spotify
Page: 4
Spotify is reportedly raising prices for subscribers in Canada.
The move comes amidst the implementation of the Online Streaming Act, which sees the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) requiring major foreign streamers — those with revenues over $25 million — to pay 5% of revenues as base contributions into funds for Canadian content.
The price increase also comes as the streaming giant raises costs in markets beyond Canada. In July, Spotify increased prices in the U.S. from $11 monthly for individuals to $12. That increase follows a previous hike in 2023, which affected both the U.S. and Canada, and marked the app’s first price increase since 2011.
In a statement to Billboard Canada, a Spotify spokesperson does not explicitly link the increase to the “streaming tax” but does indicate the company is part of a legal challenge against the CRTC. Spotify joined Amazon and Apple filed legal challenges against the CRTC this summer, following the June announcement of the regulation.
“As we continue to innovate and invest in providing our listeners with greater value than ever before, we occasionally update our prices,” a spokesperson for Spotify tells Billboard Canada. “We may also adjust our prices to reflect local macroeconomic factors and meet market demands while offering an unparalleled service. We, along with a number of others, have filed a legal challenge against the CRTC streaming tax in Canada, and so will not be commenting further publicly at this time.”
Trending on Billboard
The Online Streaming Act was implemented this year after extensive consultations last fall. The base contributions from major streamers are expected to generate 200 million in funds for Canadian content, with the contributions directed toward “areas of immediate need,” including funding bodies FACTOR and Musicaction, as well as the Indigenous Music Office.
Music rights-holders have called for increases to streaming prices, which haven’t matched inflation over the last decade. Spotify has been re-evaluating its prices and royalty models as it invests in audiobooks, making changes to its revenue share payouts which have de-monetized songs receiving fewer than 1000 plays per year.
The company has also made adjustments to its presence in Canada, laying off Nathan Wiszniak, Head of Artist & Label Partnerships at Spotify Canada, during a round of cuts last December. The company has since hired Elizabeth Phipps as Label Partnerships Lead, Canada.
During the consultations for the Online Streaming Act last fall, Spotify’s Olivia Regnier provided testimony before the government that suggested they might make changes to how Spotify operates in Canada if forced to pay.
“If asked to make a burdensome contribution, irrespective of our existing investments, Spotify will need to make financial decisions to sustainably run our business,” said Regnier. “Additional costs could require us to cut expenses, including [reducing] our resources for editorial, partnership, and promotional programs in Canada; reduce resources currently going back to the music ecosystem; or force us to raise prices for Canadian consumers,” she continued.
When the decision was announced in in June, organizations like the Motion Picture Association — Canada, which represents platforms like Netflix and Disney +, expressed dismay.
Others, like the Canadian Independent Music Association (CIMA), welcomed the announcement. “As we look towards the future of music in Canada, this decision lays the groundwork for a dynamic partnership with digital platforms where Canadian talent can thrive both domestically and internationally,” said CIMA President Andrew Cash.
Spotify has more than 600 million users and reported 3.6 billion euros in first quarter global revenue this year.
This article was originally published by Billboard Canada.
Jeremy Erlich will be leaving his position as Spotify’s global head of music, a company spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday (Oct. 1). Erlich joined the streaming service back in June 2019, after a stint as executive vp, business development at Interscope Records. In an email to staff this week, he explained that “in the past few […]
News that Bytedance will shut down its 18-month old TikTok Music on-demand music streaming service might have come as a surprise to some people. After all, TikTok has over 1 billion monthly active users globally and singlehandedly redefined music discovery by turning generation of smartphone users onto music-based, short-form videos.
But TikTok Music’s demise was entirely predictable. Building a sustainable on-demand music streaming service is incredibly challenging. The digital music graveyard is littered with streaming products that didn’t last — remember Rdio, Boinc, Guvera, Turntable.fm or SpiralFrog? Not even a well-funded platform from a corporate giant is guaranteed of success. Sony’s Music Unlimited didn’t last. Nor did Microsoft’s Zune. Xiami, founded by Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba, shut down in 2021 after 12 years.
Bytedance’s uphill road was made more difficult when it took on a different role with TikTok Music. TikTok was an insurgent that built itself without the typical constraints facing typical streaming services. The app created a new use case for music in the same way the download succeeded the CD and streaming succeeded the download. TikTok Music, on the other hand, was constrained by the licensing terms that govern on-demand services.
