Spotify Is Coming For Your Royalties in 30 Days

[@ZamphattaNeptune]

All artists deserve their royalties. No matter how much or how little. I can easily see someone bringing a lawsuit over unpaid royalties. That's already happened in multiple cases over the decades in other situations. Spotify surely knows this already. So how do they expect to get away with not paying someone just because they're earning a little bit and not some arbitrary minimum amount?

[@DamianKeyes]

Agreed - there’s going to be a lot of grey areas here

[@E.T.musics]

İ think it will also push people to fraud to get to those treshold numbers. Spotify should collect that extra money from the "content" of the sounds submitted. Music and sound recording or book reading types of submission can be evaluated separetly . Maybe it is already i dont know for sure

[@danmcbmusic]

Exactly. Next time you get a bill for ◇$1.23 try not paying it because it is too little.

[@tracydyson3144]

This sounds like spotify really wants everyone to pay for their service. Artist and listeners alike. The more you pay as an artist for spotify promotion through them, the more they give you a kick back/royalty on your music, maybe? and listeners pay more so they can keep their advertisers/record labels happy with botted payola streaming from Spotify themselves to the record labels artists and the company own pocket. It really sounds like a no-win for artists and listeners alike. Only the advertisers/paying record labels and spotify wins. Spotify is a payola platform that relies on playlisting and the old radio format that clear channel made in the early days. They are really not that important, and there are so many other places to stream music. All social media platforms want you to pay for being on them, especially if you are an artist or content creator. They want you to pay for views, clicks, likes, and listeners, or they suppress everything. The new style of social marketing now is just a big pay to play scam 😂.

[@sonnyporemba1962]

Couldn’t agree more!

[@juliekrol]

I think the labels did a back door deal to secure their dominance in the industry because too many indie artists were generating more than a label would have gotten them. BS if you ask me!

[@UmbraWeiss]

Exactly, labels feel the danger of indies... the biggest names come from there, because it's easier to make music nowadays, and learn how to do it like ever.... And Indies have the balls to do new things, big labels do the same garbage for 20years now, and expect people to buy it.

[@theyounglovescene]

there’s a good article in wired about exactly what happened

[@eileencritchley4630]

Yes the big artist who refuse to pay to be in created lists but have amazing streams on Spotify are hated by Spotify and Spotify will filter their streams we see it happening every day. The Biggest group in the world with the biggest music fan base on planet have called out Spotify more than once even getting them to apologise and replace removed streams as we had Spotify Corrupt trending worldwide with screen shot's from spotify itself. Spofity got caught out and made up some lame excuse but apologised and replaced the streams. I'm referring to BTS and the fan base ARMY took on the might of Spotify because we can unlike the tiny small artists. Artist who pay to be in created lists really aren't doing themselves any favour's as that might get them so accidential streams but it won't build them a dicated fan base that will pay for concert tickets, buy albums it's more for the odd casual listener. Media hype is just that media hype.

[@eileencritchley4630]

yes they want to make money out of those who refuse to do payola (pay for play)

[@redcurrantrecords]

I understand the quality over quantity, but many smaller indie artists produce some quality tracks, and just because they don't have the marketing budget to get the really high stream count they shouldn't be penalised, their small fan base is still paying a subscription fee, and therefore the artist should get their cut.

[@wormsali]

Because that "cut" is so tiny it can't even reimburse the processing fees. This should be a wakeup call. Any serious artist should work harder

[@redcurrantrecords]

@@wormsali Sure that might be the case this time, but if they raise the bar in the future to say 100k streams per track, or even 1M before you get paid, then maybe this really would impact some fulltime artists.

[@francisbriotv]

Real talk

[@logigmusic6458]

Exactly and thanks

[@budgetkeyboardist]

@@wormsali Not the case. They don't actually do anything when one song makes .007 cents, aside from tracking the data, which with today's server horsepower is free.

[@VictoriaWhitlock]

For years I tried to ignore when people said Spotify is greedy, but they’re getting harder to defend imo. Taking away small independent artists right to get paid royalties because they aren’t getting enough attention…

[@HOLLASOUNDS]

That's why I haven't bother getting My stuff on there.

[@UncleBenjs]

Those people saw where it was going, you enabled Spotify to take it there by ignoring

[@DAEMENENCE1]

@@HOLLASOUNDS dat what im talking about but who has good royalty payout

[@HOLLASOUNDS]

@@DAEMENENCE1 Exactly, And also who else has the included music protection that Distro has for low price? Alot of producers sell sound packs and samples because theres more money in that that actually selling or streaming there own music.

[@Isaiahmathew]

Sounds like a Spotify boycott is in order

[@DamianKeyes]

I really wish it would make a difference but it would only hurt the independents who are boycotting. Sadly for now Spotify has the power

[@danmcbmusic]

Or a class action lawsuit. Basically they are saying "not gonna pay you".

[@PhantomStrange]

i cancelled my sub this morning

[@PhantomStrange]

@@DamianKeyes ya, but they also now don't have my monthly money

[@tjt_88]

Can’t wait for something better to emerge that is FOR artists not for a bunch of CEO’s and stakeholders. Royalties are deserved whether or not it’s 100 or a million streams. The reason Spotify exists is because of the music, it is the reason the product exists.

[@vox42]

You said it, those little payments are actually heartwarming for us small artists and contribute to fuel the motivation we need to not give up... It's sad that they're taking that away. I can live without my 5€ a month sure but I was a little proud of being able to create something that was giving me some money back. Something... worth something. I know making music is not about money and that shouldn't be the only reason I'm doing this (and it isn't ofc) but still... Why Spotify why?

[@desertbuzzard3531]

Because the majors are trying to corner the market. These platforms are easy manipulated just like the old radio stations were back in the day by the majors. Hands get greased so that they’re artists will get favored. There’s no way around it. That’s exactly why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It’s always been that way and it will always be that way.

[@rathovgodthaklassklown5787]

Yeah I felt that part big time

[@HOLLASOUNDS]

I give up, I dont even want to make music anymore, what's the point of making music only you will hear? The point of making music is your creating something for people to hear and enjoy, if that's never going to happen then its pointless.

[@dameongeppetto]

​@@desertbuzzard3531 I hate to break it to you, but the majors own Spotify (they are collectively over 50% of shareholders). They don't just have influence, it is their investment product to continue their monopoly over music production.

