Streaming
Page: 49
Independent musicians will have more power to negotiate with artificial intelligence developers over “fairer rates and terms for the use of their music” if a newly introduced version of the Protect Working Musicians Act passes the U.S. House, according to Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.).
“AI threatens the creator — finding the person or entity that has co-opted your work and turned it into something else and then going after them is so onerous,” Ross, who sponsored the revised act and sits on the House Judiciary Committee, says in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. “That’s one of the reasons for this bill — to allow people to do this collaboratively. We need to do this sooner than later. We’re seeing this threat every single day.”
The Protect Working Musicians Act, which Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced in October 2021 a few months before he left Congress, would allow indie artists to collectively bargain for royalty rates with streaming giants such as Spotify and Apple Music. As it stands, the major labels that own most worldwide master recordings have enormous negotiating power to set rates; the act would “give the smaller independent more of a voice,” says Jen Jacobsen, executive director of the Artist Rights Alliance, which worked with Ross on revising the bill.
Ross picked up the bill when Deutch announced he would not return to the House, then held hearings with indie artists in her district, which includes Raleigh. Since then, Ross says, “The AI issue has become even more important.” The revised act would allow artists to behave like plaintiffs in a class-action suit, she adds, “fighting for their rights” with a central attorney.
“Our work is being scraped and ingested and exploited without us even knowing,” Jacobsen says. “Adding the AI platforms seemed like a relevant and important thing to do.”
Writers and artists have warned for months that AI could transform their ideas into new works with no way to get paid for the usage. In April, “Heart On My Sleeve,” an AI-created song that mimics the voices of Drake and The Weeknd, landed millions of TikTok, Spotify and YouTube plays. At the time, Sting told the BBC: “The building blocks of music belong to us, to human beings. That’s going to be a battle we all have to fight in a couple of years: defending our human capital against AI.”
“Musicians are really worried about this — not just the big-name ones, but small artists, too. Small ones, especially,” Jorgensen says. “The most important thing for this bill is that small, independent artists and record labels need to be recognized and have each others’ backs.”
It’s unclear when the House might vote on the revised bill — or if it would pass. “As you can see in Congress, lots of bills aren’t passing — like the budget!” Ross says. “But this has been a very bipartisan issue in the judiciary committee. It’s the perfect time to bring these issues up.”
Halfway through 2023, the U.S. recorded music industry has set a record for first-half retail revenue, generating $8.4 billion, according to the new RIAA mid-year 2023 report released Monday (Sept. 18). But within that headline number, there are several trends and statistics that are worthy of their own exploration, from increasing revenue to slowing growth figures and the factors behind them. Digging deeper into the numbers, here are four takeaways (and a bonus fifth) from the mid-year report.
Ad-Supported Revenue Flatlines
The RIAA reported that ad-supported on-demand streaming revenue came in at $870.1 million — just a 0.6% bump over the $865 million it generated in the first half of 2022. Looking at the 2022 mid-year report, the ad-supported revenue figure was $871.5 million, up 16.4% from $748.5 million midway through 2021. (The RIAA regularly adjusts and updates figures each year as more data becomes available, hence the discrepancies.) What it points to, at best, is a stagnant advertising market; and at worst, one that risks going backwards.
On one hand, it’s not surprising, given the adverse advertising market across the board in 2023 so far. On the other hand, it’s yet another blow to a part of the model for services like Spotify and YouTube that has been maligned for years and considerably detracts from the value of music. Still, revenue from the “other ad-supported streaming” category grew 56.8% year over year for an increase of $58 million after a few years of negligible growth at best.
The Big Pricing Shift
In the past two weeks, a lot of conversation in the industry has revolved around how royalties from streaming services should be divided moving forward. But the broader issue that many executives are, and have been, pointing to has been about pricing. Music streaming services have fallen behind the times in keeping the price of a monthly subscription largely static over the past decade-plus, while video streamers (with fractionalized offerings) have raised prices regularly.
That’s now starting to change — and it’s being reflected in the numbers. Apple Music and Amazon Music both raised prices for their streaming services at the turn of the year, and that has translated into paid subscription streaming revenue growing 12.4% in the first half of 2023 — even as the average number of subscriptions grew at a much slower rate, increasing just 6.4% from 90 million to 95.8 million. With YouTube Music and, most critically, Spotify increasing prices over the summer — numbers that were not reflected in the first half of this year — the additional value realized will be something to keep an eye on moving forward.
But It’s Not Just Streaming
Those streaming service price hikes get a lot of attention — and rightly so. But the industry is seeing increased revenue from consumers in more than just streaming. The physical product market has continued to grow in revenue, up 5% overall, with vinyl revenue rising 1.3% year over year (up $8.2 million) and CD revenue growing 14.3% (up $29.6 million). What’s more interesting — apart from, perhaps, the winding down of the “vinyl explosion” double-digit increase narrative of the past several years — is that both formats grew in revenue while being down in unit counts.