Trending on Billboard
As a result of those rules, Bytedance built something more like Spotify than TikTok because it didn’t have any other choice, says MIDiA Research’s Mark Mulligan. “TikTok Music had massive potential to be these so many things that didn’t look anything like any other [digital service provider],” he says. “But they still ended up having to make something that looked pretty much like any other streaming service.”
That TikTok Music resembled every other music streaming service was a problem, Mulligan argues, not a solution for a new market entrant. On-demand music has become a well-functioning utility like water service, he explains, but one that doesn’t build communities, drive fandom or create conversion — things TikTok does well and TikTok Music couldn’t. “We all really value the water that comes out of our taps, but we rarely go down to the local bar and talk to our friends about how great the water is that comes from taps,” says Mulligan.
These aren’t just any utility companies TikTok Music has been competing against. Market leader Spotify, with its $76 billion market capitalization, is far smaller than the next three companies, Apple, Google and Amazon. These four companies, and even smaller ones like them, have spent years pouring resources into building products and features that keep people listening to music, podcasts and, in the case of Spotify, audiobooks.
TikTok is great at creating engagement, too, but getting people to listen to full songs is different than feeding them a never-ending series of 15-second video clips, says Vickie Nauman, founder of CrossBorderWorks, a music tech and consulting and advisory firm. “You can’t necessarily translate that to something else.”
Things might be different if TikTok Music could differentiate itself on catalog by offering music not available on other music platforms. That’s how it works with on-demand video streaming. But global music services have, more or less, the same catalogs. Offering the world’s music has long been part of the music subscription service’s value proposition. So, music streaming services instead compete against one another on their user experiences.
On-demand services “had to make [the user experience] so elegant, so intuitive, and really, really customize it to consumers,” Nauman explains. In her experience, people underestimate the difficulty of creating a great product and executing the technology that underpins it. “It’s incredibly challenging,” she says. “Not only the user experience,” she continues, but the technology required to manage many tens of millions of tracks. “I think a lot of companies just really misperceive it.”
Changing consumer habits was always going to be a problem, too. It would be presumptuous to think anybody with a TikTok app would become a TikTok Music subscriber. Not every iPhone owner subscribes to Apple Music even though Apple offers a free trial to new iPhone owners and bundles the music service into a money-saving package, Apple One. Even though Alphabet owns both the Android operating system and YouTube, not every Android Phone owner subscribes to YouTube Music.
“To some extent, I’m not surprised” by TikTok Music’s failure, says MusicWatch principal Russ Crupnick. When MusicWatch surveyed American TikTok users about their interest in a standalone TikTok streaming service, the reaction was “surprisingly low” and “very lukewarm,” he says. (TikTok Music never launched in the U.S.) “Getting most people to switch [subscription services] at this point is a bit of a challenge. You’re more likely to get people to use multiple services.”
In the U.S., self-pay subscribers — not including free trials — have an overage of 2.3 music subscription services, according to MusicWatch. That includes Amazon Prime, which online shoppers buy mainly for free shipping, as well as satellite radio service SiriusXM. Asking people paying for multiple services to pay for one more music subscription plan is a tall order for a newcomer like TikTok Music. What’s more, MusicWatch found that Spotify ranks behind only Amazon Prime in terms of subscriber passion. When the economy gets rough, Spotify users are relatively unlikely to cancel their plans.
Zoom out and the demise of TikTok Music reveals something else about the music streaming market. In 2024, the number of global platforms may have reached a steady state and new entrants are unlikely to appear (and, like TikTok Music, any attempts will be unsuccessful). Experts who spoke with Billboard don’t foresee there being another company with both the funding and the stomach to take on the demands of licensing and administering rights for a huge amount of music.
“We’re at a fork in the road where all of these broad catalog licenses are kind of exhausted,” says Nauman. Gaming companies have the money but don’t need to license entire catalogs, she adds. Fitness companies that had licensed large catalogs now “want simpler solutions.”
If new entrants are going to find success, says Mulligan, it could be in “regional hubs” in which streaming services can license a smaller amount of local music and focus on markets where Western repertoire is less important. In China, for example, a market dominated by local music licensed by local rights owners, Tencent Music Entertainment has 117 million subscribers and Cloud Music had 44.1 million at the end of 2023 (the last figure the company made available). But regional services are being threatened by the bigger global companies. In some populous markets such as India and the Philippines, dominant Western companies have pushed aside local players.