[@wormsali]

So you think that 4¢ a month is a big ego boost ? You're worth so much more bro. There's more realistic ways to monetize music

[@musicbysazid]

00:12 🎵 Spotify plans to change its royalty model, aiming to generate an extra $1 billion for artists in the next 5 years. 01:06 📜 Spotify is introducing a new minimum length for tracks to avoid gaming the system, potentially impacting artists with shorter tracks. 02:30 💰 Spotify will implement a minimum annual stream threshold for artists to receive royalties, affecting independent artists and potentially removing $40 million in revenue. 05:25 🚫 Spotify plans to penalize labels, artists, and anyone promoting fraudulent activities to level the playing field. 08:12 🎶 Spotify aims to prioritize quality over quantity, but these changes may inadvertently affect independent artists' motivation and progression.

[@logigmusic6458]

And thats true but it may also affect small labels who exist on signing many artists and skimming 10% of their income but now that income has gone. This could potentially destroy the music industry.

[@8Adonay8]

​@logigmusic6458 As a small publishing company and Artist I think the music industry is saturated with noise and it already hurting. Not everyone is going to make it in the music industry only the strong will survive. Artist like Snoop Dog hit 1 billion streams and got 45k that does even help with his break even budget to promote his Artist. It not fair for Artist and Label that high put in money to produce quality content and have huge traffic.

[@BBstyleYT]

I hate to see the rich getting richer just for being rich and the small creators getting penalized just for being small.

[@glorialopez2605]

If your song gets streamed even once, you deserve to get paid. Remember that.

[@dougdevenski2362]

I agree but I also believe there needs to be some sort of bar when having music on major platforms.

[@mattbielasiak9599]

@@dougdevenski2362nah

[@MarcoPolux]

@@dougdevenski2362 that shouldn´t be the bar. That money should go to a fund maybe, or be retained until the artist pass the threshold.

[@peace7482]

100%

[@Marcelofsdmf]

that makes sense but it is only being streamed because there's a platform which does so and on top of that there's your personal choice of such platform. You can only opt out, but you decide to use a streaming service to promote, yes, your music. If you're a tiny artist you should be thankful for it, as many years ago you wouldn't stand a chance in this fiercy market

[@carlshakes6095]

I think it's about time we as independent producers and artists start a movement to boycott these streaming platforms and create or join platforms that are digital versions of independent record shops. How can a business justify giving less than 1% of the retail price to the producers of a product whilst they are earning millions in PROFIT!! If this practice was in any other business sector there would be outrage and major discussions in Parliament!! Someone out there must be able to come up with a fairer business model.

[@WassupFred]

We need to do that bro

[@BernardoAnderson]

Isn't the problem the labels? From my understanding, the big labels were the ones pushing for this. Ideally, we would target them, not the streaming services.

[@ArielX2K]

Bandcamp has been pretty exemplary, but recently was sold to a company with different ideas about its artist-friendly business model; they layed off half its staff for starters, then framed their reasons for doing so in the typical corporate euphemisms and platitudes. Maybe they'll recognize a good thing and stick somewhat to Bandcamp's formula or not, only time will tell.

[@unstopology]

​@@BernardoAnderson Streaming services are still agreeing with this. They could just say no, but they're not. It's they're platform so, to me, they're the ones in the wrong.

[@BernardoAnderson]

@@unstopology I'm not sure it's that easy. They can say no, and lose a large catalog making them not competitive with other streaming services. Ultimately, the large labels are able to control a lot of what they want from streaming services by controlling their catalog. I hate it, but it's the unfortunate reality.

[@genuinefreewilly5706]

I think they should leave small artists alone. I would say the popular distributors should vet their music more carefully. As I recall from Spotify's early days, Ek was telling artists to push quantity and more regularity.

[@8Adonay8]

I think they should have a separate platform for independent Artist and once they hit a concern number organicly they can be promoted to the next level. 😉 Oh that is what Spotify going to do. Great. ❤

[@keynotez]

It doesn’t matter the major labels will continue to manipulate their streaming numbers and receive payouts. It's a complex web of deceit. Take for instance, G-Eazy; his label was exposed for fraudulent practices, yet all of his songs remain accessible on Spotify. If an independent artist were in the same situation, their songs would likely be promptly removed from the platform. It’s all a game payola since the beginning of time !

[@ColinsCity]

EXACTLY, according to spotify all independent artists are responsible for every single stream they get on their song, when they issued this email i stopped promoting my music on spotify, they probably don't give a shit about the mission few thousand monthly plays and i can live without the $15 , but that's what they have done so far, i can imagine what's coming next

[@ultimatecomeback9645]

in all honesty, this is a disgrace. just another case of the people at the top taking money out of the little guy's pocket to make the rich richer. keep in mind that big platforms like youtube, Spotify, etc, still make money from the smaller creators through ads, etc, there are creators with 200 streams getting ads pop up on their tracks. it just means now their earnings go to the bigger artists. imagine working a regular day job and your wages get taken off of you and given to someone that's higher up in the company so they get rich and you go home with nothing. That is basically what this is. Whether it's 200 streams or 2 million streams, you deserve to get paid if the company is profiting off of your work.

[@ChrisGriffiths-t9y]

It's interested hearing people comment about artists "scamming the system" when Spotify exists purely off the back of stealing artist's work in the first place. I feel like it's more like reclaiming what is rightfully theirs in the first place. Spotify as a platform needs to be completely re worked, the creators need to be taking home the vast majority of the revenue and that should not be in question.

[@LakeyPL1]

Spotify deffo working with labels for this one, so independent artists struggle more… smh

[@DamianKeyes]

Yeah the labels have been calling for it. While I don't believe Spotify are deliberately trying to hurt independent artists, it will hurt a lot of them sadly

[@LakeyPL1]

@@DamianKeyes business is business, if they are gonna earn more money through the labels way - they are not gonna think twice.

[@sqlb3rn]

we are living in some kind of dystopian society where musicians are scrapping over tiny fractions of a penny.

[@riddlebeats]

I’m so triggered I had to comment twice 😭 But in regards to “undeserving” or “genuine artists” It’s insane how a bunch of people sat round a table at Spotify probably with degrees in business marketing etc. and not an artistic bone in their body are the ones in position to determine what “genuine” art is. That statement itself is surely a paradox? I smell one big play from the major labels trying to force us smaller/independent artists to become more reliant/dependant on them when we DON’T NEED THEM!