Vinyl, overall, seemed to be a little static year over year. The number of records sold dropped by about 400,000 or so, even as revenue ticked up. But the discrepancy in CDs was stark: despite the type of double-digit revenue growth that’s been associated with vinyl in years past, there were actually 3.2 million fewer CDs sold in the United States in the first half of 2023 compared to 2022. Whether that’s a reaction to the hyper-fandom of artists who tend to do well in the physical market raising prices significantly or a marker of an industry-wide price hike there, it’s another example of how pricing is shifting across the industry and changing the revenue picture as a result.
Subscriptions Slowing Down?
As noted above, the average number of paid music streaming subscriptions grew by 5.8 million in the first half of the year to 95.8 million. That represents the slowest level of growth — both in raw numbers and in percentage — since at least 2015, when the U.S. streaming industry was still in its nascent phases. The growth in the number of subscribers has been slowing down now for about five years straight, as those who haven’t already gotten on board with paid music streaming slowly sign on. But it’s unclear how much room for growth remains — and, either way, the focus will continue to shift from acquisition and retention to growing value.
As subscriptions continue to near critical mass in the United States, the industry will need to continue its growth rate by convincing digital service providers to get more from the subscribers they already have. Whether that comes from price hikes or finding new ways to monetize fans on platforms — or, more likely, some combination of both — is an area to watch.
And, Finally…
A last word for our favorite sector of the RIAA report each year: ringtones and ringbacks. U.S. consumers spent $6.0 million on them in the first half of 2023 — down slightly from $6.2 million halfway through last year — while the unit count also slightly declined. We are a long way away from the Billboard Ringtones Chart of 2004, yet they continue to hang on as a line item year after half year. What a blessing.
BMG is exiting its current distribution agreement with Warner Music Group’s ADA and taking direct control of its 80 billion-stream digital business in a move the company called “the biggest change to its recorded music strategy” yet, according to a statement released Monday. The fourth largest global music company will begin phasing in the new […]
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.
Prime Video has a new show for you to binge — and it’s killer. Wilderness is the latest series to drop on the streaming platform with episodes 1-6 available to binge starting Friday (Sept. 15). It’s based on the novel by the same title, which is available in paperback, Kindle Unlimited and Audible editions — in case you want to read the book before tuning into the series.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The series stars Jenna Coleman (Doctor Who) and Oliver Jackson-Cohen (The Haunting of Hill House) as the seemingly perfect British couple Liv and Will. When Liv learns of her husband’s affair, her devastation quickly turns into rage, but when Will proposes a trip around America’s National Parks to mend their relationship, she has the idea to plot some murderous revenge. Because when in the wilderness accidents happen, right?
Other cast members you can look forward to seeing include Ashley Benson (Pretty Little Liars) as Cara, Eric Balfour as Garth and Marsha Stephanie Blake as Detective Rawlins.
Keep reading to learn the streaming options to watch the show.
How to Watch Wilderness
Wilderness is a Prime Original series that Prime members and subscribers can stream for free at no additional cost.
Not already subscribed? Amazon is offering a 30-day free trial, which means you can binge watch the entire series for free. Once the trial is over, you’ll be charged the subscription price of $14.99/month (or $139 annually). For additional savings, the platform offers a student membership and qualifying EBT/Medicaid subscription, which provides a membership for half the price after a 6-month or 30-day free trial.
‘Wilderness’ on Prime Video
$14.99/month after 30 days free
What else is in the Prime Video library? Besides Wilderness, you can watch original series and movies including Citadel, Daisy Jones & The Six, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Emergency, Swarm, The Power, Harlem, Air, Invincible, The Boys, Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan, Fleabag, The Summer I Turned Pretty, The Wheel of Time, I Want You Back and The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.
You can also take advantage of additional premium channel add-ons to widen your library offerings such as Paramount+, Showtime, Max and AMC+. Prime Premiere is also a new perk added to the membership, which provides members with free tickets to advance screenings of Prime Original movies and series in theaters.
Other perks included with a membership include free one-day shipping on Prime eligible products, early access to deals, access to Prime Day savings, grocery delivery, Amazon Music, Prime Gaming, Prime Reading and many more perks.
Check out the trailer for Wilderness below.
[embedded content]
European independent labels trade group IMPALA says it has concerns that the new “artist-centric” streaming model being rolled out by Deezer and Universal Music Group (UMG) later this year could create a “two-tier” music market that unfairly disadvantages indie artists and labels.
In an announcement on Friday (Sept. 15), Brussels-based IMPALA says that Deezer’s plans to introduce a new methodology for paying out streaming royalties for UMG artists from October 1 — at first only in France, Deezer’s biggest market — risks impacting independent and micro labels, which provide 80% of all new releases in Europe.
