and how other streaming services follow Deezer’s lead. An alternative already exists: In 2022, Warner Music Group adopted the user-centric model that SoundCloud rolled out to independent artists the prior year. That system pays royalties based on an individual subscriber’s listening rather than pooling all subscribers’ fees into a larger pool. So, a subscriber who listens to out-of-the-mainstream or independent artists is assured their money is not going to popular artists.
Over the next few years, labels and services are likely to experiment with different approaches to calculating streaming royalties. But regardless of how the dust settles, streaming services and rights holders should respect what passive listening brings to their listeners.