Pay the Artists, Not Just Platforms

The Peppermints perform at Pockets Moorabin for Radio Monash’s Back on the Waves. Photo by : Angelina Michael

On-demand streaming platforms pay labels. The labels pay the artists. But what about independent artists who are not signed under a label? How are they getting paid? 

Since the resurrection of streaming first established in 1999, the second wave of streaming, on-demand streaming, skyrocketed upon its initial release in 2007. What has transpired in the last 18 years has been an astronomic increase in musical output, streams, and economic growth. 

With artists’ music taking off, these streaming platforms profit billions of dollars, but the artists themselves barely see a scrap of the egregious corporate income. 

Streaming has monopolised the distributive factor of the music industry, replacing physical media, such as CDs, vinyl and cassettes. In the past, a single album sale could bring an artist more money than thousands of streams ever will. Today, however, most artists earn only fractions of a cent per play. Even when a track gains tens of thousands of listens, the payout often amounts to practically nothing. 

Now more than ever, artists need to be paid their fair share. However, it has come to fruition that the most popular, mainstream artists are paid the majority of the money. The pro-rata royalty system, uptaken by streaming platforms, pays artists based on their streams compared to the total streams accumulated, which renders independent artists worthless. 

An artist with 100 million monthly listeners takes up the majority of all total streams compared to an artist with 20 thousand monthly listeners, or even less. 

For many independent artists, the consequences are massive. They often juggle multiple jobs, rely on touring and merchandise sales, and often pour personal savings into their work, just to stay afloat. Having a song played thousands of times by loyal fans and yet not earning enough to make rent, is emotionally crushing. 

Between the streaming platforms, the labels and the artists, there is too much wriggle room to confidently say that artists are paid deservingly. What makes the whole system feel even more unjust is how grimy it is. Artists rarely know where the money actually goes between the platform, the label and themselves. By the time profits trickle down, the artist is often the last to be paid and sometimes barely. Meanwhile, streaming companies and corporate labels report healthy profits quarter after quarter. 

There are alternatives, however they are rarely embraced. A user-centric payment system where your subscription fee goes directly to the artist you actually listen to has been brought up. But this threatens the dominance of major labels and superstar acts, so platforms avoid it. Solutions such as fans buying directly from artists through merchandise, ticket sales and independent platforms where artists keep a larger cut exists. These channels are proof that music can be distributed more equitably, it’s just not the path corporations prefer. 

So, if streaming doesn’t sustain the livelihoods of the people making music, who is it really for? Sure, for listeners, it’s cheap, convenient and endlessly accessible. For major industry players, it’s a goldmine. But for independent musicians, it’s a trap, an evil that keeps them visible but rarely allows them to survive. The industry loves romanticising the idea of the struggling artist, but at some point, we need to ask why the struggle is manufactured by a system designed to exploit their labour. 

Until streaming platforms rethink how they distribute profits, the promise of equal opportunity in music will remain a hollow one. The experimental, the local and the underfunded voices are the ones that need the most support, or they will continue to be drowned out by a system that mistakes popularity for value. Audiences will lose out too, because a music culture without diversity, risk or independent voices is no culture at all.