Among those whom IMPALA warns could be affected by the new streaming model announced by Deezer and UMG last week are new artists yet to be discovered, acts that deliberately cater to niche audiences and musicians from smaller markets.
The European trade body, which represents nearly 6,000 independent companies and labels, including Beggars Group, Cooking Vinyl, Epitaph and PIAS Music Group, says “the fact that the Deezer proposal has been developed in a vacuum” with UMG, the world’s biggest music company, “instead of the sector generally is also a concern.”
In response to its members’ worries, IMPALA says it is seeking “more clarity” from Deezer about its new streaming royalties model, which replaces the existing pro-rata setup — whereby one stream equals one play, with the total number of plays proportionally divided up by artists and labels — with a new system that prioritizes active listening, meaning users who intentionally search for or click on an artist’s song.
Under the new “artist-centric” model, “professional artists,” which Deezer and UMG categorize as artists who have accumulated at least 1,000 monthly streams from at least 500 unique users, will receive a higher share of streaming royalties, while Deezer will remove “non-artist noise” — essentially, white noise and nature sounds, which the company says accounts for 2% of streams — from the available royalty pool. As part of its reforms, Deezer has also vowed to crack down on streaming fraud and malicious actors exploiting the system.
At present, Universal is the only label signed up to the new streaming royalty allocation model, although in an interview with Billboard, Deezer CEO Jeronimo Folgueira said the Paris-based company is in discussions “with all content providers” and anticipates that more than 50% of its repertoire will be on the new model come its launch in October. He said the company also plans to expand the offer beyond France, where it will be piloted this fall, to “all providers in all countries” in 2024.
Responding to the UMG-Deezer plan, IMPALA’s executive chair Helen Smith said she welcomes Deezer’s “commitment to improve the streaming market” but cautions that “more debate is needed on this vital question… and its potential impact on the music ecosystem.”
In April, IMPALA published an updated version of its own 10-point plan to reform streaming, which proposed various changes to how digital royalties are allocated, including attaching a premium value to tracks that the listener has sought out as well as a so-called “Fan Participation Model,” whereby artists and rights holders could generate incremental revenue within digital services through offering special features and extra tracks.
The trade group says it has discussed its proposals with multiple digital services and will continue to push for “meaningful streaming reform.”
“It’s a common thread through the history of recorded music that the great artistic advances and changes have come from, and through, the independent sector. I don’t expect Goldman Sachs to know that but Deezer and UMG certainly do,” said Mark Kitcatt, chair of IMPALA’s streaming reform group.
Kitcatt added, “We hope that services will join with us to reform the streaming world in a way that increases opportunity and reward for all dedicated music creators, and enhances and enriches the experience for fans, rather than just diverting more royalties towards the biggest artists.”
Consumers and the marketers who sell to them agree: They “hear from too many influencers — and not enough real people — in marketing.” That’s according to an iHeartMedia study the company unveiled Wednesday (Sept. 13) that explores the gap between marketers and their audiences and tries to identify biases and blind spots.
Though the wording is a little bit confusing — most influencers are still real people, with a few exceptions, i.e. Lil Miquela — this conclusion aligns with what many music marketers have been saying for over a year. In essence: Throwing bags of money at popular TikTok accounts and hoping this will magically lead to music discovery and drive streams is not an effective or efficient approach.
Marketing spends “started becoming less effective when people and brands were really looking at people’s influence based upon follower count,” says Coltrane Curtis, founder of the marketing agency Team Epiphany. Curtis has been an active proponent of the notion that “the pay-to-play model is ineffective, oversaturated and counterintuitive.” “Influence is about trust,” he adds. “When you start seeing everyone paying for it, you feel duped and taken advantage of.”
Last year, the music consulting agency ContraBrand analyzed TikTok’s top 200 from the first half of 2022. The company determined that “paid-for tactics, such as influencers and ads, accounted for success in under 12% of the platform’s viral tracks.” In 2020, as industry after industry awoke to TikTok’s power as an advertising tool and started pouring money into the platform, “you would literally have an influencer’s rate to post go from $500 to $1,500 in a day,” ContraBrand co-founders Sean Taylor and Jacorey Barkley told Billboard last year. “That was happening day in, day out. Influencer campaigns have become both less accessible and less effective.”
iHeart laid out its new study — and gently prodded marketers to think about spending more on podcast advertising (a sector in which the company is highly invested) — during a chat between Conal Byrne, CEO of the company’s digital audio group, and author and podcast host Malcolm Gladwell in Manhattan.
The conclusions of the study echoed many of the think pieces written after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election: Coastal cities are out of touch with large swathes of the country. In this case, the focus was on marketers themselves, who spend time in their own “bubbles,” never taking the time to notice that others might not share their passions and priorities.
