State Champ Radio Streaming
Page: 35
Spotify is asking users to take another hike, raising premium subscription prices in the United States for a second consecutive year. Starting in July, Spotify’s premium individual plan in the U.S. will increase a dollar to $11.99 a month and the duo plan will jump a buck to $16.99 a month, while the family plan will leap-frog $3 to $19.99 a month. The student plan will remain $5.99 a month.
“On Spotify, users discover and enjoy music, podcasts, and audiobooks,” the company said in its announcement on Monday (June 3). “So that we can continue to invest in and innovate on our product features and bring users the best experience, we occasionally update our prices.”
In July 2023, the company enacted similar increases though the family plan was raised just a dollar from $15.99 to $16.99. Last year’s bump in its individual subscription price was a change of pace for Spotify after holding steady at $9.99 in the U.S. for a dozen years. For most of its existence, the company focused on rapid subscription growth over profits, though the mood has since shifted, with major labels and others welcoming price hikes as streaming’s importance to their bottom lines continues to increase.
Trending on Billboard
How important? In the U.S, subscriptions accounted for 59.3% of total recorded music revenues in 2023, up from 57.8% in 2022. Globally, subs accounted for 48.9% of recorded music revenue in 2023, according to the IFPI, up from 48.3% in 2022.
Label leaders are open about wanting higher subscription prices. In early May, Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl called for “further increases” to subscription prices to “ensure that the value that music provides to these platforms is properly recognized,” and Sony Music Entertainment CEO Rob Stringer recently called on streaming services with ad-supported tiers — ie, Spotify — to start charging a “modest fee.”
In April, Bloomberg reported that Spotify would raise its prices in select markets, including the U.K. and Australia, and that the U.S. would soon follow. Spotify’s willingness to raise prices in consecutive years pleased investors, and shares jumped 17.6% that week. Today’s announcement that it would again raise fees in its largest market has Spotify’s stock up nearly 6% in pre-market trading.
The price increase comes at the end of a “period of relative peace” between Spotify and music publishers following the former’s decision to pay the latter — and songwriters — a discounted rate for streams on several tiers. Spotify reasoned that by adding audiobooks to premium offerings like individual, duo and family plans, these subscriptions are now “bundles,” a type of plan that qualifies for a discounted rate on U.S. mechanical royalties given that multiple products are offered under one price. According to Billboard estimates, that change will mean publishers and writers will earn about $150 million less in royalties over the course of its first bundled year.
In response, the NMPA sent the company a cease and desist for alleged unlicensed content and the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) filed a lawsuit explicitly about the bundling. In addition, the Recording Academy, Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP), Nashville Songwriters’ Association International (NSAI) and more have made statements against the change.
This week, Sony Music Entertainment CEO Rob Stringer called on streaming companies to charge a “modest fee” for ad-supported streaming. “This would help develop this segment of the streaming business to be more than just a marketing funnel for paid subscription and still be a tremendous value for users,” he said during parent company Sony’s business segment presentations on Thursday.
Stringer’s comments didn’t come as a surprise. In March, after the RIAA released a report on the U.S. recorded music market in 2023, Billboard asked if record labels had become too reliant on subscription services for their revenues. With consumers proving willing to pay for rising prices, free streaming options aren’t producing the royalties to match their popularity.
Now, there’s evidence that subscriptions could become even more important for record labels, music publishers and creators.
Trending on Billboard
This month, Spotify levied additional price increases in the United Kingdom and Australia on top of a global price hike in July 2023. An individual plan now costs 11.99 pounds in the United Kingdom, up from 10.99 pounds, while a family plan was raised to 19.99 pounds from 17.99 pounds. Spotify has not announced a second wave of price increases in the United States and other major markets, but it’s reasonable to assume the United Kingdom and Australia won’t be alone.
The major labels have welcomed these price hikes as streaming’s importance to their bottom lines continues to increase. In the United States, subscriptions accounted for 59.3% of total recorded music revenues in 2023, up from 57.8% in 2022. Globally, subscriptions accounted for 48.9% of recorded music revenue in 2023, according to the IFPI, up from 48.3% in 2022.
Spotify and other platforms could soon offer a high-priced tier for superfans that would make subscriptions an even more valuable component of the music industry. Spotify first mentioned the possibility of “superfan clubs” in an online post in January. The next month, CEO Daniel Ek listed “superfan things” — as well as audiobook sales — among the products Spotify could offer if Apple did not take a 30% cut of in-app purchases.
In April, Michael Nash, Universal Music Group (UMG) executive vp of digital strategy, said during the company’s earnings call that internal research suggests 10% to 20% of subscribers would be willing to pay extra for a “super premium” tier. Nash wasn’t just thinking out loud: Given how carefully public companies choose their words, it stands to reason that he and other UMG executives are encouraging streaming companies to explore ways to offer an elevated service at a higher price.