[@periurban]

I've never used Spotify, either as a creator or a fan. I use bandcamp, which so far has been very fair and open with me about sales, and I've discovered tons of great music there. I've not had many sales, but I never have any problem getting the small amounts I've made, and for bigger hitters (like Radiohead, who use it) it seems like a pretty good deal. The solution to the Spotify situation is for artists not to sign the deals that allow this. Retain your copyrights, don't sign them away and fuck the sharks.

[@periurban]

@@CheapSushi Indeed, but so far it's been good.

[@Od3ll_Official]

Ya. It's unfortunate.@@CheapSushi

[@Buzzkillco]

@@CheapSushiTidal is where it’s at, it pays artists much much more than stupid spotify

[@TJ-bx5px]

We need a open source block chain music hosting and streaming. So the artist who u listen to gets ur money.

[@periurban]

@@TJ-bx5px I have no idea what that means, but the principle sounds right! Where do I sign? (Joke. I ain't signing anything!)

[@victoriasimmondsmusic]

I hate that they will decide if I am a working artist or not and then just refuse to let me have my royalties. If they do it on the number of followers I'm pretty sure I'll be screwed at the moment. What it does mean is that we have to regroup, They are bigger than us, it will effect every element of our music and they really don't care about independent artists. We need to come up with a different strategy.

[@grahamtaylor6883]

Why should Spotify decide who are and which music is worthy of paying? If you're a new artist and Spotify members are listening to your music, then you should get a piece of the pie. People will skip it if they don't like it. I also think all streaming services should pay based on the amount of minutes your tracks are listened to and not one shot after 30 seconds. If someone has a 4 minute song and someone has a 2 minute, it would make sense that the 4 minute one should be paid twice as much, if a person has listened to it for that long. It's time for Spotify to be replaced actually.

[@tristankerr3655]

yeah this makes total sense

[@robertbroadwayauthentic]

I agree.It’s time for indie artists to do sumthin different.

[@eigenstatezero]

I might stop using Spotify after this. I put everything I have into my music. It will be detrimental sure, but I don´t care. If Spotify has no respect for the little guys and gals, that´s their choice; I´ll be damn sure not to loose selfrespect.

[@tootory9506]

It's simple if I give Spotify $11 a month and I only listen to one album the entire month... Then, all that money should go to that album ... People are paying Spotify for access to music. So their money should be distributed to whatever artist they listen to! That's it!

[@Brandon_Renegade]

I believe the Spotify stream threshold before royalties come in is bull shit. As an independent artist myself, with a new single releasing on November 3rd, i believe every stream should be counted towards the royalties, despite if it's pennies on the dollar, each stream is from a fan we worked hard to get, I haven't once paid for streams, nor will I ever. So the measly $8.00 I've made with 2,500 streams on Spotify in my first single, still means something to me. Those numbers = fans whom I've helped in one way or another with my music.

[@EyesforSkies]

number 2 is annoying for sure (since I barely have an audience beyond friends lol), Spotify royalties just about cover distribution costs. This literally takes away all incentive for uploading my music to streaming services :(

[@brucemillar]

Frankly, as an independent artist, I’m just using Spotify and the other online platforms to get my music out there. My numbers are so small I don’t expect to get much in the way of royalties. Then again, you never know. Besides, I believe in my songs, and they’re better off out there where the world can stumble across them, rather than hiding away on my hard drive. Hope you’re feeling better, mate.

[@musicjst]

Yeah I came here to say pretty much this. I can forgo the £3 per year or whatever it is it currently earns me 🤣 (Totally my own fault as I'm only now trying to learn about promo / advertising / social media in general really)

[@meekosaga]

I agree

[@SynnUnsworth]

totally agree with you... when youtube brought in the subscriber threshold thing it really killed my motivation and enjoyment of making videos, even though i was only getting pennies it made me try to get better each time, I can see a lot of people getting similar feeling when/if it hits with spotify, getting those small pennies are enough to keep people going and actually see music as a potential business rather than just a hobby (which is also not to say it being just a hobby is a bad thing)

[@anthonyvaldez851]

True. The YT threshold feels out of reach

[@SynnUnsworth]

@@anthonyvaldez851 dont get me wrong i dont think its out of reach or unattainable... it was just very disheartening, and if i'm honest i think that was simply because of why it happened and made me personally focus on the wrong things, where having the tiny bit of income made me focus on making better videos and trying to improve things each time (which is realistically what we should be doing)

[@MajorMoment]

not sure how I feel about the threshold. the what they call “working musicians” situation really needs to improve, and the money has to come from somewhere. I’d suggest that if we’re setting up a threshold for the minimum of streams (claiming those are hobbyists that are not serious enough to promote their own music), there should also be one for max, let’s say 10M streams, after which the rate drops in favor of those still climbing up and trying to pay their bills. but of course, every hater under the sun that knows nothing about business is gonna suggest the money should rather come out of Ek’s personal wealth. 🙄

[@DamianKeyes]

Interesting!! It throws up so many conversations as yeah, if there’s a minimum why shouldn’t there be a maximum

[@Jz2CoolDude]

Agree! I've been saying this to anyone who would listen for years. It makes total sense to have the payment rates scaled as the streams get larger, just like everything else in consumerism where it's cheaper when you buy in bulk. So in fact, why shouldn't the rate be higher for streams at the lower end and subsidise it by the streams for those pulling over 10m or over 100m. Putting a gate on emerging artist is the worst possible scenario IMO and leading down a very slippery licensing slope!

[@HURRY-UP-N-BUY]

either way it goes the GAME is COOKED..if u think any of these Platforms are gonna share what them and there CTO discuss on Parameters and Metrics changes withing there Algorithms, then your sadly mistaken, even Big Artist have no way to tell how many (STREAMS) They've done..it's all on what the streaming Platforms want them to believe and they can cook the numbers any way they want to...there needs to be a OVERSITE TEAM,but thats going down another rabbit hole, because then all they would do is treat them like the TEAMSTERS UNION..n pay the people at the top to GO-ALONG-TO-GET-ALONG! & that would be...never mind

[@maknoxx]

you just suggested socialism lmaoooooooo

[@MajorMoment]

@@maknoxx no, not really. those artists that are more popular would still earn a lot more, there’s still a huge incentive for artists to be successful.

[@ariroar8466]

During an interview with the black keys they brought up what they thought the structure of spotify should be and I think it's brilliant. If you're paying the monthly subscription and you listen to a variety of different artists that month, that money should be evenly divided among those artists.

[@marsexalted]

i believe soundcloud is trying to implement this

[@secretarchivesofthevatican]

The big record labels would put a stop to that. They'd threaten to remove their content and Spotify would totally do what it was told.