This point was driven home through a barrage of statistics. While all the marketers surveyed were familiar with NFTs, 40% of consumers had never heard of them. Marketers have the hots for artificial intelligence — 66% “are excited about the potential” the tech “will unlock for society” — but consumers are tepid about the robot-driven future, with only 39% excited. Marketers are apparently “motivated by fortune, fame and fear;” “consumers are motivated by friends and family.”
The study did not address itself to the music industry. But in her opening remarks, Gayle Troberman, iHeart’s chief marketing officer, sounded much like a major label executive. There is “more competition than ever before… for consumer attention,” she said. “We’ve never had more data, and yet, it’s never been harder to win.”
Last week, French music streaming service Deezer joined with the Universal Music Group to roll out what they called an artist-centric music streaming model, which they said was “designed to better reward the artists and the music that fans value the most.” It’s the result of a six-month partnership announced in March that promised to examine the current “pro-rata” streaming royalties model, in which artists and labels are paid according to their share of streams out of the available pool of revenue generated by streaming services. They aim to identify a new way of paying out that revenue, at a time when streaming service catalogs have exploded to north of 200 million tracks and fraud and streaming manipulation have proliferated on platforms.
The artist-centric model, which Deezer says will begin rolling out Oct. 1 in France for UMG artists with plans to expand it to more content owners and additional territories, relies on a “boost” model that rewards artists who are actively searched for by users, as well as those who maintain a level of 1,000 streams per month from at least 500 unique accounts — what Deezer/UMG are terming “professional artists.” And it has generated plenty of scrutiny from many corners of the industry, despite its initial limited scope.
Here’s how it works: Under the “old” pro-rata model — or the one still in effect at every major streaming service — one stream equals one play, and the total number of plays is divided up by artists and labels according to how many they accrue. Under this “artist-centric” model, if an artist qualifies as a “professional artist,” one stream would get “boosted” to count as two plays; and if a user actively searches for or clicks on an artist’s song, that stream would get “boosted” to count as two plays. If a user actively searches for or clicks on a song by a “professional artist,” that stream counts as four plays when the pool of revenue gets divided up. As part of this, “non-artist noise” content — essentially, things like the sound of rain or a washer/dryer that contains no music — will be removed from eligibility from the royalty pool, and eventually deleted from the service altogether, to be replaced by in-house noise uploaded by Deezer that will not generate revenue.
That’s the headline change, but there are many other elements to this switch as well, some designed to root out streaming fraud or bad actors gaming the system, and others that are designed to promote human artists at the expense of general audio. Deezer also released some statistics to support the changes, including that “non-artist noise” content accounts for 2% of all streams; that in 2022, 7% of all streams on its platform were fraudulent; and that, contributing to the clutter on the platform, 97% of all uploaders to Deezer generated just 2% of total streams. All told, Deezer eventually expects the changes to increase artist royalties by as much as 10%.
Still, there is work to be done for the service to implement this more widely. Deezer CEO Jeronimo Folgueira says the company is actively looking to bring more partners aboard, and expects to have more content providers on the system by the time of the Oct. 1 launch, with a full rollout with all providers across all territories intended by next year. In the meantime, “the royalty structure of labels and artists that are not signed on yet will not be affected during the transition period,” he says. The model will also initially only cover recorded music royalties, though he says “our goal is to include publishing royalties as well and will begin discussions with publishers in the near future.”
Folgueira spoke to Billboard to explain how it all works and break down how the companies created the thresholds and distinctions that underpin the new system.
Billboard: Can you walk me through the last six months of how you guys got to this point?
Jeronimo Folgueira: Deezer has been promoting a change in the model for more than four years, advocating for UCPS [User-Centric Payment System]. UCPS is much better than the old model that we had, but we figured that there’s a better way of implementing this, which is artist-centric. Artist-centric is better than UCPS, which is why we were able to get this one over the finish line, whereas with UCPS there was a lot more resistance.
Basically, given our background, it was obvious that we would engage in reviewing the system. And Universal has, in the last few months — since Lucian Grainge took on this topic personally very strongly — supported changing the model to artist-centric, so we announced a collaboration with them where we looked into the data with a consultant that they hired to see, basically, what would be the right way of moving the model.
It started from different parts. We came from a UCPS base, Universal came from an artist-centric point of view that was different from where we ended up, and we tried to find something that would make sense and would be fair for the whole industry and achieve the benefits of what we wanted while minimizing the negative impact. Because with UCPS, there were some really good artists who got negatively affected. But with the artist-centric model we’ve created now, basically all professional artists creating valuable content will get a benefit. Some get a huge benefit, and some get a small benefit, but creators making high-value content all benefit. With UCPS, there was more shuffling for artists.