Recent subscription price increases could be just the beginning of the sort of regular, ongoing price appreciation already seen in the video streaming market. Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl said on the company’s May 9 earnings that call that it “will continue to advocate for further increases” and “ensure that the value that music provides to these platforms is properly recognized.” Reservoir Media CEO Golnar Khosrowshahi said during the company’s earnings call on Thursday (May 30) the company expects “a regular cadence of price increases” from streaming services.
Subscription price appreciation has put free streaming in a poor light, however. As streaming services have been raising prices, a weak advertising market has made free streaming even less valuable. Free streaming isn’t without value — it provides an opportunity to convert listeners into paid subscribers, just as marketing campaigns do. But labels clearly aren’t content with free streaming acting as a means to attract subscribers.
Goldman Sachs actually beat Stringer to the idea of charging for ad-supported music streaming. In the latest Music in the Air report released in early May, its analysts recommended an “advertising light tier for a small charge” as one way of evolving the ad-supported marketplace and floated the idea of using “content or feature restrictions” to make free, ad-supported streaming tiers a less attractive option, thereby pushing free users to a paid tier.
Concerns about free streaming carry over to short-form video platforms such as TikTok. While TikTok is a powerful promotional vehicle, the royalties it generates for rights holders and creators isn’t commensurate with the time people spend on the app. As Stringer said this week, short-form video platforms “are primary consumption sources and they need to be valued accordingly.”
Free options have their place in the marketplace. After all, not everybody is willing or able to pay for a premium service. Mass market products like broadcast radio exist because they are free to the end user. But free music could come under pressure in the coming years. And between additional price increases and possible superfan tiers, combined with overall weakness in ad-supported streaming, subscriptions are poised to command an even larger share of the industry.
You’ve most likely heard by now the news that Spotify, through a surprising bundling maneuver, has unilaterally decided to give songwriters a substantial pay cut. As part of our ongoing efforts to provide the songwriting community with data and details related to this incredibly important income stream — which at this point must feel like a continual moving target — we have reviewed and analyzed Spotify’s reporting for the first month where they instituted this change (March), and compared it with the month prior (February).
What Is Happening?: Spotify has decided to bundle audiobooks in its premium tier offerings (affecting 85% of total Spotify subscribers). By doing so, they are now claiming that nearly half of total subscriber revenue is attributed to audiobooks, reducing reported service revenue to music to 52%. This results in a substantial decrease in payments to songwriters, which we explain below.
Trending on Billboard
In March, total mechanical revenue paid by Spotify was reduced by 33.9% (from $36.7 million in February to $24.3 million). This is where the reported yearly $150 million reduction comes from — an estimate built on Spotify’s prior-year performance and payment reports to the Mechanical Licensing Collective. The twist here is that Spotify reported that performance royalties increased 18.75% from February to March (from $31.2 million to $37 million).
Spotify’s performance royalties always fluctuate from month to month (by as much as +/- 10%) but the magnitude of this change is unusual (and unexplained). Was March’s unexpected growth in Spotify’s performance royalties an anomaly, or a precursor to a new level of payments for that royalty? Due to the structure of the mechanical royalty payment formula, an increase in performance payments results in a decrease in mechanical payments.
For many songwriters who have agreements with music publishers, performance royalties are beneficial because half are paid directly to the songwriter and not through their publishing agreement, whereas mechanical royalties run through the publisher.
So, while mechanical payments in March were reduced by 33.9%, the total reduction in payments to songwriters was 9.75% ($67.9 million to $61.3 million), which on an annual basis comes out to $80 million.
Historical Performance vs. Mechanical Payments for CRB III: This harkens back to prior reporting (and confusion) a couple of months ago when the streaming services reported an increase in performance revenue over the prior five-year period (2018-2022). While we cannot explain exactly why performance revenue changed in this historic accounting period, we can presume that it had something to do with deals that were being negotiated during that time and were finalized and took retroactive effect by the time the final remanded reporting was provided and required by the final determination of the appeal.
If Spotify Cut Revenue in Half, Why Aren’t We Seeing a 50% Reduction? The payment structure has various protections so that Spotify and other similar digital service providers cannot unilaterally adjust their prices to the detriment of songwriters, as Spotify has done here. One of those protections is an obligation to pay songwriters a portion of what they pay record labels, to the extent that that amount is greater than the service revenue percentage. This is called the “TCC Prong,” or “Total Content Cost Prong.” Because Spotify’s deals with the record labels apparently do not give them the flexibility to choose what they can bundle into offerings and make price reductions, what they pay the labels has not changed. In fact, in March, that percentage increased by 5.86%, or $13.1 million.
So is the Total Yearly Reduction 150M or 80M? This will most likely land somewhere in the middle, as it depends on what Spotify reports paying on performance (i.e., if March’s performance royalty growth was an anomaly) and what it pays to the labels. Over the course of the next several months, if Spotify does not change its position, we will be monitoring and reporting trends in percentage and actual results as part of our ongoing effort to provide the songwriting community with actual and up-to-date information related to their royalties. You can also check the current going rate of publishing revenue yourself at any time with our royalty calculator, updated monthly.