[@flashgordon2732]

@@secretarchivesofthevatican record labels can get paid off ai theyll be okay , its good for the independents

[@divLded]

​@@secretarchivesofthevaticanwell, if they remove their content theyre definitely getting nothing. With doing what op said, they'd still get the same exact streams otherwise, therefore same pay if not more.

[@anthonyvaldez851]

@@flashgordon2732 Spotify is partially owned by record labels

[@NicBam]

When we start acting like Spotify has done anything good for us as musicians, that’s when we know artists who truly care about their worth are diminishing.

[@cornflex38]

Wait, they want to support the "hard working artists" what??? Lets imagine you got 1000 real songs in your catalog, you get 100 Streams on each, thats a bunch in total, ok... but the threshold is 1000 streams on a song annually. So you have 100.000 streams but nothing in royalties??!! WHAAT? Lets imagine somebody else got 1 song in their whole catalog with 10.000 streams and they get paid for that in royalties??? Am I tripping? Am I wrong? Who of them is the "hard working artist" they try to support. If this is the model they are going for, then they must have lost their mind....

[@cornflex38]

you better delete your whole catalog then except 1, so people dont distribute their streams on "worthless" songs. tf

[@OfficialLeahJude]

Some labels are going to fight this. Back catalogs will suffer.

[@DamianKeyes]

I think some labels will defo fight it but it's something the majors have been calling for (the likes of UMG) as they want more of the pie. It will be interesting to see what happens to the other DSP's to see if they follow suit. 🙂🙂

[@OfficialLeahJude]

@@DamianKeyesgood point

[@reggiereg2064]

I dont think so. Ive recently read articles that say 70% of streams and music purchases in the US are from music thats at least 18 months old and that percentage is supposedly increasing.

[@OfficialLeahJude]

@@reggiereg2064 I just read that article!!! 😂

[@laurakelseymusic]

So artists pay a fee to distribute their songs to Spotify but now they may not even have a chance to make royalties from the service? Now that Bandcamp is also under new ownership, what is the best option for artists to share their music with hopes of receiving some sort of funding back?

[@methodofkolishin]

Good question! Amuse allows artists to distribute for free, but it's not a fancy or feature-filled experience!

[@DomTristram]

There are other streaming services (and they paid artists a lot more than Spotify even before this move)

[@goodvibrationseverywhere]

No one has to pay a fee to spotify, the fee is for the distributors that charge

[@ClarkColborn]

Hey Damo, thanks for this video. I guess my problem with the "working artist" concept, is that I might be out gigging every weekend, selling a few dozen of my CDs at every show, but totally *suck* at promoting myself on Spotify. To an outsider I would still appear to be a "working artist," but Spotify might look at my sub-par plays & say "Nope. This guy is not a working artist." I'm working on fixing this, lol, as you know, but there might be a lot of what you & I would call "working artists" out there who won't fit the Spotify profile. But, it is their sandbox, and they get to set the rules. I'll be interested to see how this all shakes out.

[@ClarkColborn]

@@lespaul2550 Awesome extrapolation of the sandbox analogy! I like it!

[@mapl3mage]

one option is to sell your songs directly to consumers. I bought a few songs from a digital store that offers lossless drm-free music. The store takes a 30% cut, the rest goes to the artist and label company. That means they get 70 cents for every dollar spent.

[@TeeLow]

It’s kinda nice for Spotify to do my job for me. I’ve been trying to get the audience that I do have to stream on Apple Music or Amazon and now that they see these headlines it makes it easier to convince them lol

[@Tkivo]

I really don't care about any service anymore. Canceled all my subscriptions and now I'm going back to vinyl again. At least I have a hard copy and nice artwork alongside the music. And my attention span has improved greatly. 😃

[@robertfellchannel]

Young generations don't know how lucky they are to be able to express their creativity to the whole world without going through Major Labels now. But nothing is for free, Spotify & Co is the price to pay. 🔉

[@DamianKeyes]

Very true, Spotify are in control

[@thesuncollective1475]

Technology made that possible not DSP's...I particularly like the fact out 200 countries 150 are playing my tracks

[@PhantomStrange]

but spotify still charges money and now they keep it when somebody streams your song, unless you are already rich

[@caseyjones3522]

wrong. Spotify is controlled by the major labels. They control the playlists and which artists get paid the most via the pro rata payout system. So even if you are independent you're still at the mercy of the majors.

[@DAEMENENCE1]

@@DamianKeyes only if u say so,grease up baby

[@m0th3rst4r]

Hope you feel better! I didn't count on making much from streaming. I just started the slow burn of building a fanbase and putting singles up every 4-5 weeks. The gate keeping and someone in your pocket at every step just never stops. We are alrready giving away the music for free - since spotify is free. I've already got merch setup - just need to make that even better.

[@secretarchivesofthevatican]

If my music is on there, they are earning from it, therefore I should be paid a royalty. The new arrangement could mean new artists can literally never be successful because you need to be on there to get known. This is pay-to-play resurrected. I have tracks that do very much go past the 1,000 streams but I have better ones that do a few hundred. Numbers do not necessarily equal quality. If we accept the nonsense that numbers are what matters, then Spotoify will be full of nothing but predictable easy-to-market hip-hop, mainstream pop and mainstream rock. There are hundreds of other genres and non-genre music that wouldn't ever be heard. This is disastrous for many musicians I know or follow.

[@DamianKeyes]

That is a very good point, numbers do not necessarily equal quality, but the interesting question then is - what does dictate quality if it’s not popularity with what people are listening to?

[@secretarchivesofthevatican]

@DamianKeyes If it was mass popularity then only RnB, hip hop and predictable mainstream rock could be considered "good". Some of the greatest music in history would not be considered "good" because in some cases it has a very small fan base.

[@kimr45]

Spotify looking for more ways to screw over the independent artist....ALL artist deserve their royalties!!!!

[@AdrianEarnshawMusic]

Thanks for the insight Damian. Sadly it's a race to the bottom. How cheaply can we get music out of the artist and pay peanuts as they keep moving the bar.

[@DamianKeyes]

It definitely also brings up the question of “what is art” too

[@ChunterInfo]

If frequency of payments is an issue, Spotify can pay every three months after a threshold is reached just like the PROs do PROs hold your money until you're worth paying, they don't say "your royalties don't count until..."

[@rasheedsaibu4147]

EXACTLY

[@ToneDeth.]