In the end, Bytedance doesn’t need TikTok Music to be an influential force in music. Mulligan thinks it’s possible that the “majority” of music activity — not revenue — will happen on TikTok within three to five years. Younger people want to create, not just consume, he says, and TikTok could become a self-contained ecosystem that captures more of its users’ time — at the expense of the kind of on-demand streaming business that Bytedance is now abandoning.
Ed Sheeran officially has 12 songs in Spotify‘s Billions Club, with “The A Team” most recently passing the threshold. To celebrate, the superstar brought Spotify back to his hometown of Framlingham, Suffolk, to show off all the places and memories that inspired his biggest hits. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest […]
Shares of Spotify rose 8.0% to $365.00 this week to lead all music stocks in a week the Billboard Global Music Index reached a new high and many of its largest components posted mid- to high-single digit gains.
The Swedish music streaming giant was boosted by a report by Pivotal Research Group that increased its price target to $510 from $460 and reiterated its “buy” rating. Spotify’s intraday high of $368.29 on Thursday set a new 52-week high for the stock and was its best mark since Feb. 21, 2021.
Spotify led the 20-company Billboard Global Music Index (BGMI) to a record high 1,873.87, up 4.1% for the week, as ten of the stocks posted gains this week, nine lost value and one was unchanged. After a 4.8% drop the week ending Sept. 6 and stagnating since March, the BGMI has gained 7.4% in the last two weeks and raised its year-to-date gain to 22.2%—more than two percentage points above the gains of the Nasdaq composite (up 19.6%) and the S&P 500 (also up 19.6%).
Trending on Billboard
Stocks generally had a good week after the U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday a rate cut of half a percentage point, the first time the central bank lowered the overnight borrowing rate since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Investors had expected the Fed’s move, though, and had priced the effect of a rate cut into stock prices. Still, the Nasdaq composite climbed 1.5% to 17,948.32 and the S&P 500 rose 1.4% to 5,702.55. South Korea’s KOSPI composite index improved 0.7% to 2,736.81 and China’s Shanghai Composite Index rose 1.2% to 2,736.81. In the United Kingdom, the FTSE 100 fell 0.5% to 8,229.99.
Warner Music Group gained 4.9% to $30.44. WMG’s Atlantic Music Group laid off about 150 people Thursday as part of a restructuring plan that began in February. The week’s intraday high of $30.88 was WMG’s highest price since reaching $32.34 on July 24. The company also announced in an SEC filing this week it secured a $1.3 billion term loan that will be used to repay an existing loan and pay associated fees and expenses.
Live Nation shares also gained 4.9% to $103.65 and brought its year-to-date improvement to 10.7%. Thursday’s intraday high of $105.42 was its highest mark since April 1 and less than $2 below its 52-week high of $107.24. The concert promoter scored a win in Portland, Ore., this week after the city council upheld an August decision to allow the development of a 3,500-capacity music venue that will be operated by Live Nation.
Two other promoters also posted gains this week. MSG Entertainment, rose 4.6% to $42.16, while CTS Eventim improved 1.2% to 87.90 euros ($98.23). Another live entertainment company, Sphere Entertainment Co., dropped 2.7% to $41.09.
K-pop companies’ modest decline was an improvement from their consistently steep drops in recent weeks. The four South Korean companies had an average loss of 1.2% this week. HYBE fell 2.4%, JYP Entertainment dipped 1.2%, YG Entertainment slipped 0.9% and SM Entertainment lost 0.2%. After surging in previous years, the quartet has an average year-to-date loss of 40.4%.
Universal Music Group fell 3.6% to 22.75 euros ($25.42) following its Capital Markets Day on Tuesday. Analysts generally felt UMG set reachable financial targets and presented a believable roadmap about its strategy for the next four years. The Amsterdam-listed company laid out a strategy to achieve 8% to 10% cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR) for its subscription revenue and above 7% CAGR for total revenue.
Music streamer LiveOne had the biggest decline of the week, dropping 6.1% to $1.38. That put shares of LiveOne into the red for 2024 with a 1.4% year-to-date loss.