Spotify spent five years litigating against publishers and songwriters to establish rates for 2018-2022. The result was a positive increase but a major delay in payment. In total, the mechanical increase from all digital service providers came out to about $250 million over that period. Of that, Spotify contributed $98.6 million more, and that’s just from its restated 2021-2022 period. Songwriters did not receive the eventual rate increase until earlier this year.
When Spotify, the NMPA and NSAI reached an agreement for 2023-2027, we thought the fight was over. We were wrong.
At the end of March, Spotify reported yearly revenue of $15 billion. This audiobook bundling maneuver, which affects 100% of all musical content on its service, reflects less than a 1% cost savings for the tech behemoth. And for a limited time, at that, since the settlement referenced above ends in 2027. This begs the question to Spotify analysts and shareholders alike as to whether it is worth it — and leads to the obvious answer: “It is not.” Spotify should reverse course immediately and find 1% savings somewhere else that doesn’t work to decimate the revenue of millions of American songwriters, the lifeblood of our treasured American music industry.
Jordan Bromley leads Manatt Entertainment, a legal and consulting firm providing services to the entertainment industry for over 45 years. He sits on the Board of Directors for the Music Artists Coalition, an artist first advocacy coalition established in 2019.
Trent Smith is a financial analyst at Manatt Entertainment with extensive experience in the streaming economy.
Free music streaming shouldn’t be so free, Rob Stringer, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment, suggested Wednesday during a presentation to Sony Corp. analysts and investors.
The value of paid subscription “remains incredible,” said Stringer in prepared remarks during parent company Sony’s Business Segment Meeting 2024. But recent price increases — by Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube and, most recently, Pandora — have widened what Stringer called the “price gap” between free and paid streaming. Now, Sony wants streaming companies to get more from their free listeners.
“In mature markets, we hope that our partners close that gap by asking consumers using ad-supported services to additionally pay a modest fee,” said Stringer. “This would help develop this segment of the streaming business to be more than just a marketing funnel for paid subscription and still be a tremendous value for users. We have a shared interest in better monetization of free tiers. At Sony Music, we think everyone is willing to pay something for access to virtually the entire universe of music.”
Trending on Billboard
Free streaming provides an opportunity to attract paying subscribers but returns far less per listener than subscriptions. Even though Spotify has 62% more free listeners than subscribers, advertising accounted for just 10.7% of first-quarter revenue compared to 89.3% from subscriptions. Another round of price increases by Spotify this month in the U.K. and Australia portend additional price increases in the U.S. and other major markets. Further subscription price increases will widen the gap between premium and free streaming, and “even if advertising will become a better part of the story, it’s still a relatively small part of our overall revenue mix,” Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said during the April 23 earnings call.
Charging for ad-supported music would break from a long tradition of providing listeners with a free, on-demand streaming option. YouTube and Spotify are the two largest on-demand, ad-supported platforms that stream music. Amazon Music has a free tier with limited functionality. In the U.S., Pandora has about 39 million monthly active users for its ad-supported internet radio service that has less interactive capabilities than YouTube or Spotify. But paid, ad-supported streaming is common in the video world. Video on-demand services such as Hulu and Netflix offer low-price tiers with advertisements and charge higher prices to eliminate advertising altogether.
Sony Music also wants to extract more revenue from short-form video platforms such as TikTok that command huge audiences but provide relatively few royalties. “Premium-quality artistry drives the appeal of these services, with music being central to approximately 70% of videos created on them,” said Stringer. “These companies play a larger and larger role in music discovery and engagement amongst young listeners. More and more, these are primary consumption sources, and they need to be valued accordingly.”
Stringer, who does not comment during the parent company’s quarterly earnings calls, spoke and answered questions for 40 minutes about Sony Music artists, chart successes, growth opportunities and efforts in emerging markets. After highlighting Sony Music’s efforts in Latin America, India and China, he focused on the newest — and most vexing — technology on the music industry’s horizon. Artificial intelligence, he said, “represents a generational inflection point for music” and Sony Music will take “an active role” in creating a “sustainable business model” that respects the company’s rights.
But Stringer was clear that Sony Music is taking a hard line in the battle to shape AI in music. “We won’t tolerate the illicit training of AI models by reckless and unlicensed misuse of this art,” he warned. “We believe strongly that permission is the only way AI models can be trained with our content, and followed protocols of the EU AI act by sending over 700 letters to AI developers to opt our copyrights out of training.” Sony Music has also issued “over 20,000 takedowns of AI generated soundalikes over the past year,” he added, while working with legislators around the world “to shape policy and rights” on AI issues.
“With the right frameworks in place, innovation will thrive, technology, music will benefit and consumers will enjoy your experiences,” Stringer said. “We have prospered from disruptive market changes before so we are confident we can navigate this chapter successfully.”