Yep this

[@EvolKzoo]

That is bullshit, if you earned the stream that royalty money shud be yours, not given to a more deserving artist

[@keenimusic]

What I kept hearing is the rich are going to get richer. Not going to stop fighting though, I'm in this for life and the industry is notorious for changing and screwing over the little guy. Gotta roll with the punches, keep putting our best foot forward, and one day turn the tables cuz we know what its like to come from the bottom.

[@MixedkidFridaysOfficial]

If your song is played you should get paid. That’s BS. Recording is not cheap and if someone even one person listens to a song you put out Spotify should not have the right to say sorry not enough streams so no money. And the working artist is probably major labels trying to get more money.

[@Chronade]

Get well soon, Damian 🌿 If I need a certain number of streams to be monetized on Spotify, I'm prepared to run SOCIAL MEDIA Ads to get there...

[@wormsali]

Thank God 🙏🏾 This should be a wakeup call. Any serious artist should work harder

[@jul3249]

If the threshold to be considered a "working artist" isn't too high (Like above 100 monthly listeners or 200 streams on a song) and if they use the money that makes them save to reinvest in the "working artists", AND if you get paid retroactively once you hit the threshold, then it all makes sense and I'm for it. An artist with less than 50 monthly listener doesn't care about the .5 cents Spotify would owe them, but on the whole that could be enough money to help artists who count on this for a living.

[@DamianKeyes]

Really like this view

[@DomTristram]

I don't think anyone would care if they held onto payments until some threshold was reached (most distributors do this with the payments anyway) but my take is that they are suggesting not paying out at all. Happy to see anything suggesting otherwise. It doesn't matter how few streams you get - if someone streams your song and is paying Spotify for it then you deserve your cut, however small.

[@jul3249]

@@DomTristram I agree in theory that everyone should get paid their due, no matter how small. But with the view I suggested above, you do get paid every cent if you meet the threshold, and if you don't, well you weren't serious to begin with. (Ofc the threshold has to be reasonable. I think 1000 streams is reasonable. By applying yourself a little bit, I think everyone can attain 1000 streams onto every track on your album after a year.) The way I see it is that since music production has become more accessible than ever, a lot of the 100k songs that are being uploaded every day really aren't serious and that's ok, let people have fun! But we need to protect people who actually put their neck out and their livelihood on the line. Also we need gatekeeping from potential abuse like AI music uploading 5000 songs a day and collecting micro royalties, sucking money for the pool of real artists.

[@TangentMoon]

I understand Spotify's problem, and I think there is an element of truth to the fact they want to remove lots of the noise and botted-playlist fodder which gets uploaded daily. I think it depends on how the threshold will work: 1) If it's "Reach 1000 streams then you get your 1000 streams of royalty" - Annoying perhaps, but you still get the money eventually, I mean, KZbin itself has a $100 minimum before they payout so it's not unprecedented. 2) If it's "Reach 100 streams, and then we start counting your royalties" - This would be very aggressive (maybe illegal?) and would effectively add a $3 tax per song uploaded to Spotify, so surely it can't be this, right?

[@AuroraBPolaris]

Raising the subscription? ✅ Leaving the royalties per stream at the same amount? ✅ Leveraging a minimum threshold for payout? ✅ Sounds like Spotify alright..

[@Etienne.6329]

to be fair, it's just barely made them profitable. The whole system is broken.

[@falkogijzen2837]

Cleverly done, start with a positive one, then swoop in the negative one, ending with another positive one. That way it’s much more likely to be accepted by the public.

[@deethree_orchestra]

Thanks for new info. Wish all of you good luck “people” if you're doing music that's come from your heart and, do it for the art...

[@oliviarafferty]

the comparison between youtube royalties and this new spotify royalties and the minimum stream count... it just makes me feel like we're on the next step of music artists becoming content creators. we're fuelling these huge companies like Spotify, TikTok, KZbin, Instagram, which are feeding off what we create, and reaping the benefits. apart from getting lucky with the radio, twenty years ago you wouldn't be able to hear a song you liked unless you bought it! why are we essentially making music for free, if we're not hitting a certain mark?

[@DamianKeyes]

It’s definitely an interesting debate, I don’t think things were perfect back in the day either - no one would get signed, if you were an amazing artist it’s very likely you wouldn’t get heard, but with everyone being able to be heard, everyone is trying to take their piece

[@benruppel9651]

This is an interesting video that deserves attention, content-wise. I personally like the direction streaming and therefor Spotify is taking us, and Spotify has every right to do what they want, it seems to me, with their platform. I feel like having a threshold for streams to get paid makes sense. I certainly don’t care about the dollar or whatever I’d miss out on. However, as someone whose unwittingly paid for promotion threw playlists that were seemingly fake and generated no royalties, and subsequently gotten most of my music yanked from DSP and virtual stores, I feel like fining artists (or labels) for fraudulent streams is a step too far. It seems they (Spotify) are only looking out for their interests in that case, and not the artists. This is a very antagonistic approach from Spotify towards artists. Again though, interesting stuff, keep the videos coming

[@stevemorano9317]

…Something needs to change. If this means that those who have chosen music as their career (or the other way round in many peoples cases) then please bring on some healthy encouragement. Thanks Damo ❤

[@anythingspossiblemusic]

I've been curating my playlists for over a year now and the amount of music artists send me that is like less than a minute in length is crazy. . These aren't artists in my opion just opportunists.

[@antoesguerra]

The concern for me is the ethics of it. In terms of copyright law, even the license that Spotify acquired from all artists previous to this new policy had some agreements attached to it. Meaning Spotify in theory has to pay those royalties for the license to distribute. It would mean the blanket agreement aggregators will have to either be corrected, or right from the beginning the agreement did not specify that Spotify had to pay any royalties at all... that would be messed up, and the precedent would be that soon only what they deem as good music will even get added to the service. And they will deem good music as music that has the numbers to make them money.

[@djanon22]

Whenever you agree to the TOS (which I am sure nobody reads) you agree to allow them to change said TOS without informing you at that. It's shady but 100% legal.

[@DAEMENENCE1]

there u go,now u got it!

[@owlmuso]

I 100% agree with you. 2 of their reasons make sense. However, the issue of taking away royalties from "non-working" artists makes less than zero sense. And I can't even see how its legal. All it says to me, is that, once again, the little guys get shafted due to greed of the big guys. I.e. Spotify is cow-towing to the big labels who, in my opinion, are displaying more and more how they left "music" a long time ago, and instead are anti-competitive conglomerates focused only on their quarterly profits. Late stage capitalism cannabilising itself. Its hard enough for independent artists as it is, and now they just made it worse. Shame on Spotify

[@shays2347]

All artists deserve royalties

[@Trinison7]

No what they are doing is finding more ways to not pay the artist.

