On Spotify

Licking the Corporate Boot

In 2022, it’s basically a requirement that artists complain about Spotify. Everyone does it. Some of those complaints are obviously justified, but in this piece I want to step back and look at the context. The kewl kidz these days call it “bootlicking” any time you’re doing anything other than loudly screaming at any large corporation. So let’s get down there and slobber on some leather.

First, let’s imagine a version of the Dreadnoughts that starts in 1980. Imagine that everything else is exactly where it was in 2007, except that the music delivery industry is like it was in 1980. Four or five conglomerates control 95% of the radio and album sales market. Vast amounts of money go into marketing and paying radio stations to ensure that the top artists continue to get their play. Artists who manage to make it into this protection racket are routinely signed to horrible, exploitative contracts. And if you don’t get on the radio, you can almost 100% forget about making a sustainable living or having any durable listenership. AND once you are selling albums and getting radio play, your label is normally cutting you a cheque for 8-15% of the revenue.

Now, you tell me: in this scenario, does a new polka-punk-klezmer-shanty band with a decent live show eventually garner a couple of million yearly listeners worldwide and manage to become financially self-sufficient enough to pay for its own recordings? The answer should be obvious: not even close. We don’t make it out of Vancouver, or maybe we tour a little and have some fun in Canada, but you can absolutely forget about any kind of real sustained anything. The availability of easily shared, inexpensive digital versions of our songs is absolutely essential to our story.

Now, Spotify in particular gets a bad rap because it pays artists 4 bucks per 1000 plays. Other streaming services are at least somewhat comparable, though Apple Music and Tidal are much, much better, and if everyone on Spotify moved to Tidal I could quit my job and devote myself full-time to music. That’s significant. I also worry about Spotify's playlists, which are increasingly just functioning like the old-school radio stations did; if your label has the right “connections” to get your song on a playlist, you get lots of plays, if you have no access to the “playlist curators”, you’re locked out. But we have to remember that most artists weren’t making bank from radio back in the day either; they all had to tour relentlessly and hope for a huge break to have any long-term hopes.

Also, Spotify has also done a phenomenal job promoting and encouraging the use of its platform, which has almost certainly created huge new audiences for bands. They have figured out what other companies have not, which is that the modern music fan wants to signal their music tastes, often on social media, and their yearly marketing campaigns are absolute genius in this regard. They are also excellent at making connections between bands for new listeners; if you’re a fan of X, chances are, in a year you’ll be a fan of 10 other groups similar to X. This has to have been a huge part of the (moderate) online success of bands in our genre. I.e the knuckle-dragging lunkheaded Neanderthals who listen to the Real MacKenzies manage to get hooked on our stuff, and you witty, urbane, sophisticated, worldly Dreadnoughts fans end up occasionally enjoying another MacKenzies ditty, maybe while recovering from a concussion or something. Synergy!

(jk paul we love you)

But can’t they do all of this and pay more out to artists? Sure, but well, a lot of people don’t know this, but Spotify has never once made a yearly profit, and has seen losses in the area of $500 million this year. The reasons here are complex, but the reality is that the executives’ salaries only make up a small fraction of this loss. The loss appears to be a result of not taking in enough subscriber income, and their business model is just to keep taking losses until their competitors die (that’s UBER’s model as well).

So I’m conflicted. On the one hand, Spotify should pay more. However, if you’re willing to say this loudly online but not willing to pay at least $25/month for a music streaming service, I’m a little worried that you’re just grandstanding, declaring your support for a policy that you have no intention of actually supporting. The money has to come from somewhere, and internet users are addicted to cheap and free stuff.

Moreover, again, in the 1970s or 80s we would almost certainly be a financial black hole. No-one would have signed us, no-one would have played us, very few CD or record stores would have stocked us, and correspondingly no-one would have booked our longer tours. It’s a better world now, and for better or worse, Spotify is a part of that.

And yes, they should give us more money. But everyone should give us more money. Have you given us money recently? If not, maybe leave poor little Spotify alone, huh? Jerk! Mmmmmm. Leatherrrr.