Car Thing, likened by at least one admirer as the Zune of the 2020s, will cease to exist later this year following an announcement by Spotify late last week that the little device that couldn’t will stop working on Dec. 9. It’s not a suspension of technical support or software updates, but rather the simply designed in-car audio player will be remotely deactivated and that users should be prepared to discard it.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
“The goal of our Car Thing exploration in the U.S. was to learn more about how people listen in the car,” said a Spotify spokesperson when asked about Car Thing’s death sentence. “In July 2022, we announced we’d stop further production and now it’s time to say goodbye to the devices entirely. Users will have until December 9, 2024 until all Car Thing devices will be deactivated.”
Trending on Billboard
Spotify broke the news to Car Thingheads in an email on May 23, writing that the company was “switching gears” and that “while this chapter is closing, we’re working new, innovative ways to enhance your drives in the future.” A day later, the company sent a followup email explaining that “this was not a decision we made lightly and we want to ensure that you have the right place to reach out if you have any questions.”
Slowcore in a slowcar.
The soon-to-be-obsolete devices have a 4-inch touch screen, a large rubbery spin dial and several buttons. In terms of size, Car Thing is 5-inches wide, 3-inches high and less than an inch thin. It is light (three ounces) and mounts to a dashboard, air vent or a CD player, and stays put in said mounts using magnets. Adding to the confusion surrounding its very existence, the Thing still needs to be connected to your car stereo using bluetooth or wires, and requires a dedicated power source and your smartphone (via WiFi) in order to access Spotify’s millions of tracks and podcasts. Users of the gadget control what’s playing via the touch screen, the dial or Spotify’s increasingly smart “Hey Spotify” voice control mode, which has become particularly popular among buckled-up kids wanting to take over the playlist.
The audio streaming giant began tinkering with a voice-controlled hardware device in 2019 as a way to test in-car listening habits and also to fill a need for Spotify devotees with older cars — or slightly less-smart or attractive interfaces — to enjoy their favorite music and podcasts while driving. Car Things began rolling out to select U.S. premium subscribers in April 2021 before going wide in February 2022 at a price point of $89.99. But a few months later, Spotify slammed the breaks on Car Thing production, saying in an earnings call that they “frankly haven’t seen the volume at the higher prices that would make the current product financially viable.”
Unsurprisingly, the company has not disclosed sales figures.
On its support website, Spotify said its decision to discontinue Car Thing was “part of our ongoing efforts to streamline our product offerings” and that “we understand it may be disappointing, but this decision allows us to focus on developing new features and enhancements that will ultimately provide a better experience to all Spotify users.” The company suggests resetting your Car Thing to factory settings before disposing of it at your nearest electronic waste recycling center. Spotify added that it has no plans to develop a new car device and won’t be offering a trade-in benefit.
All products and services featured are independently chosen by editors. However, Billboard may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links, and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes.
You don’t have to rely on ESPN to give you coverage of the 2024 PGA Tour — the Golf Channel offers everything from the latest tour news to live tournament coverage, highlights, stats, predictions and results. Plus, you’ll get a live feed of major events like the Masters Tournament and the U.S. Open. Since the Golf Channel is a division of NBC Sports though, fans without cable are left with limited viewing options.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
If you’ve recently cut the cord, you don’t have to splurge on a cable package in order to livestream the Golf Channel online. There are some affordable streaming options out there including live TV streamers that offer packages with Golf Channel included. It won’t cost you hundreds of dollars a month either: with free trials and promos going on, you can watch the Golf Channel online without cable for the best price: $0.
Trending on Billboard
Keep reading to learn where to watch the Golf Channel online.
How to Watch the Golf Channel Without Cable
Peacock is the official streamer for NBC Sports and since the Golf Channel is a division within the sports group, Peacock will be livestreaming the PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, USGA events as well as Golf Channel Academy. You’ll need a Peacock membership in order to watch the Golf Channel without cable. Already a Peacock member? Just log into your account and you’ll be able to instantly watch many of the Golf Channel programs on Peacock.
If you’re not subscribed, Peacock doesn’t offer a free trial but the platform provides two affordable plan options starting at just $5.99 a month.
There are two plans you can pick from: Peacock Premium and Peacock Premium Plus. A Premium membership is the cheapest option and ad-supported at $5.99 a month or you can get 12 months for the price of 10 with an annual subscription of $59.99 a year. The plan includes live sports and events coverage (including some from the Golf Channel) as well as access to the entire streaming library of new and original shows as well as content from Bravo and NBC. In addition, you’ll also be able to watch more than 50 always-on live channels.
Prefer to go ad-free? You can subscribe to Peacock Premium Plus for $11.99 a month (or $119.99 a year) and get everything in the Premium plan as well as the ability to download content to watch offline and your live local NBC channel 24/7.
Besides the Golf Channel, you’ll also be able to watch other live sports such as Sunday Night Football, the 2024 Olympics, WWE matches, Premiere League and IndyCar as well as everything in the Peacock library like Apples Never Fall, New Girl, Community, Parks & Rec, The Office, Bel-Air, Vanderpump Rules and Poker Face.