Universal Music Group and Spotify are in “advanced talks” over a high-priced, superfan tier of the streaming service that offers a better user experience than the standard subscription plan. The status of the negotiations were revealed by UMG CFO Boyd Muir on Tuesday during the company’s Capital Markets Day presentation in London. That a Spotify […]
Jelly Roll and mgk are helping Spotify launch its new vodcast series Countdown To, which offers viewers a behind-the-scenes introduction to artists’ upcoming projects as they count down to album launch day.
In July, Spotify expanded its Countdown Pages tool, which helps artists and their fan bases gear up for album launches by allowing listeners to preview tracklists, watch clips, acquire artist/album merch and see a timer count down the seconds until album launch.
With Countdown To, artists sit down with their fellow artists, album collaborators, family members and friends to dive into a new album’s music, themes and inspirations. The interview-spearheaded series is located on the artist’s Countdown Page, while the full video will be available as a vodcast episode on Spotify, and on Spotify’s YouTube page.
Trending on Billboard
The inaugural episode features Jelly Roll in conversation with mgk, as the countdown ticks to the release of Jelly Roll’s upcoming album Beautifully Broken on Oct. 11. Jelly Roll and mgk previously teamed up for the song “Lonely Road.”
“I felt early in this writing process, it was becoming my journal of mental health,” Jelly Roll said, adding, “It’s the longest time I’ve took writing a single project… I really wrote this record hoping that people would feel that they were spoken for. What I hear the most from people is, ‘Man, this song says what I can’t.’ And that sticks with me, dude… That’s what I want them to get from this album.”
They also discussed how they went from enemies to friends, with mgk saying, “So, our beginnings were interesting,” and sending Jelly Roll into a deep laugh. “It is so funny how much I love you now,” said mgk, “because like, God, I hated you so much back then.”
Jelly replied with a laugh, “I was just a spiteful, bitter f–kin’ dude, you know what I’m saying?” adding, “I explain this to people and they don’t understand the concept because of our age now. Whenever I talk to my daughter, I’m like, ‘You gotta understand there was only like seven white rappers on Earth at this time, so it was so competitive when you was in that pool, that we were kind of automatically forced against each other anyways.”
“For sure,” mgk said. “You’re bred to hate each other.”
“And you were just like, just skinny and handsome,” Jelly Roll said. “So I was like, I was just a hater. I was just a hater, dude! It’s hard to grow up in front of the whole world.”
“This might be one of my favorite mgk disses, was, ‘F–k Machine Gun Kelly and his mohawk,’” mgk said, eliciting more laughs from Jelly Roll. “Because you just had this Southern drawl on your voice, where you didn’t say ‘mohawk,’ you said ‘mo-hawck.’ And that mohawk, dude, my mohawk was f–kin’ just a nice, eight inches of just egg whites and cheap hairspray…”
Jelly Roll’s song “I Am Not Okay,” featured on Beautifully Broken, is currently at No. 9 on Billboard‘s Hot Country Songs chart. Meanwhile, the album shares its name with Jelly Roll’s just-launched arena tour, which also features openers Warren Zeiders and Alexandra Kay.
Jelly Roll also talked about the struggle of balancing life on the road with being there for his family, and the two also discussed the ever-broadening reaches of country music, and compared the widening borders of rock and country.
“Countdown To is the latest effort in our ongoing commitment to spotlight artists and their new music on Spotify,” Sarah Patellos, head of Spotify Music Studios, said in a statement. “Working with director Karam Gill and mgx creative, these intimate conversations are shot documentary-style to really get to the root of each artist’s creative journey.”
See Jelly Roll and mgk’s discussion below:
[embedded content]
Spotify has defeated a long-running lawsuit that claimed Eminem’s music was streamed illegally “billions” of times on the platform, winning a ruling that sharply criticized the rapper’s publisher for filing the case in the first place.
Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, sued Spotify in 2019, claiming the streamer had made hundreds of the rapper’s songs available without proper licenses. That included mega-hits like “Lose Yourself,” which has been streamed more than 1 billion times on the service.
But in a decision last month, a federal judge dismissed those accusations entirely, ruling that Eight Mile had essentially manufactured a lawsuit for its own gain. The publisher knew for years that its songs were being played on Spotify, the judge wrote, but had chosen to do nothing in order to build a more lucrative legal case against the streamer.