That’s why in this first version of artist-centric, we’re focusing mostly on eliminating noise from the royalty pool and giving a boost to professional artists that create valuable content that users love and want. We’ve been working on this for months, working on different versions of the model, running data to make sure that we eliminated the wrong incentive and created the right reward for the right content and behavior.
What do you expect the effect to be?
Overall, the pool doesn’t really change, it changes the distribution of the pool. But effectively what we’re doing is reducing the economic incentive for fraud and gaming the system. We’re eliminating the payouts to pure noise, and we’re boasting the payouts to real artists. So effectively there will be a shift of money from low-quality content — or not even real music — back to real, professional artists. So what we see is that producers of valuable content will get an uplift, on average, of around 10%.
What does a “boost” mean?
The boost is for a professional artist — and we consider that to be if you have more than 500 listeners a month and more than 1,000 streams. The threshold is very low, and any small, independent artist will reach those levels, so as long as you have a minimum amount of a following and fans, you’ll get to that boost. And if people search for your song, or add it to favorites or have it in a playlist, it gets another boost. So it basically means a stream of a song from one of those artists will count four times for the pool system. So it’s still a pool system, but those streams will count four times. Whereas rain, for example, will count zero, and functional music will count once. So they get boosted 4x for producing content that people actually love.
And where does the extra money come from?
The pool is the same, but the way that pool gets distributed is based on the share of streams. But that’s where the boost comes from. Noise will not get paid at all, so that’s where some of the money comes from; functional music, or music from artists that do not qualify for the threshold, will get paid less; and then artists that create valuable content will get the boost, therefore they’ll get paid more.
How did you come to the “professional artists” distinction?
We looked at different thresholds. We wanted to create a threshold that was transparent and fair, so that a small, up-and-coming artist could get there, because we want to support new up-and-coming artists and independent artists. So it was very important that this was something that was good for all artists, not just artists that were signed to a major record label. With that threshold, even though a lot of the artists on the platform will not qualify to get that boost, the majority of the streams actually do. If an artist doesn’t get to 1,000 streams and 500 listeners a month, they cannot make a living [through streaming] regardless of what the payout of the model is. So you’re not technically a professional. And any up-and-coming artist that is rising up gets to those levels pretty quickly. You don’t need big marketing budgets or promotions behind that. We’re talking about levels that are relatively easy to achieve once you are a professional and do this seriously.
But wouldn’t those smallest artists need that money the most?
Yeah, but we’re talking about people that are making €3 or €5 euros per month; it doesn’t make any real difference. It will not change anything at all. That’s why the threshold is so low — that economically it makes no impact whatsoever.
What effect would this have on playlisting? If you click on an artist’s song, they qualify for the boost — is that just if you’re looking at an artist’s page and seeking out their music? Or if you click on their song that’s first on a playlist?
If a song is on a playlist, it will always get the active boost. You would not get it if it’s algorithmically pushed to you. So if you’re listening to [algorithmic playlist] Flow, for example, and you discover new songs on Flow, you haven’t really chosen them, so those would not get the boost. If you come across a song [on an algorithmic playlist] and favorite it, that would get the boost.
What do you define as “non-artist noise”? Is there a threshold there?
We wanted to be very fair and transparent and start in a very simple way, which is noise that has no music at all. Right now what we are going to stop paying, and eventually deleting, will be pure white noise — the sound of a washing machine, or rain, but without any music or anything else. That is the first stage, because it’s very easy to detect and very fair.
Then, there are different layers. Once it has music, then obviously it will not have the artist boost, most likely, and will probably not get to the active boost, but it will still be paid and still be there. So it won’t qualify for the boost, but it will still be paid and be available. Later on we’ll look into how that evolves and make sure that people aren’t abusing it, and if it becomes an issue then we will address it. It has to be a model that gets reviewed regularly, the same way that the Google search algorithm gets reviewed regularly to make sure that it’s always giving you the most relevant results, to make sure that there’s no gaming of the system, that it’s actually helping real artists.
What we’re trying to do here is support the creation of high-value content from real artists. And therefore we will continue to monitor it. Initially, it’s a very simple execution: pure noise gets kicked out, but anything with music will stay for the time being.
Where do you draw that line between what is “functional music” and what is artistry?
Right now, we don’t, because it’s a very difficult line to draw. If we find a way to draw that line then we will, but it has to be fair and it has to be very transparent. It cannot be subjective. We haven’t found a rule that is fair and transparent to define what is functional music and what is not, so that’s why we decided not to go there and went for the boost instead. Because what we see is, if it’s functional music, people don’t really add it to a playlist or follow it or search it or put it in favorites. So usually, things that are functional music, by nature, will not qualify for the boost. So the boost is basically a smart way of letting the behavior of the users boost what is real, high-value content, versus what is purely functional music.
Is this also about AI protection? Protecting “real” artists vs. AI artists?