[@BlackStripePro]

This hits close. When I began my move into music. I just made songs as an artist. I started with electronic New Age music. Very floaty tonal. Relaxing music. With extremely long track times. I did that for 13 albums. After reading an article about how most artists are giving too much away in regards to length of songs. I edited my next music albums to run at about a minute a track. ( Note : I did try to go shorter as suggested to the 31 second line, but that was stopped almost immediately. Telling me that it was considered " CLIP " music and was not permitted. So you can't actually do 31 second songs. ) Still that truncation of my music made a big difference. I started getting about $200 American dollars monthly. Poverty wages, but still wages and you were right. I felt accomplished and it encouraged me to do more. To date I have 21 albums released through distro kid and I await each months residuals hungrily. Each song trying to improve as an artist. This news scares the hell out of me. I am a third of the way through my 22nd album but this makes me rethink my loyalties. It feels very much like KZbin, but in reverse. I have enough subscribers on youtube to be monitized with ad sense , but not enough watch hours. I have just passed a million streams on Spotify but only a handful of followers. Now you are saying that they are in process of changing the rules. I'm a pretty zen guy, but this could end me.

[@tristankerr3655]

Just get into crypto, especially right now. You will thank me in 2 years, just dont forget to sell!

[@Davidthestratman7]

I think if it's original music then the artist should get thier royalties period. Doesn't matter if it's good or not. People are listening to it and it's generating money so the artist gets his/her due!!!!

[@DAEMENENCE1]

datv what im saying,some songs are late bloomers!!

[@officialWWM]

Spotify is such a ripoff! I am never going to upload to that crap platform again. They get the benefit of a lot of great music and don’t have to pay a cent for it!

[@LILGHETTI]

I swear spotify should make adjustments with their label deals! Spotify is the only platform that paid me and now that's being compromised 😢

[@orchestrasingular]

It’s ridiculous … beside from the shitty deals that you can get into as an independent… now Spotify is gatekeeping who gets paid … are they also making the payments ‘decent’ once you get paid. We are close to entering the age of idiocracy (also in music) and the ‘death’ of true art ….. I’ll just go back to releasing on cd’s and cassettes

[@AndrewThiriot]

Thanks Damian for keeping it real, but still caring about the small independents.

[@DamianKeyes]

Thanks Andrew, that really means a lot 🙏

[@Ryan_Wiseman]

The whole 0.5% of the streaming pool is quite an extreme number given how much music is streamed on Spotify and how many plays you'd need for it to be 0.5% of the entire pool. If it is 1000 streams in a year, all my music is excluded from making money. This is a problem when you have a long history with publishing records as an artist, where your royalties come from overall discography than one track in particular. Hell, not even one of my songs that got 50K streams off Spotify would qualify either. I've never seen such a terrible decision moving forth. Genuinely I hope this goes to court and it becomes a legal requirement to pay out to legitimate streams. There is a good argument that fraud streams shouldn't get paid out, because that hurts the pay of the rest of artists. With their change to what streams they pay, there is a genuine case of promissory estoppel, because people did not upload their music to Spotify to be paid nothing. They would have to establish that artists were not even expecting payment in the first place, which would be hard to do when royalties still pay well enough overtime.

[@waaganmusic]

Little late to this party, but just got this video up in my feed. The first feeling I get when hearing about this, is a sudden urge to stop making music. If Spotify does this upon thousands of independent artists, then is it worth to try to make a living out of something you really enjoy? But I also see it through the eyes of Spotify. Last week Taylor Swift released her album 1989 (Taylor's Version), a re-release of her 1989 album. This album broke the Spotify record of all time listens of an album on release day. At the same time, multiple music labels went out saying they will change the deals for new artists signing, saying the artist can't make a new edition of an album after 15-20 years insted of the 3-7 years that's industry standard now. Music labels wants their money, but they can't get any money if an artist releases a new edition-album outside of the label they were signed to. So what do the labels do? They go for the source, and try to make a deal with streaming platforms such as Spotify. Spotify reveals this news the same week as Taylor breaks the record for all time listeners. Coincidence? In my eyes; no. Spotify have been given the task to be a gatekeeper for the music industry, and taken it's role very seriously. At least that's my experience of it since I started putting out music. The job of gatekeeping was something the music labels had until Spotify launched, and now Spotify has taken it a step further. If they release this new payroll policy, they will keep a whole lot of dedicated musicians in the shadows, making it even harder to break through for new acts. And how is this great news for Spotify? 1) Daniel Ek will fill his pockets even more, taking money from independent artists. 2) The big music labels will once again start gate keeping, meaning only the biggest artists in the world will make a living out of making music. 3) We "hobby musicians" will be left with nothing If Spotify decides to do this, I will re-think my dream of making a living out of my music. I already find it impossible to figure out how to get listeners, how to market my music, and how to write a great pitch. So, yeah, let's all go for take from the poor and give to the rich. Seems like that's the plan for the whole world at the moment.

[@joelarets]

Tbh it doesn't sound that bad at all. Even the minimal amount of streams (depending on how large of course). If that minimum is set at 1000 streams per song let's say, youre losing cents.

[@Veypurr1]

You need to address the fact that Spotify is actively trying to make sure you only listen to the same 25 songs over and over.

[@TheTrooper1878]

Sounds reasonable as long as the treshhold isn't too high. I mean, if you upload a song and it gets 2000 listens, do you care that much for the 6-8 dolars that you'll get? But when Spotify pays those 6-8 dollars to millions of small artists, that is just a lot of money wasted. At the end of the day if you are a small artist, you are doing it just out of love for the music and you won't stop uploading with or without the little money theу give you, so why should they waste it? Now if the threshhold is something like 100 000 listens, then those 300 dollars are actuall money so it is an actual problem, so as I said - depends on the threshhold.

[@DamianKeyes]

I do believe this is a call out for any artist to understand how to improve and build a brand around music to get out of that threshold. The days are gone of throwing something up and hoping for the best. You raise a very good point 🙂🙂

[@DomTristram]

"do you care that much for the 6-8 dolars that you'll get?" Yes. Why shouldn't I get it? Why would I rather it go to some rich corporation? What sort of thinking is that? It's not like it's going to charity or to do something good. "You are doing it for the love of music". Sure, but who are you or anyone else to tell people that their work isn't worth being paid for just because it's not as mainstream as someone like Taylor Swift? When you are a small artists getting any money *at all* for your art is validating. It's a great push to make you carry on and get better. You've seen some money back and you know it's possible. Gatekeeping the ability to make money from music is exactly the complaint people had about the music industry before streaming came along. My feeling is that all musicians should stop paying for Spotify. Sure, they might have to have their music on there (for now), but we don't have to actively support them in this. There are other streaming services that pay artists much more than Spotify do and it would help artists to support them and reduce Spotify's dominance.