Trending on Billboard
“Eight Mile Style was not a hapless victim,” Judge Aleta A. Trauger wrote. “While Spotify’s handling of composer copyrights appears to have been seriously flawed, any right to recover damages based on those flaws belongs to those innocent rights holders who were genuinely harmed, not ones who, like Eight Mile Style, had every opportunity to set things right and simply chose not to do so for no apparent reason, other than that being the victim of infringement pays better than being an ordinary licensor.”
An attorney for Eight Mile Style did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision. Eminem himself was not involved in the case.
At the center of the long legal battle is the chaotic system that governed streaming royalties in the U.S. for much of the 2010s, in which streamers like Spotify often failed to pay the proper rights holders. That messy situation was mostly fixed by the 2018 enactment of the federal Music Modernization Act (MMA), which created a single blanket license for streamers to pay.
The MMA largely immunized streamers like Spotify from lawsuits over past misdeeds, wiping the slate clean if they paid for the blanket license and complied with other requirements. But a year after the statute was enacted, Eight Mile sued anyway — arguing, among other things, that the landmark law itself was unconstitutional because it violated due process and negated the company’s copyrights.
In her ruling last month, Judge Trauger entirely avoided those lofty constitutional questions about the MMA, saying she would leave them “for a future case involving an appropriate plaintiff.” But like other aspects of her ruling, she suggested that “teeing up a constitutional showdown” had been another “strategic” decision by Eight Mile aimed at securing a bigger payout.
“The MMA framework was the culmination of what may have been one of the most high-stakes policymaking efforts in the history of copyright, and whether that framework survives has implications for the economy of music that go far beyond the rights of any individual artist, even a popular one like Eminem,” the judge wrote. “A lawsuit that imperiled the MMA could cost Spotify a great deal more than any one artist could ever claim — and could, potentially, justify a more generous settlement.”
In technical terms, Judge Trauger’s ruling cited the legal doctrine of equitable estoppel, which bars litigants from behaving unfairly to win advantage in court cases. In applying that rule to Eight Mile, she said the publisher “improperly chose the cultivation of infringement damages over the proper functioning of the copyright system.”
Eight Mile clearly knew that some of its most valuable IP was being used by Spotify, the judge wrote, and the entire lawsuit could have been avoided if Eight Mile had “simply sent a single, clear cease-and-desist letter.” But she said the company instead “simply allowed its rights to be violated.”
“If Eight Mile Style had come forward to contest the status quo, it would have brought this situation to a much quicker end, but it did not,” Judge Trauger wrote. “The only plausible reason for this course of action is that … allowing infringement to continue on a large scale is more economically beneficial to the purported victim than the licit streaming economy would be.”
Even if Eight Mile’s accusations against Spotify had been legally valid, the judge ruled that the damages wouldn’t have been Spotify’s to pay. Instead, she ruled that the liability would have belonged to Kobalt, because the company had signed a licensing deal with Spotify for the Eminem songs at issue and had agreed to indemnify the streamer for any such legal problems.
As it was, that question was largely moot because the judge had mostly rejected Eight Mile’s lawsuit. But she ruled that Kobalt would likely need to cover Spotify’s legal expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit — likely a sizeable sum after five years of litigation. That issue will be subject to future proceedings.
A representative for Spotify did not immediately return requests for comment. A representative for Kobalt declined to comment.
When Michael “Mike” Smith was indicted Wednesday (Sept. 4) over allegations that he used an AI music company to create “hundreds of thousands” of songs and then used bots to artificially earn $10 million in streaming income since 2017, prosecutors claimed that some of the money flowed back to that AI music company. The indictment also claimed that Smith was in consistent contact with its CEO — but it never revealed their names.
ASCAP/BMI Songview records and the MLC database indicate that Alex Mitchell, CEO/founder of popular AI music company Boomy, is listed as the co-writer on at least hundreds of the 200,000 plus songs that are registered to Smith. Boomy also released a song, “This Isn’t Real Life,” jointly with Smith, CVBZ and Stunna 4 Vegas.
In a statement to Billboard, Mitchell says: “We were shocked by the details in the recently filed indictment of Michael Smith, which we are reviewing. Michael Smith consistently represented himself as legitimate.”
