Picture taken by me
On first sight streaming services seems great, unlimited music for a small price each month. And yes in ease to use, they certainly have a benefit. And I also don´t think that we should get away from online streaming altogether. The title mentions "music streaming services" and not "music streaming". Another benefit it can be easy to discover new artists / songs. One quite often mentioned benefit of Spotify was that people like the discovery function/playlist. And for an artist, it is an easy way to make your music available for every one in the whole world. But those are the only benefits I can think of. And if there weren´t any downsides, yes it would be great.
For quite a while I used Spotify free. And quite a bit after many already had the premium subscription, I also decided to switch. However it always had a bitter taste. From the beginning. Or at least since I used the premium subscription, it was quite known that the payout wasn´t that great and in my opinion fair. From the obvious legal abuse of the system, paying for some music rights and then buying bots to play that music: A Bulgarian scheme scammed Spotify for $1 million—without breaking a single law. While I think in the article I did read a few years back it was mentioned that this loophole was closed, how the payout is divided is still broken in my eyes. For the payout system, read: How Spotify Works Out Royalty Payments - The 'Streamshare' System
On average, I stream around some 400/500 songs a month, so that would be (with average of 3 min 30 sec per song) around 23 till 29 hours. My songs are longer on average, but I think the most streamend songs are around that mark. Spotify User Statistics That Will Be Music to Your Ears states that on average somebody listens 25 hours. However this is an avarage of 248 montly active users. Of which 113 million are premium subscribers. So I think I'm quite a bit below average for the premium users. This is also in line with The Most Surprising Deezer Statistics And Trends in 2023, which states for 49 hours each month per subscriber.
If I stream less than average, my money will go to artists that I didn´t stream, and some I maybe even don´t want to support. If someone is populair in the music industry and I don´t like them, they still will get part of my money if I don´t stream at least the same amount as the average user. And maybe just as important, if there is a smaller artist that I like, they will not get the relative amount from me, based on my streams.
Of course this is a problem that could be fixed. And I think the main reason this hasn´t happened is because of the bigger record labels.
All the streaming services say how many songs they have, but there are still a lot of songs that aren't available for me. From one day to another, Spotify switched out a bonus album with the normal album. And I have a lot of playlists with missing songs. The few missing songs makes it frustrating, because I can´t easily integrate them with spotify, if I have a local copy.
Spotify was also getting into podcasts. And I don´t mind that. But they paid big money for some exclusivity deals. Which I can get from the standpoint of the service, but as user, it has no benefit. It will maybe lure some users to spotify, but mainly from other streaming services. I don´t think they will gather many users that didn´t have a music streaming subscription. So they will use their money to migrate users from other services instead of improving situation for artists. Like I said, I don´t mind podcasters on the platform, but I don´t want (indirectly) my money going to them.
Because of the statements above, and a deal for 3 months for 1 dollar from Deezer, I decided a few years back to make the switch. Deezer had a statement that they would want to UCPS (User Centric Payment System), and was trying to get the music labels onboard. Keep in mind, that this a goal from quite some years back. And in 2023 it is still not there. But still, joining a service that at least wants to implement that, is better than one that is quiet about it. But I guess we see here how big the influence of music labels is.
And here is my main reason why I now write this post. For quite a while there was a page that showed you how much of last month went to bands you listened and such. For me I guess around 60% went to band I listened to. And stating it is pushing for the UCPS. It also showed that it mainly went to the bigger artists, while what I stream is quite random. So more feedback that I really want the UCPS and that this system doesn´t work for me.
But when I was viewing a youtube video about artists and streaming revenue, I wanted to look up this page again. But I couldn´t find it. I found out it was replaced by a blog: How much does deezer pay artists? Reshaping the music streaming payment system. Where they call "a next step in pursuing the goal", where they stated they work together with Universal Music Group (UMG). And while they play it out as next step and a great thing, I miss clearity about how it is gonna improve the payouts. It only makes vagues claimes improving the fairness of the current model. However, they don´t mention that it will get UCPS. And they state that they want increase transparancy, but this blog doesn´t give any in my eyes. So I hope I'm wrong, but this blog makes me afraid that we will get a middle ground, and not really USCP and we will keep this for another 5 years or so before the next step is taken.
During my searches for this post I found the following article: TIDAL implement a UCPS to their higher-end streaming tier, which states that Tidal has some sort of UCPS, but only for there HiFi plus tier, So 19,99 per month. And it stats that up to 10% goes to artists directly. Which is quite disappointing. The auther of the posts points out that the dashboard will show how much every artist get from you, and that he likes that. And I agree, I would love to see precise numbers. And I guess every little step to UCPS is a little step. I'm only afraid we still stop at something like Tidal, where only 10% goes directly to the artists you like.
I would never say that the quality of a record or casette or even a CD is better than streaming. There are enough options that have lossless audio codecs. And I'm rationale enough to know that the audio quality of a record isn´t better than that.
That said, I like to just sometimes to listen to a record. Just to get me in a bit of different mood, just listen to whole album, instead of having the next button on your finger tips. But how the music system works, it is more beneficial for the artists to listen on stream. And it makes it that you pay double if you also want physical copies. Or just the digital audio files. Since I have a streaming service, I only have bought some records, because I love records. But I didn´t buy as much as I would otherwise. And if I stop my subscription, all my access is gone. If I didn´t have a subscription and bought the music. For the amount I paid, I guess I would have 95% of what I listen to mostly nowadays. Certainly because many is older music and is cheaper to get.
While UCPS is the utter minimum we need, I also don´t like the subscription model. They are beneficial if you overuse them. You have paid for them, so you need to use them. Which make that you over consume everything. Have netflix? watch as much as you can, otherwise it is a waste of money. Same for music streaming. So while they are a good option for people that want to use the service much, I would like to see a pay as you go system. So that I can listen to my owned music without paying, and songs I don´t have, I can pay to stream. So with many services you can get for around 10 bucks, my 500 streams will be 2 cents for each song. So let's say half of that is for the service, then 1 cent will go to right holders. Which is a lot more than they are getting now. (And with the 70/30 split many have, they would even get 1,40 cent per stream). thats even more than double they would get now according to payout per stream sites.
There are certainly projects that want to fix some of the problems, because of course I'm not the only one that feels this way. But the main problem is that they all have some music, so you leaving a lot behind. Also I don´t wan't to have ten different cryptocoins so I can join every project. One of the project stated that you would pay a bit less for each stream of the same song, and after a certain amount, that song would be free for you. Which is a function I like very much. But for now, all the projects are quite small and I think we need mainstream music on there, in other to be a success. And to be honest, I don´t care if the solution is crypto or not. In my eyes, not everything has to be crypto and there can be a perfectly fine solution without crypto. If you know a great solution (crypto or not) let me know, I like the benefit that streaming can have, but the payouts system is messed up. When an artist can get more from putting their music online as torrent with a donation link, than a year of streaming on spotify, the system is broken (Pirated by iTunes, Artist Turns to BitTorrent this is about the torrent, he mentions that spotify paid less in a youtube video on his channel)
For now, the blogpost of Deezer was a disappointment for me. While they wrote it as a great next step, for me it was confirming how the state is, and that it is still very much broken. A little voice in my head already said, why not just stop the subscription and listen to what you have. And that voice only gets louder. If I stop the service, and just spend 10 bucks more at music each more, be it just donating or buying or going to extra concert, that will have a much better benefit for the smaller artists than hoping that one day we get fair payments for streaming music.
So what do you think?