Initially, we’re not taking any steps against AI. The model is not designed against it. However, it is a model that is built in a flexible way that can protect real artists from AI in the future, and what we said is that the real artist boost should be applied to real, human artists, so if it’s a machine it should not qualify for the active boost.
Your press release also mentioned a “stricter provider policy” that you guys are implementing. What does that entail?
Basically right now, like every other DSP, we allow people to upload music through these do-it-yourself [distribution] platforms; there’s plenty of them. And there’s a lot of content being uploaded. What we want to do is make sure that we get content that is valuable. We don’t want more noise getting uploaded to the platform and we want to be very strict with fraud and gaming [the system]. There are certain providers where more than 50% of what they uploaded we had to take down because of fraud. So we’re going to potentially block those providers altogether. We do not want to be used to game the system. Until now we had been allowing everything, and only when something gets detected as fraud did we deal with it. Now we want to be a lot more strict with what we allow to be uploaded.
But as you were saying, so much gets uploaded every day. How do you screen that?
AI. There will be clear rules, and then the machine will be screening all content that gets uploaded, and once you get to certain thresholds where they’re providing too much content that is detected as fraudulent or gaming the system, then we will just block them, the same way that Google will penalize anyone that is gaming their SEO and will remove them from search results for at least six months. There are penalties for bad behavior. Right now in streaming there are no penalties for bad behavior, and we’re trying to introduce them, the same way that Google and many other platforms do.
What other practices are you instituting to combat this fraud?
One really important aspect of eliminating the fraud element is we’re going to put a cap on the impact of a single user on the pool of streams: only 1,000 streams per user per month will count. So if you listen to 2,000 streams, then your streams will count half. That way, you cannot have one account racking up 10,000 streams and stealing money from the pool. A normal human will consume anywhere between 400 and 600 tracks per month, so we’ve set the threshold at 1,000. At 1,000, more than 90% of the behavior is captured and then only the outliers go beyond that. Some of it is not fraudulent — it’s usually young kids listening to K-pop or rock day and night. But the behavior of the fraudulent accounts, or gaming the system, happens by hacking accounts and generating huge amounts of streams to steal money from the pool. So by putting a cap of 1,000 streams per user, we are eliminating the economic incentive. You’d have to fake or hack a lot of accounts to have an economic impact, whereas right now with only a handful of accounts you can have a massive impact on the pool.
That 400-600 tracks, that was a result of your research?
Yes, our data. We have 10 million monthly subscribers, and over the last 15 years it’s pretty statistically significant that a normal human will listen to something in the range of 500 tracks. It really depends on age; the younger you are, the more tracks you listen to. But generally speaking, in normal human behavior, everything will be captured below 1,000 streams. If you’re above 1,000 streams you’re an outlier, and we don’t want those outliers or gamers of the system to have an impact on the pool.
What other tweaks are possible as you guys start to roll this out?
One thing we left out that we looked at was potentially adding another layer, which was streaming time. So instead of calculating it by stream, calculating it by the time you spend streaming a song. But what we saw is that with the current boost, the impact is already captured. So if you added listening time on top of the current layers that we created, the impact is minimal, because if you love a song, you usually listen to the whole song. We explored it, looked at the data and decided it wasn’t needed, and we wanted to keep it as simple as possible. But we haven’t completely ruled out listening time.
The other thing we haven’t completely ruled out is moving more and more towards a user-centric approach. Right now we cap things at 1,000 streams. But that can come down eventually to make it closer and closer to a UCPS approach. So that’s another variable that we’ll want to keep an eye on. And the other one is the threshold for a “professional artist.” We need to make sure that the 1,000 streams and 500 listeners a month is the right level and that it doesn’t have negative consequences. Because we really care about new, independent up-and-coming artists. We want to support them. So we will be reviewing that and its impact on new artists as well.
What might make you lower that threshold?
We have looked at so much data, which is why I feel like the level is in the right place. But feedback from the community and if there were any unintended consequences that we couldn’t see in the data that we already have.
When you roll this out, does this only apply to UMG artists?
Yes and no. Right now, the agreement is with Universal, however we’re in discussions with all content providers. The majority of content providers are very happy with the artist-centric model, because everyone who produces high-quality content gets a boost, whether you’re a major record label, an independent record label or a small indie artist distributing yourself. As long as you create content that people value, you will benefit from the model. I expect a big chunk, if not more than half, of our content will be on the new model by the time we launch this on the first of October. And our intention is to roll this out to all providers in all countries in 2024.
What would be a mark of success for this program? Six months from now, what would tell you that this is working?