Trending on Billboard
The indictment alleges that around 2018, “Smith began working with the Chief Executive Officer of an [unnamed] AI music company and a music promoter to create thousands of songs that Smith could then fraudulently stream.” Within months, the CEO was allegedly providing Smith with “thousands of songs each week.”
In June 2019, the indictment says that Smith reported to the AI music CEO and the promoter that “we are at 88 million TOTAL STREAMS so far!!!” Smith explained to the CEO and promoter that his streams were earning about $110,000 per month and that the two men were each receiving 10% of the proceeds. Smith later asked the AI CEO to provide him with another 10,000 AI songs so that he could “spread this out more” with his streams. The indictment states that this was “to evade detection from streaming platforms.”
Eventually, according to the indictment, Smith entered a “Master Services Agreement” with this AI music company that supplied Smith with 1,000-10,000 songs per month. The deal stated that Smith would have “full ownership of the intellectual property rights in the songs.” In turn, Smith would provide the AI company with metadata and the “greater of $2,000 or 15% of the streaming revenue” he generated from the AI songs.
“Keep in mind what we’re doing musically here… this is not ‘music,’ it’s ‘instant music’ ;)” the AI CEO wrote to Smith in an email that was included in the indictment.
Mitchell’s publisher is listed as Songtrust, a publishing administration company owned by Downtown, which typically earns a percentage of signees’ royalties in exchange for services. Smith’s publisher, Smithhouse Music Publishing, also lists Songtrust as its point of contact on Songview.
A representative for Songtrust declined Billboard’s request for comment. However, a source close to the matter tells Billboard that Smith and Mitchell’s Songtrust deals were terminated more than a year ago.
While it is not unheard of for an AI company to be approached by customers who are looking to buy a large number of songs, multiple AI music executives tell Billboard that it is common to know why the customer wants the tracks and to do “KYC,” or “know your client,” checks to ensure they are above board.
Typically, customers for large sums of songs tend to be companies that are seeking cheap music alternatives, often for social media content. Other requests tend to come from unknown individuals outside of the U.S., especially streaming fraud hotspots like Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Vietnam and Brazil. These parties are often denied. Two sources say it’s surprising to see a CEO’s name listed in the credits as a songwriter when these transactions occur.
Boomy has been at the forefront of AI music since its infancy. Records vary as to when Boomy launched in beta, with some online sources saying 2018 and others saying 2019. It officially debuted in 2021, according to an announcement from Axios. The company claims on its website to have made over 20 million AI-generated tracks to date.
Boomy has also won the respect of the music industry establishment. For years, Boomy was distributing many of its AI tracks through a partnership with New York-based music services giant Downtown. Though this partnership was in place during the same time frame as Smith’s alleged fraudulent activities, it is unclear if any of Smith’s allegedly fraudulent AI tracks were distributed through Downtown. The indictment does state, however, that Smith used two distributors to upload content from 2017-2024, one based in New York and one based in Florida.
In May 2023, Boomy told users via Discord that Spotify had shut down its ability to upload songs to the DSP and that some of their released tracks had been removed. “This decision was made by Spotify and Boomy’s distributor in order to enable a review of potentially anomalous activity,” Boomy said at the time. Spotify later confirmed that the “anomalous activity” was related to possible streaming fraud detected on certain tracks. A Spotify spokesperson said at the time, “Artificial streaming is a longstanding, industry-wide issue that Spotify is working to stamp out across our service.”
In fall 2023, Boomy announced that it had partnered with fraud detection company Beatdapp to combat streaming manipulation. A month later, Boomy also announced that it had reached a new distribution partnership with ADA Worldwide, a company under the Warner Music Group (WMG) umbrella.
WMG is one of Boomy’s top investors, making both a pre-seed round as well as a seed round investment. Other Boomy investors include Sound Media Ventures, First Check Ventures, Intonation Ventures, Future Labs, Boost VC and Scrum Venture, according to Crunchbase.
According to Songview and the MLC database, the same tracks that list Smith and Mitchell as co-writers also list a music industry veteran named Bram Bessoff, founder of promotional platform Indiehitmaker. Typically, these tracks allocate 10% of publishing ownership and royalties to Bessoff, which matches the amount the indictment indicates was paid to the unnamed promoter. Bessoff’s publisher is listed as Songtrust as well. (A source close to the matter says Bessoff’s deal with Songtrust was also terminated more than a year ago).