How to Watch the Golf Channel Without Cable for Free
Besides Peacock, there are a few live TV streamers that are offering free trials that’ll let you stream Golf Channel online.
DirecTV Stream
New users can score a five-day free trial when you sign up for one of the four packages from DirecTV Stream. Plus, right now you can get one month of its Sports Pack for free when you bundle one of the packages. Only three plans include the Golf Channel: the Choice package, Ultimate package and Premier package. Plans start at $99 (reg. $124) for more than 125 channels including local channels, unlimited DVR storage and the ability to stream on up to three devices simultaneously.
FuboTV
FuboTV is offering a seven-day free trial for new users who sign up. There are four packages to choose from that start as low as $80 and each package includes the Golf Channel. You’ll receive more than 185 channels, the ability to livestream channels, 1,000 hours of DVR and the option to stream on up to 10 devices simultaneously. Upgrade to the Elite or Premier packages for 4K quality as well as Paramount+ with Showtime included for no added cost (only included in the Premier package).
Hulu + Live TV
Hulu + Live TV will arguably give you the most bang for your buck and is offering a rare deal where new subscribers can get a 3-day free trial when you sign up. Not only will you get more than 90 live TV channels (including the Golf Channel) to watch the PGA Tour 2024, but you’ll also get access to the entire Hulu library. Once the free trial is over, you’ll be charged the regular subscription fee of $77 a month.
Looking for even more content options? Hulu + Live TV can be bundled with Disney+ and ESPN+ that’ll let you watch exclusive sports coverage offered on ESPN and more.
Is the Golf Channel on Peacock for Free?
Peacock provides live sports coverage through NBC Sports and the Golf Channel when you sign up for one of its two subscription plans. You don’t have to pay anything additional to your plan in order to watch live sports, you’ll have automatic access to the PGA Tour and more golf events after logging in.
Is Golf Channel on Hulu?
A Hulu subscription won’t give you access to the Golf Channel — you’ll need to upgrade to Hulu + Live TV in order to get access to live TV channels (including the Golf Channel). In addition to live channels, a Hulu + Live TV subscription will also let you watch everything within the Hulu library including the streamer’s original and new content as well as FX and ABC shows the day after they air.
PGA Tour Schedule 2024
Below you can see what’s coming next in the 2024 PGA Tour or click here to see the latest schedule.
May 23-26: Charles Schwab Challenge
May 30-June 2: RBC Canadian Open
June 6-9: Memorial Tournament
June 13-16: U.S. Open
June 20-23: Travelers Championship
June 27-30: Rocket Mortgage Classic
July 4-7: John Deere Classic
July 11-14: Genesis Scottish Open
July 11-14: Kentucky Championship
July 18-21: The Open Championship, Barracuda Championship
July 25-28: 3M Open
Aug. 1-4: Olympic Men’s Golf Competition
Aug. 8-11: Wyndham Championship
Aug. 15-18: FedEx St. Jude Championship
Aug. 22-25: BMW Championship
Aug. 29-Sept. 1: TOUR Championship
“War!” a singer once shouted. “What is it good for?” Well, that depends. In the music business, what can seem like grand ideological conflicts are usually just messy public negotiations over money. That doesn’t mean they’re not brutal, though. And sometimes the amounts at stake turn out to be very much worth fighting over.
The latest industry imbroglio is the National Music Publishers Association’s conflict with Spotify — call it the Battle of the Bundle — which could be worth about $150 million next year. On March 1, Spotify added access to audiobooks to its standard subscription to create a product that it says qualifies as a bundle under the terms of its 2022 legal settlement of the Phonorecords IV rate-setting procedure with the NMPA. Then, as the settlement says it can do, it allocates part of the subscription cost to the audiobook piece of the bundle in order to qualify for a lower payment to publishers.
Whether or not Spotify has a legitimate bundle, it sure has chutzpah — converting all of its U.S. subscribers to bundle customers is a bold move. Now it also has a war on its hands. Already, the NMPA has sent the company a cease and desist for alleged unlicensed content and the allied Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) filed a lawsuit about the bundling.
Trending on Billboard
This is only the response to the attack, though. By trying to cut payments to publishers, Spotify essentially attacked the NMPA, with which the streaming services settled, as well as its president and CEO David Israelite, who actually seems to enjoy this kind of combat. Just to be clear, I don’t think that Israelite literally loves fighting, but I do think he gets a certain satisfaction out of being good at it — he was a champion college debater and he’s a talented amateur poker player. He’s the kind of opponent who thinks strategically, sees several moves ahead and fights on a number of fronts at once.
The obvious fight will be the lawsuit filed by the MLC, which is likely to be long and expensive — think of it as a long slog of a ground war. The expense of that will be borne by the streaming services, though, since they fund the MLC’s operations under the provisions of the Music Modernization Act. But Israelite will attack on other fronts as well. The cease-and-desist letter marks the beginning of probing attacks, each one small. Spotify now licenses the works it uses but are there a few hundred uses of some works that might have slipped through the cracks? At a maximum of $150,000 per work in statutory damages for willful infringement, those oversights add up fast. Just as important, a slowdown in licensing for other uses, including video, could keep Spotify from moving forward with some of its plans to compete with Apple and Amazon.