I think it’s if real artists really get the boost, if they see an uplift in royalties, that’s where we would say that this model is working and helping good artists create valuable content. That’s ultimately what we want to do. The pool of money is the pool of money. Obviously we’re working to raise the ARPU [average revenue per user] and grow the pie, but that’s a different discussion. But from the pie that we have, more of the money has to go to artists who create valuable content, to implore them to continue to create valuable content. If those boosts work as intended and the real artists creating valuable content see an uplift in royalties, this model will have succeeded.
The algorithms continue their takeover: On Tuesday (Sept. 12), Spotify rolled out “daylist,” a “hyper-personalized, dynamic” playlist that updates throughout the day to “bring together the niche music and microgenres you usually listen to during particular moments in the day or on specific days of the week.”
Daylist is now available in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, according to Spotify’s announcement. The playlist updates several times “between sunup and sundown.” After that, who knows — listeners may have to choose their own music for a few hours before bedtime.
Spotify was once known for its editorial playlists like Today’s Top Hits and Baila Reggaeton. Since these functioned much like radio, concentrating a lot of listener attention on the same handful of songs, they were watched closely in the music industry. Placements were eagerly sought after due to their ability to drive a lot of streaming activity.
But since at least 2019, Spotify has been increasingly focused on rolling out auto-personalized playlists. That year, the service took collections like Beast Mode and Chill Hits, which previously had been the same for all listeners, and personalized them “for each listener based on their particular taste,” according to a company press release. (This change did not affect the biggest editorial playlists.)
Spotify found that this shift had three effects. Most importantly for the streaming service, listeners tuned in to personalized collections for longer. This is notable: Users were more likely to keep playing songs that Spotify fed to them based on their previous listening habits, rather than tracks selected by editors. Chalk one up to the machines.
In addition, the drive towards personalization meant that the streaming wealth was spread across more acts — raising “the number of artists featured on playlists by 30% and the number of songs listeners are discovering by 35%,” according to the company’s announcement. “We found that, after discovering a song through a personalized editorial playlist, the number of listeners who then seek out the track on their own for repeat listens is up by 80%,” Spotify’s blog post continued. “In fact, the average number of times a listener saves a track is up 66%.”
Personalization has become more important than ever in the age of TikTok, which is constantly praised for its ability to discern small differences between users’ preferences and serve up videos that keep them scrolling. “Everything on TikTok feels like it was meant especially for you,” one music executive told Billboard last year.
Daylight is Spotify’s latest attempt to generate that same feeling.
“You’re ever-changing,” the company wrote, “and your playlists should be too.”
During his tenure at Google in the early 2000s, Shuman Ghosemajumder‘s official title was global head of product, trust and safety. But he also acquired a snazzier moniker, “click fraud czar,” thanks to his efforts to combat bad actors who try to fake online activity to inflate advertising payouts.
“It was very surprising to us, almost 20 years ago, when we saw organized crime getting involved with online fraud,” Ghosemajumder says. “Ever since then, I’m never surprised: The idea of cybercrime or online fraud coming from an individual hacker sitting in their bedroom hasn’t been the case for basically 30 years.”
Criminal interest in a different type of click fraud drew the attention of the music industry this week, when the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet published a piece alleging that the country’s gangs use streaming manipulation as a way to launder money earned via illicit activities. “Spotify has become an ATM for them,” an anonymous police investigator told the paper.
“That article appears to point to a really kind of ingenious way of laundering money,” says James Trusty, a former federal prosecutor who worked on cases involving both computer fraud and money laundering. “It seems to me to be a fairly invisible process right now, and that poses serious challenges to law enforcement.”
“It’s the usual chase,” he adds. “The robbers come up with something new, and the cops eventually catch up.”
In a statement to Svenska Dagbladet, a rep for Spotify told the paper that “manipulated streams are a challenge for the entire industry,” one that the platform “is working hard to combat” via “market leading” technology. On top of that, the rep said Spotify has discovered no evidence that it is being used as a money laundering tool.
If additional criminal activity is discovered on streaming platforms, could that bring new pressure to the music industry to address streaming fraud — something many believe is long overdue?
The article arrives at a time when executives from around the music industry are calling for better monitoring of the streaming ecosystem. “As an industry, we need to do more to harden the defenses of platforms and deter bad actors from using music streaming for criminal purposes,” Beatdapp co-CEOs Morgan Hayduk and Andrew Batey said in a statement. (Beatdapp makes fraud detection technology.)
Svenska Dagbladet‘s report is hardly the first time connections have been drawn between criminals and the music business. Industry history books are sprinkled with gangsters, especially in the earlier decades before it consolidated and became increasingly corporate. In one of the most infamous episodes, the longstanding practice of paying for airplay drew government scrutiny after a 1986 NBC report linked prominent radio promoters with members of the mafia.
But the resulting investigation ended up having little impact and ultimately fizzled out. In the book Hit Men, which catalogs this period, Fredric Dannen wrote that the lesson for the record business was that “the government is incapable of sending any major music industry figure to jail.” Paying for airplay continued unchecked for more than a decade.