Bessoff declined Billboard’s request for comment, citing his cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
By the mid-2010s, the power of the playlist — the Spotify playlist to be exact — loomed large in the music business: Everyone knew a spot on Rap Caviar could mint a rap hit overnight; a placement on Fresh Finds could induce a label bidding war; and a lower-than-expected ranking on New Music Friday could ruin a label project manager’s Thursday night.
But in the 2020s, challengers — namely TikTok, with its potent and mysterious algorithm that serves social media users with addictive snippets of songs as they scroll — have threatened Spotify’s reign as music industry kingmaker. Still, Spotify’s editorial playlists remain one of the most important vehicles for music promotion, and its 100-plus member global team, led by its global head of editorial Sulinna Ong, has evolved to meet the changing times.
“Our editorial expertise is both an art and a science,” says Ong, who has led the company through its recent efforts to use technology to offer more personalized playlist options, like its AI DJ, Daylist and daily mixes. “We’re always thinking about how we can introduce you to your next favorite song to your next favorite artist. How do we provide context to get you to engage? Today, the challenge is cutting through the noise to get your attention.”
Trending on Billboard
In conversation with Billboard, Ong talks about training the AI DJ with the editors’ human expertise, using playlists to differentiate Spotify from its competition and looking ahead to Generation Alpha (ages 0-14).
I’ve seen such a shift in the editorial strategy at Spotify in the last couple years. Daylist, personalized editorial playlists (marked by the “made for you” tag), daily mixes, AI DJ and more. Did those inspire your team to push into these personalized editorial playlists?
To start off, it’s useful to zoom out and think about how people listen to music. The way people listen to music is fluid and curation and editorial has to be fluid as well. We have to understand the changes.
Curators have always been at the core of Spotify’s identity, right from the early days of the company. Back in 2012, Spotify’s music team started with three editors, and it quickly grew to more than 100 around the world today. These curators started by curating what became known as our flagship editorial playlists — Today’s Top Hits, Rap Caviar, Viva Latino. Over time that expanded to playlists like Altar, Lorem, Pollen, etc. Those are all still important.
But around 2018, editors made their first attempts to bridge human curation from our flagship editorial playlists with personalization engines. 2018 is the year when the technology arose with personalization and machine learning to open up these possibilities. At that time, we started making more personalized playlists where the tracks fit with an overall mood or moment curated by editors but varied for each listener — like My Life Is A Movie, Beastmode, Classic Roadtrip Songs. Editors will select a number of songs that they feel fit that playlist. Let’s say for example we have 200 songs selected, you might see the 100 of those that are most aligned with your taste.
Discover Weekly and Release Radar are tailored to listener activity and have been around much longer. Did those inspire your team to push into these personalized editorial playlists around 2018?
Yes, exactly. Algorithmic playlists, like Release Radar [and] Discover Weekly, we found that users liked them [and] that inspired us to then work with the product teams and ask, “What is the next step of this?” Spotify has more than 500 million users. We knew that it would keep growing and as a human curator, you can’t manually curate to that entire pool. Technology can fill in that gap and increase our possibilities. A lot of times, I see narratives where people call this a dichotomy — either playlists are human-made or machine-made. We don’t see it that way.
In 2024, personalization and machine learning are even more important technologies for streaming music and watching content. We’ve kept investing in cutting-edge personalization and it’s making a real impact — 81% of our listeners cite personalization as their favorite thing about Spotify. Our static editorial playlists are still very powerful, but we also have made these other listening experiences to round out the picture.
How someone listens is never one thing. Do you only want to watch movies? No, you want to watch a movie sometimes; other times you want to watch a 20-minute TV show. We have to understand the various ways that you might like to [listen].
Daylist, for example, is very ephemeral. It only exists for a certain amount of time. The appeal is in the title — it also really resonates for a younger audience.
Did your team always intend that Daylist, which often gives users crazy titles like “Whimsical Downtown Vibes Tuesday Evening,” could be shareable — even memeable — on social media?
Absolutely. It’s very shareable. It’s a bite-sized chunk of daily joy that you get that you can post about online.
It reminds me of the innately shareable nature of Spotify Wrapped.