Israelite will also move forward with what one might call sanctions, by trying to organize different parts of the music business against Spotify, much as Universal Music Group did with TikTok. Most years, the June NMPA Annual Meeting includes the music business version of Two Minutes Hate for an online company that’s not paying or underpaying rightsholders. That’s in less than a month. It’s hard to know how successful this will be, but it seems reasonable to assume that Spotify is going to have a much harder time booking acts to play its party during next year’s Grammy Week.
Israelite has also said he plans to take the fight to Capitol Hill with a legislative proposal to give publishers and songwriters more negotiating power. (If war is just the continuation of policy by other means, as Carl von Clausewitz has it, can’t the reverse also be true?) The odds of passing this legislation soon don’t seem all that high — right now the odds of passing any legislation soon don’t seem all that high — and if publishers and songwriters had the power to make it happen, they would have been trying already. But it starts a conversation that the NMPA wants to start, and it opens a front where the NMPA can fight at an advantage, partly because Israelite, a former Hill staffer, would fight on his home turf. Could the NMPA could get a hearing on the topic of songwriter pay that would embarrass Spotify? The company could argue that it needs margin relief, and it does, but how would that look on TV?
If this sounds like an incredibly elaborate and expensive way to figure out the definition of a bundle, you’re missing the point. Because it is, but also because no one cares. The point, for the NMPA, is to force Spotify to concede, through some combination of litigation, legislation and PR. Strong spotlights create a harsh glare. From Spotify’s perspective, looking for copyright infringement that fell through the cracks might seem like an aggressively-literal reading of the law. But isn’t an automatic bundle aggravatingly literal in its own right?
There’s also a theory that Israelite needs to get music publishers out of a situation he got them into, since he backed the 2022 settlement that allowed for bundles, but this is unfair. Under the decision in the rate-setting case before this, Phonorecords III, bundles were allowed and could be accounted for by subtracting the value of one from the total price, then using the remainder to calculate royalties. Under the Phonorecords IV settlement, bundles must be accounted for proportionally, which is far from ideal but a bit better. Obviously, Israelite and the NMPA thought they could get a better deal by settling the case than fighting it out in court, at great expense, and the NMPA board approved it. Arguably, they’d have ended up fighting either way.
That brings up another question: Phonorecords IV only covers the period through the end of 2027. Before that, both sides will go back to rate court, each more inclined to fight and less apt to settle. Whatever happens, the publishers will lose predictability and Spotify will look bad, especially compared to its rival streaming services. There could be a long, grinding Cold War that really will be good for nothing.
Recently, Spotify has reclassified its premium individual, duo and family subscription services as “bundled subscription services” in an ill-informed attempt to deprive songwriters and music publishers of their rightfully earned U.S. mechanical royalties. As a result, the agreed-upon revenue share rate for Spotify premium, currently 15.2%, may effectively be reduced to less than 12%, depending upon a number of factors. Losses to songwriters and publishers, estimated by Billboard to be $150 million on an annualized basis, will undoubtedly increase over time as subscription revenue and users grow.
Let me say straight away that this column is not intended to embarrass or disparage Spotify in any way. Quite the opposite: This is a respectful appeal to the company, specifically its senior leadership team, to do the right thing by songwriters, regardless of what strategies they appear to believe are legally permissible.
Trending on Billboard
Spotify has an unfortunate and documented history of punching down at songwriters and music publishers. In just the last few years, this includes appealing the Phonorecords III decision, which reasonably raised the mechanical royalty rate from 10.5% to 15.1% of revenue over a five-year period (while also providing discounted terms for family and student accounts that are beneficial to Spotify and other music services). Almost immediately after serving notice of its intention to appeal Phonorecords III, Spotify moved to retroactively implement the Copyright Royalty Board’s final pre-appeal decision and clawed back a multi-million-dollar credit from songwriters and music publishers throughout 2019. The appeal and remand process lasted for many years, ultimately delaying the payment of a large amount of mechanical royalties, including those earned during the hardship of the COVID-19 pandemic, until February 2024. And finally, in late 2021, Spotify proposed statutory rates for 2023-2027 that the NMPA referred to as the “lowest royalty rates in history.”
While the settlement of Phonorecords IV in 2022 was celebrated by both streaming services and music publishers, Spotify and other DSPs had especially good reason to rejoice. The settlement provides that revenue share rates minimally increase from the prior rate of 15.1% to 15.35% over a five-year period while also providing for discounts related to not only family and student accounts but also Spotify duo —subscription tiers that are meaningful to Spotify given the strong growth of family and duo plans, as the company has noted in earnings reports. The settlement also provides specific terms for DSPs that choose to bundle a qualifying music subscription service with other products and services.
