What Do Books Have To Do With Music, Anyways?
Diving deeper into how streaming affected musicians – and how it's poised to do the same to authors
Every week, it seems yet another article comes out discussing the discontent with streaming platforms, specifically Spotify, as it relates to the music industry and the lack of financial remuneration it provides for artists’ work. The latest article, published recently in the New Statesman, titled “How Spotify Won,” was a very interesting take, even on a tale that feels as old as time: Some of the biggest musicians ever – think Taylor Swift, Neil Young, and Joni Mitchell – have all boycotted the streaming giant at one point or another. This makes sense, given a Spotify stream is worth less than $0.004.
But, eventually, all of them gave up.
As the article points out, When TSwift pulled her music from Spotify in 2014, she said:
“Valuable things should be paid for. It is my opinion that music should not be free.”
Her reasoning for reintroducing her music to the service in 2017 essentially was that she could afford to. It also does pay if you’re the most streamed artist on the platform – just not for everyone else. Even people like Radiohead’s Thom Yorke, who called Spotify “the last desperate fart of a dying corpse,” gave up.
So, the article begs the question:
Is there any hope in reclaiming the world of music and ensuring musicians are paid appropriately for their work?
It finds some solace in Vault, a subscription-based database of unreleased materials, but aside from that – optimism is low.
We can not let the literary industry get to this point of seemingly no return.
Music and books are wildly different forms – how they’re made, how they’re consumed, how they’re bought, how they’re marketed, and how they’re priced. We all know this. However, the big tech company charged with decimating an entire creative industry has now come for audiobooks under the guise of expanding the consumer audience and being a one-stop shop for all kinds of audio. That’s why we’re here – to call them and other bad actors out every step of the way to ensure accountability so that we don’t get to the point of no return that other creative industries are faced with.
It's worth taking a look at the key issues musicians have had with Spotify. And no surprise, these are also the same issues that are starting to come up time and time again as they look to continue growing their audiobook offering:
Low Royalties and Revenue Sharing: Spotify has consistently faced criticism for its low royalty rates paid to musicians and artists. The platform's revenue-sharing model often results in minimal compensation for content creators, particularly independent artists and smaller labels. Critics argue that Spotify's payment structure disproportionately benefits major record labels and established artists while marginalizing emerging talent.
With audiobooks, we know different royalty models were struck with each of the Big 5 publishers, and Indies are adhering to the typical revenue-sharing model and are certainly getting the short end of the stick. When a royalty is triggered and what percentage of the royalty is then distributed to the author are both largely unknown, given that these details are locked up in contracts. Some models suggest whatever percentage of the book is listened to is the percentage of the royalty that’s distributed.
Dependency on Streaming Revenue: The rise of streaming services like Spotify has transformed the music industry's revenue model, with a significant portion of income now derived from streaming royalties. However, relying solely on streaming revenue can be financially unsustainable for many musicians, particularly those without large fan bases or extensive catalogs. Critics argue that Spotify's dominance in the streaming market has contributed to this dependency, making it increasingly challenging for artists to earn a livable income solely from their music. As a result, musicians are compelled to seek alternative sources of revenue, such as live performances, merchandise sales, and brand partnerships, to supplement their earnings.
In trying to draw parallels to authors here, this is an interesting one. So many authors are not used to marketing themselves to adhere to a certain algorithm, for example, and it's very likely the role of being a full-time author today will drastically change as streaming takes hold.
Opaque Payment Practices and Lack of Transparency: Spotify has faced criticism for its lack of transparency regarding how royalties are calculated and distributed to artists. The platform's complex algorithms and opaque payment practices make it difficult for musicians to understand how their streaming metrics translate into earnings. Additionally, Spotify's use of pro rata distribution models, where royalties are allocated based on total streams rather than individual artist plays, has been criticized for disadvantaging smaller artists and favoring established acts with larger fan bases. This lack of transparency has fueled frustration and distrust among musicians.
This has been arguably the biggest issue to date with how Spotify has approached its entry into books. And according to the Society of Authors, “No authors or agents were approached for permission for such licenses, and authors have not been consulted on licence or payment terms. Publishing contracts differ but in our view, most licenses given to publishers for licensing of audio do not include streaming. In fact, it is likely that streaming was not a use that had been invented when many such contracts were entered into.”
Articles We’re Reading This Week:
"Some models suggest whatever percentage of the book is listened to is the percentage of the royalty that’s distributed."
Is this accurate for Spotify?
Or is it total minutes listened?