The practice of paying for artificial streams has only recently drawn public criticism in the U.S. music industry. Streaming manipulation has the potential to distort market share calculations and steer money away from the hardworking artists who are not gaming the system. Both Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge and Sony Music CEO Rob Stringer have expressed concern about fraud in calls with financial analysts this year.
“Once someone like Lucian Grainge makes a statement about it, it’s necessarily going to get more prominence,” says one streaming service executive who agreed to speak about manipulation on the condition of anonymity. “That’s not to say we weren’t dealing with it behind the scenes before Lucian was making statements. But now there is broader recognition of the scope of the problem and the impact that it has on revenues and royalties that should be, but have not been, paid through to legitimate artists.”
Potential connections between streaming manipulation and criminal elements were raised last year at a pair of music industry panels, first at South by Southwest and then at the Music Biz conference. Michael Pelczynski, who was then SoundCloud’s vp of strategy, participated in both discussions. “We were able to see signs of such activity” by collaborating with Pandora/SiriusXM and the cybersecurity company HUMAN, he says. “The benefit of creating a coalition with a third party was they could puzzle together certain patterns that we as individual platforms could not.”
Streamers try to work backwards from anomalies in the data, trawling for “potential bad actor networks,” as Pelczynski puts it, and trying to prevent them from “migrat[ing] from platform to platform.” Svenska Dagbladet took a different approach, speaking to several criminals who claimed to have direct knowledge of the laundering scheme.
The paper reported that Swedish gangs take criminal profits, convert them into cryptocurrency, use that to buy fake streams for artists they’re connected to, and then collect the royalties. They lose some money in the process by paying for fake streams, but the royalties they extract from the music industry are now “clean” — they can’t lead back to anything gang-related.
“There is always a cost in money laundering,” Trusty explains. But even if it’s a really high transaction cost, it still puts you in a position where you have untraceable, usable profit. And so the key for any real money laundering operation is volume. The article seems to be pointing out that this is something that’s kind of an institutional mechanism for these gangs.”
Trusty was not surprised to hear about the results of Svenska Dagbladet‘s reporting. “Anytime you have technological developments, somebody’s going to figure out a way to take advantage of those in a bad way,” he continues. “It’s eventually in the industry’s interest to lean forward and figure out how to work with law enforcement to close this gap that’s being exploited.”
PodcastOne debuted its long-awaited listing Friday (Sept. 8), with officials from parent company LiveOne ringing the opening bell on the trading floor of the NASDAQ to celebrate what CEO Rob Ellin says is first ever spinoff of a minority stake in a publicly traded company. Shares of the new LiveOne subsidiary Courtside Group, better known as PodcastOne, fell 45% shortly after trading opened, dropping from $8 per share to close at $4.39.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The tumble came amid growing criticism of one of PodcastOne’s acquisition targets — California-based Kast Media — by major podcasters like comedian Theo Von who accused Kast of failing to pay out $4 million in advertising fees collected by Kast on behalf of its podcaster clients.
In a video viewed more than 1 million times, titled “This Man Defrauded Our Podcast,” Von alleges that Kast Media founder and CEO Colin Thomson did not pay his show This Past Weekend with Theo Von for the advertisements it sold and booked for Von’s show. Von claimed This Past Weekend eventually cut ties with Kast Media, only to later be approached by Thomson and Ellin and was told on a phone call, “If you come over to our new network PodcastOne, we’ll pay some of what you’re owed in stock,” Von said, adding “it felt like to me they’re trying to leverage our podcast and other podcasts to then make their stock do well and if that happens, then we’ll get a share of our money.”
Von told viewers he declined the offer.
Ellin addressed the Kast Media scandal on Friday during a post-market opening interview with Yahoo News. He noted that PodcastOne is no longer hiring Thomson to join his the publicly traded company, but noted he hoped to help creators hurt by the Kast Media controversy.
“We’ve bought a distressed asset called Kast Media, a very distressed, troubled asset (that) owed a lot of money to its podcasters and couldn’t really afford to pay them. And the banks pulled out. And that host pulled out. So we acquired those and have added some very serious revenues to it,” he said.
Von isn’t the only podcaster to go public about the Kast Media scandal. Pro Wrestling podcaster Jim Cornette and cohost Brian Last have detailed their own experience with Kast Media and PodcastOne in a series of at least seven podcast episodes over the last two months. Former Sirius XM host Jason Ellis has also spoken out against Kast Media in a recent viral video.
Von said he will continue pursuing Thomson for the money he is owed by Kast Media.
“You f—ed with the wrong rat, homie” Von said while a picture of Thompson aired on the screen. “You can’t get me to shut up.”
Thomson did not respond to multiple requests for comment.