[@TheTrooper1878]

@DomTristram Well if you want to make money off of music you'll do gigs, won't you? Even a small artist can make 200 bucks with ease. Those 8 dollars won't fix your life and you will live on with or without them and again: would you stop creating music if you don't get the 8 dollars? I doubt it. It makes no sense from a business point of view for Spotify to give so much artists that little amount of money. Nonethelss you can't even buy strings for 8 dollars. The return of your investment from Spotify is insignificant so if you want to make good money as a small artist - play gigs!

[@DomTristram]

@@TheTrooper1878 I don't do gigs any more. I simply can't due to care commitments. Does this mean I can't earn any money from music? I accept all of the downsides this brings about because even a few quid coming in from streaming each month feels like a validation, and there's always a chance of it taking off. You are speaking from a position of priveledge. You may be happy for the small amount of money generated by people streaming my music going to the pockets of very rich shareholders. I am not.

[@TheTrooper1878]

@DomTristram Your point is good but you are the exception rather than the rule. No company will keep a policy to waste millions of dollars because 0.1% of the recievers actually need it. It's sad but it is what it is. Also genuine question: What does care commitments mean, I've never come across this term and I am also not a native speaker so I'll be thankful if you tell me.

[@MetalPilgrim]

Honestly, this is a great video... but there is a bit of manipulation with numbers here. Will be recording my video about it today...

[@ExplosiveTruth]

Great Post! This just in, Spotify stock is projecting and reporting a profit in 2024! And... Royalties on every song, for every play, for every artist, need to get paid, not shifted around or cancelled, that is the whole point of copyright and royalties!!! If a bank removes a penny from every deposit, they would be making millions and billions, ... and is illegal. The way they can dip into the cookie jar and remove payments is by updating their TOS - Terms of Service, so if you don't agree, don't use the service, is what the agreement will say. Furthermore, by limiting that rule to EVERY TRACK, not artist, tracks may spike then may go down over time making the payout limited to initial or limited timeframes on each track! Artists money on every track gets removed from the cookie jar if under 1000 !

[@evoj.]

“DOING SOMETHING THAT MAKES YOU WANT TO CARRY ON”.. Well said Damian, you’re the man. 🙌🏻💥😎

[@sf0101]

Nothing beats real talk. Thank you Damian. ❤

[@DamianKeyes]

Thank you so much, I appreciate that 🙂🙂

[@TheJonesOfHope]

Spotify's royalty system removes the "noise tracks" from affecting the larger system anyway, so why to they care? It's the small independent artists that always took the hit from people gaming the system anyway because their percentage of streams in the "not contracted" category gets lower when someone's bot plays a 30-second track a million times. And if there is a threshold of plays, again the guy that cant get 1000 plays gets hurt while the bot farm that can easily get 10000 is just fine. In addition, if you say tracks have to be a certain length, the bot farms just add servers and fake users. come on. we've all seen this leapfrog before. Spotify knows all of this, so they're just finding a way to juice their bottom line at the expense of the little guy. They are not doing this to do the right thing, they want THEIR thing. Money. They don't care who gets squashed. In the end, this is just proving that the promise of NO GATEKEEPERS is a lie. The gatekeepers just changed from music labels to technology companies. The buggering is still the same.

[@posthardcoresinger]

Might be a me thing but music has totally become a hobby and labor of love. Marketing was too much, so I found another way to start getting rich... and now music is that much more enjoyable that I can separate it out. Ironically I think I make better stuff for the free time and lack of stress too.

[@AyoMillz]

I think a better solution to this is to "define" a song per se the same way legacy recording contracts defined an album... publishing contracts define a single and etc... coming from a Hip-Hop/R&B background I know that albums use to (and some still do) contain interludes and skits... these were typically shorter pieces of content ranging from 30 seconds to about 1 minute long... so why not say that uploads must be at least 1 1/2 minutes long and streamed for at least 31 seconds... because even if a creator was making "noise" content - they're would be cohesiveness between them and music creators... and so that people that people aren't restricted or forced to remove the interludes or skits from their projects just say we're not gonna pay on tracks that don't have this minimum running time. With this; we can keep the 31 second count as a stream.-

[@hawsrulebegin7768]

Just another squeeze on the small artists. I’m so tired of things being on the labels benefits.

[@zoelustri]

Does anyone know which royalties this applies for? Performance (ie, writing/publishing), master recording, or mechanicals? All of the above?

[@maryanne2025]

I heard somehting like Spotify gets 30% while the artist get 70% artist part is divided by publishing, songwriter

[@Indi3R]

Spotify is ruining music for everyone

[@AlexValliMusic]

It’s a good thing I’ve never paid for Spotify, and I don’t think any of my next releases from here on out are going to be on Spotify at all… never liked them anyway…

[@westernjaguarmusic]

All music has value. Plain and simple. Who is anyone to say my song does not have any worth and someone else’s does have worth? Doesn’t sit right with me in any way.

[@KristenMcNamara]

Spotify has never made a profit because Universal, Sony & Warner Music group take 70%, they’ve always been in the red. So, even us independent artists are still paying the majors whether we like it or not, just to be “findable” to our smaller audiences that we hope to grow. Welcome to the threshold of music hell, haha! I think if you create anything you should be paid for it, even videos. Content and music creators eventually will need to create their own platforms or use blockchain to keep track of their art. KZbin still leads with payout but I do think it would be powerful if they made the platform less involved with the pirates out there. ❤ At the end of the day we make music because we want to. Where we put it is our choice, I am hopeful the future of independent artists will rule out the bad guys someday. 😊

[@monogramadikt5971]

if i was releasing music theres no way i would allow it to be on spotify

[@garyalesbrookmusic]

"Fines for fraud" Absolutely! This one really creams my corn that they can't stop this, or fine those that "game" the system. I have reported an independent artist 3 times for fraudulently buying streams. I had a conversation with Spotify and they "Looked into it." Absolutely nothing was done and their profile still exists. Fine those using fake playlists etc or ban for life. Great video as always Damian 🙂

[@djanon22]

So if someone buys fake plays in your music out of spite you are cool with paying a fine? It costs as little as 35cents to get 1000 fake plays from Buffalo New York. "but I didn't do it!" well I guess you don't care. Sure looks like you did. So now you're fined or "banned for life" Supporting this is delusional at best.