It’s difficult to imagine why Spotify could have any degree of buyer’s remorse concerning the Phonorecords IV settlement or deliberately attempt to manipulate its terms given how clearly reasonable and fair it is. Spotify presumably entered into the settlement with the full knowledge and acceptance that it was agreeing to pay the revenue share rates of 15.1% to 15.35% upon a properly undiluted revenue base, as it had been doing until March 2024.
But Spotify has again devalued the contributions of songwriters to its platform, a move that has been described by rights and advocacy organizations as “cynical,” “potentially unlawful,” “greedy” and “offensive.”
I’ve been asked a lot in recent weeks why Spotify is doing this. The answer, other than perhaps “because they believe they can,” is simple. I believe that Spotify is unjustly attempting to reduce the amounts it pays to songwriters and music publishers in order to (1) effectively use the displaced royalties to offset the costs of running its audiobook business and (2) improve its margins.
Spotify’s reframing of the vast majority of its subscription services as bundled subscription services is a work of fiction. It has done so, in part, by launching a standalone audiobooks access tier that does not appear commercially attractive to users and was launched, at least to an extent, to support its “bundling” strategy. As noted in the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s (the MLC) legal complaint against Spotify, the audiobooks access tier is largely hidden from view on Spotify’s website on a page where the primary purpose is to steer subscribers to premium, not audiobooks access.
The audiobooks access tier is also only available in the United States, the only country to which the Phonorecords IV settlement and accompanying statutory framework applies, and is notably not available in any other country where audiobooks are available in premium. Spotify’s intent is rather obvious on its face, but to think that the availability of the audiobooks access tier as implemented is something of a silver bullet that qualifies it to reclassify its premium individual, family, and duo tiers as a bundled subscription service is a true mark of acting in bad faith. To do so when Spotify is reportedly on the cusp of rightfully raising prices in the United States is all the more insulting.
In the wake of the ire directed at Spotify from songwriters and the music publishing community in recent weeks, the company has issued statements to Billboard and other media.
First, Spotify has stated that it is simply doing what other services have done with bundled products. In my opinion, this is misleading. The Spotify competitors that have availed themselves of bundle reporting methods have done so for products that are bona fide bundles consisting of individually available services and products that hold a clear commercial value, and to which users actively elect to subscribe. Spotify has even done this itself for bundled products on a more limited basis, in the manner actually intended by the Phonorecords IV settlement and its predecessors. But as the MLC’s legal filing against Spotify notes, anyone who subscribed to Spotify premium prior to November 8, 2023, did not elect to receive audiobooks content or functionality. Many premium users have not utilized audiobooks even once; and, as of this writing, a non-student Spotify subscription without audiobooks does not even exist.
Spotify has also been quick to point out that music publishers “agreed to and celebrated” the Phonorecords IV settlement. I can assure readers there is no world in which the music publishing community truly believed that it was agreeing to bundling provisions in the manner in which they are being abused by Spotify to drastically reduce its payments to songwriters and music publishers. At minimum, Spotify’s actions clearly violate the spirit of the agreement, and to say otherwise is blatantly dishonest. To the extent Spotify may believe it has outsmarted songwriters and music publishers, there should be no pride in ownership.
Finally, Spotify has stated that it “paid a record amount to publishers and societies in 2023 and is on track to pay out an even larger amount in 2024,” which presumably refers to Spotify’s global rather than U.S. domestic spend on music publishing royalties. This may be true given Spotify’s growth trajectory, which as of its most recent reporting was up 20% year-over-year in revenue and up 14% in premium subscribers. However, it is wholly irrelevant and a deflection from the issue. Simply paying more from one year to the next does not atone for the grave offense at hand. The amount of royalties paid is not the only pertinent metric.
Spotify has repeatedly stated its desire to become a more efficient and profitable company. I applaud that. Spotify operating profitably is good for the music business — including songwriters and music publishers. And Spotify is welcome to spread its wings and invest in new areas of business such as podcasts and audiobooks. But let’s be clear: The royalties that Spotify pays to songwriters and music publishers (and other music rightsholders including record labels) are not preventing it from becoming or remaining profitable.
Spotify has said on multiple occasions, including during its 2022 investor day presentation, that it has chosen to prioritize growth over profitability and has done so deliberately and willingly. Its music gross margin has operated at strong numbers and improved over time, in part thanks to its marketplace initiatives, but overall gross margin has been dragged down by investments the company has made in the podcast space. Not all of those investments, including content deals and acquisitions of other companies, have produced positive results, as is well documented in various media, and Spotify has since pivoted to operate more efficiently and better ensure that its costs do not grow quicker than its revenue.
The royalties Spotify pays to songwriters and music publishers are not the problem, nor are the royalties it pays to others. Spotify receives tremendous value in exchange for the mechanical and other royalties that it pays for musical works, and songwriters should not be treated by Spotify as a drag on its margins. To pay slightly north of 15% of revenue for songwriters’ creative output is a gift, and there is absolutely no reason for Spotify to sneak around corners to dilute songwriters’ income. It is beyond the pale, even relative to actions that Spotify has taken against songwriters and publishers in recent years.