There is a lineage there. It is similar because it’s a reminder of what you’re listening to. But it’s repackaged in a humorous way — light and fun and it updates so it keeps people coming back.
How do you think Spotify’s editorial team differentiates itself from competitors like Apple and Amazon?
Early on, we understood that editorial expertise around the world is really valuable, and it was needed to set us apart. So we have editors all around the world. They are really the music experts of the company. They are focused on understanding the music and the cultural scenes where they are.
We have what we call “editorial philosophy.” One of the tenets of that is our Global Curation Groups, or “GCGs” for short. Once a week, editors from around the world meet and identify tracks that are doing well and should flow from one market to another. We talk about music trends, artists we are excited about. We talk about new music mainly but also music that is resurfacing from social media trends.
This is how we got ahead on spreading genres like K-pop seven years ago. We were playlisting it and advocating for it spreading around the world. Musica Mexicana and Amapiano — we were early [with those] too. We predicted that streaming would reduce the barriers of entry in terms of language, so we see genres and artists coming from non-Western, non-English speaking countries really making an impact on the global music scene.
How was the AI DJ trained to give the commentary and context it gives?
We’ve essentially spun up a writers’ room. We have our editors work with our product team and script writers to add in some context about the artists and tracks that the DJ can share with listeners. The info they feed in can be musical facts, culturally-relevant insights. We want listeners to feel connected to the artists they hear on a human level. At the end of the day, this approach to programming also really helps us broaden out the pool of exposure, particularly for undiscovered artists and tracks. We’ve seen that people who hear the commentary from DJ are more likely to listen to a song they would have otherwise skipped.
When Spotify editorial playlists started, the cool, young, influential audience was millennials. Now it’s Gen Z. What challenges did that generational shift pose?
We think about this every day in our work. Now, we’re even thinking about the next generation after Gen Z, Gen Alpha [children age 14 and younger]. I think the key difference is our move away from genre lines. Where we once had a strictly rock playlist, we are now building playlists like POV or My Life Is A Movie. It’s a lifestyle or an experience playlist. We also see that younger listeners like to experiment with lots of different listening experiences. We try to be very playful about our curation and offer those more ephemeral daily playlists.
What are you seeing with Gen Alpha so far? I’m sure many of them are still on their parents’ accounts, but do you have any insight into how they might see music differently than other generations as they mature?
Gaming. Gaming is really an important space for them. Music is part of the fabric of how we play games now — actually, that’s how these kids often discover and experience music, especially on Discord and big MMOs — massive multiplayer games. We think about this culture a lot because it is mainstream culture for someone of that age.
Gaming is so interesting because it is such a dynamic, controllable medium. Recorded music, however, is totally static. There have been a few startups, though, that are experimenting with music that can morph as you play the game.
Yeah, we’re working on making things playful. There’s a gamification in using Daylist, right? It’s a habit. You come back because you want to see what’s new. We see the AI DJ as another way to make music listening more interactive, less static.
Spotify has been known as a destination for music discovery for a long time. Now, listeners are increasingly turning to TikTok and social media for this. How do you make sure music discovery still continues within Spotify for its users?
That comes down to, again, the editorial expertise and the GCGs I mentioned before. We have 100-plus people whose job it is to be the most tapped-in people in terms of what’s happening around the world in their genre. That’s our biggest strength in terms of discovery because we have a large team of people focused on it. Technology just adds on to that human expertise.
Back when Spotify playlists first got popular, a lot of people compared the editors to the new generation of radio DJs. How do you feel about that comparison?
It’s not a one-to-one comparison. I can understand the logic of how some people might get there. But, if I’m very frank, the editorial job that we do is not about us. Radio DJs, it’s all about them, their personality. It’s not about them as a DJ or a front face of a show. Not to be disparaging to radio DJs — their role is important — it’s just not the same thing. I don’t think we are gatekeepers. I say that because it is never about me or us as editors. It’s about the music, the artist and the audience’s experience. It’s very simple: I want to introduce you to your next favorite song. Yes, we have influence. I recognize that in the industry. It’s one I take very seriously. That’s a privilege and a responsibility, but it is not about us at the end of the day.
This story was published as part of Billboard’s new music technology newsletter ‘Machine Learnings.’ Sign up for ‘Machine Learnings,’ and Billboard’s other newsletters, here.