[@garyalesbrookmusic]

wow, that's the first i've heard of someone buying fake plays for someone out of spite...is that a thing? jeez, i never even thought of that. You make a good point here. I agree, that would be difficult to monitor. The artist I reported 100% bought their own fake plays. Surely there is technology to single out these artists? maybe not. @@djanon22

[@ProdByXBeats]

It should be also free to upload to spotify then. Cause i have a label account that cost 200 euros a years so now your going to pay for distribution with no way to be sure you will get payed

[@DamianKeyes]

Definitely a good argument!

[@grsfhhytff]

I reckon our new single will be our last Spotify release, then. It's already a nightmare to get attention 😂

[@leonwilson1106]

Thank you Damian Keys for being detailed about this policy change with Spotify the mainstream media (rolling stone.. billboard) just glossed over it but you revealed it's negative effect on Indy artists Thank you I'm now subscribing to your channel

[@JohnMarshall-NI]

Between this news and the news about Bandcamp, this seems pretty bad for small, independent artissts/bands.

[@happilyevermusic]

I don't think Spotify is trying to do the "right" thing and promote "quality" over quantity. They are trying to please the major labels in order to keep the business afloat. 1) The 30-second threshold should have been changed a long time ago. Alternatives: a minimum percentage of track time listened (say, 50% of track but not less than X (say, 45 seconds), meaning that the minimum length of track would have to be 90 seconds to generate royalties. Another option: adopt sync like in film... you generate royalties per second listened once listening time reaches a specific threshold.. this COMPLETELY equalizes the playing field: a 30 second track will generate 30 seconds of royalties, while an epic like G'n R's Estranged would generate 9 minutes of royalties... This is immediately eliminates the incentive for artists and scammers to generate shorter tracks for the sake of greater royalties. 2) Had they established a user-centric payout system, streaming farms would never have taken off: Each plan's royalty pool is an isolated pool that doesn't influence payouts for any song not listened to by that user. Add this approach to a better royalty accrual and the bulk of royalties lost to fraudulent activity would have been eliminated. 3) Using stream counts for gate keeping is not a measure of quality, it's a measure of exposure. Popular doesn't equate to quality. I am also willing to bet that tracks released by major labels that don't meet the threshold will magically be exempt from this criteria. If Spotify are going to establish a minimum streaming threshold, I'll bet that fraudulent activity is only going to go up so that artists can hit those minimum targets... which wouldn't have anything to do with ego, rather, in attempt to get paid for the use of their IP, which they will no longer get.

[@BillyPryce]

So what exactly is a working artist? You spend years or even 10:49 decades writing songs and then finally you get some decent recordings. You put them on Spotify and you get about ten streams? Are you then regarded as junk? I don’t think so. People who cynically and deliberately put out garbage and game the system should by all means be penalized or preferably banned but artists who simply haven’t cracked it? A little support from these companies would be nice.

[@YngHstlr]

I’m not against the thresholds, when I was only doing a couple hundred - even thousands of streams of month, I wasn’t worried about that $5 royalty withdrawal. I was investing a ton more than I was getting paid early on and not worrying about royalties until I reached a point where I was generating enough streams to make a living off my music. If this helps provide higher payouts to artists that reach higher thresholds than I am all for it. Nonetheless, I still don’t know the full details of everything and it could be a change for the worse, but I’m praying its for the better.

[@musickj21]

I think theoretically these changes could be for the better. We'll have to see how they're actually implemented. I particularly like the changes to minimum length for noise tracks and the like. I think ideally they'd pay artists based on listening time. Although you wouldn't want to encourage like 3 hour long songs either. Some combination of credit for a stream (first 30 seconds) + additional credit for listening longer makes sense to me. Might sound complicated but you'd think Spotify could track this easily enough. It's kind of crazy that a 30 second noise track gets the same credit as someone listening to the 23 minutes of "Echoes" by Pink Floyd.

[@DamianKeyes]

It’s a waiting game!

[@thesuncollective1475]

I think it should be more than 30 secs. 30 secs is basically a skip

[@reverbchorusdelay]

@@thesuncollective1475 30 seconds is a lot longer than you imagine

[@PhantomStrange]

these changes are better for the wallets of rich artist's managers, but no, these changes steal from the poor to pay the rich

[@PhantomStrange]

@@thesuncollective1475 yet they still seem to charge the person playing those 30 seconds or play an ad and now just keep the money

[@bonolosolomon]

I hate the fact that independent artists get caught in the cross fire, but this is another sign that we as artists need to come up with new ways to monetize our art.

[@BeatBoySupreme]

You make a valid point. 0% of nothing is still nothing.

[@ingvay]

Does this really work for smaller independent professionals, or does it just lead to having to invest more money (e.g., in ads) and end up with less in the end...? The German collecting society GEMA operates on a similar principle of apparent relevance. In the end, it keeps the small ones small and makes the big ones bigger. Isn't this another backdoor to funnel more money into Spotify's shareholders (i.e., the major labels)? Why isn't there an equal payment for every stream, regardless of its source? If your music is played, you get paid, no matter who you are - if it's not played, you don't. Wouldn't that be the fairest solution for everyone? (By the way, I find it meaningful to distinguish between noise and music, and I believe that should be algorithmically achievable...?)

[@JimmysGG]

It's a lot to take in but I think I can see one of the many things Spotify is aming for... Since there's an annual stream count required to be able to generate revenue, I think it's a low-key way to force or push artists to run ads on every single song they release (if the requirement will be per song which I really hope not haha) which in the end is something that benefits Spotify. 🤔

[@owlmuso]

Never thought of that (forcing independents to take out ads)... but that makes the whole idea even more disgusting

[@OfficialSapphirePhoenix]

This has really discouraged me and so many indie artists...

[@DamianKeyes]

It feels like a kick in the nuts. The next step is how to make sure you are above the threshold using legitimate strategies. Building your brand on socials, pitching to playlists and playlist curators and working on building some momentum. Keep going and don't let this discourage you too much! I'm here to help if I can 🙂🙂

[@Sd10099]

Spotify should pay royalties to everyone. Imagine if you went into work every day, put in your hours and didn’t get paid at the end of the week.