I love Spotify and have been a user since the very beginning. But I value the songs upon which it has built its entire business even more. Spotify is a house built by songwriters. In the modern listening environment, which heavily depends upon personalization, recommendations and playlists, songs and songwriters are an even more crucial part of the infrastructure and the value conveyed to consumers who pay Spotify subscription fees.
I’ve often said that compensating songwriters in accordance with the value that they bring to music streaming platforms is not only good business but also good for business. Spotify’s relationship with songwriters and publishers, whether it realizes it or not, is mission-critical and not just about maintaining positive sentiment. Given the global stature of Spotify and the company’s interest in various content types including podcasts, music videos and lyrics, returning its relationship with songwriters and publishers to a respectful position is important to its future. Unfortunately, Spotify’s relationship with the songwriter and music publishing communities that it has built its business upon is now more fraught and damaged than ever. Trust has been almost entirely eroded. That cannot merely be chalked up to, as Spotify stated during its most recent earnings call, “natural tensions between suppliers and distributors.” But it may not be too late to fix things.
Here is my genuine and respectful appeal to Spotify, and it’s not a big ask: Please voluntarily honor the Phonorecords IV settlement on the intended terms that you know fully well were agreed to and promptly reverse course on your misguided attempts to reduce U.S. mechanical royalties in this manner. Songwriters and the broader music publishing community will thank you. If this is too much to ask, I believe the songwriting community will never want to hear another word from Spotify about, to use the company’s own words, “giving a million creative artists the opportunity to live off their art.”
Adam Parness was the global head of music publishing at Spotify from 2017 to 2019. He currently operates Adam Parness Music Consulting and serves as a highly trusted and sought after strategic advisor to numerous music rightsholders, notably in the music publishing space, as well as popular global brands, technology-based creative services companies and firms investing in music and technology.
All products and services featured are independently chosen by editors. However, Billboard may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links, and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes.
The all-new original animated series The Fairly OddParents: A New Wish arrives Monday (May 20) on Nickelodeon.
The 20-episode series is about a 10-year-old girl, Hazel Wells, who attempts to leave her house but ends up finding out her unusual neighbors, Cosmo and Wanda, are actually Fairy Godparents in disguise.
Ashleigh Crystal Hairston, known for her roles in Tiny Toons Looniversity and Craig of the Creek, voices Hazel Wells. Joining her are Daran Norris, reprising his role as Cosmo from The Fairly OddParents, and Susanne Blakeslee (The Loud House, Amphibia) as the voice of Wanda.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Nickelodeon’s cherished animated series The Fairly OddParents aired from 2001 to 2017, spanning 172 episodes.
Trending on Billboard
Keep reading for details on how to stream the new animated series for free.
The Fairly OddParents: A New Wish: How to Stream Free
The Fairly OddParents: A New Wish consists of 20 episodes. The series debuts Monday, May 20, at 4:30 p.m. ET/PT on Nickelodeon in the United States and will “become accessible on Netflix internationally later in the year.”
In celebration of National Streaming Day, you might want to add DirecTV as one of your streaming options. DirecTV currently offers a deal at $49.99/month for the first three months. Take advantage of this limited offer and save big.
You can also catch the premiere of The Fairly OddParents: A New Wish for free by taking advantage of streaming platforms like: Philo, Fubo, and Paramount+, which all provide free trials lasting for up to 7 days.
Philo offers shows, movies, and 70+ channels including Nickelodeon, Lifetime, Hallmark Channel, MTV, and more for only $25/month. Start your 7-day free trial today.
Paramount+ is also offering a 7-day free trial when you sign up for either of its plans: Paramount+ Essential and Paramount+ with Showtime, which means you can watch The Fairly OddParents: A New Wish for free.
You can also stream it on SlingTV. With Sling Orange, you can stream Nick Jr. and other channels for $15 for your first month (regularly $40/month). It includes 32 channels with seven exclusive sports and family channels. Sling Blue is $20 for your first month (regularly $45/month), and it includes a total of 42 channels.
All you need to do is sign up for one of these trials, and you’ll be able to enjoy the new animated series.
Current Nickelodeon shows:
Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks
Danger Force
The Fairly OddParents
Henry Danger
ICarly
Kamp Koral: Spongebob’s Under Years
The Loud House
Monster High
Monster High 2 The Movie
NFL Slimetime
Nick News
The Patrick Star Show
The Really Loud House
Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Rock Paper Scissors
The Smurfs
Spongebob Squarpants
Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
The Thundermans
Transformers: Earthspark
Tyler Perry’s Young Dylan
Victorious
Zoey 101
In March, Spotify began paying music publishers and songwriters a discounted royalty rate for streams on its premium tiers — and the music business isn’t accepting the change without a fight. Spotify says that by adding audiobooks to its premium offerings, these subscriptions have been reclassified as “bundles,” a type of plan that qualifies for […]
