Tag Archives: Spotify

Strategic Streaming

Published 02/26/2020

By Chaka V. Grier

Do you listen, really listen, to your favourite artists? I mean intense listening over great swaths of time. Repeating the same track like you’ve just been dumped, and streaming Adele’s “Someone Like You” again and again is the only way to drain every tear from your body.

Many of us have soundtracks to our lives. A song that defines a phase, a moment, or a routine so deeply that hearing them instantly evokes that experience. During a trip to Costa Rica, I created a bare playlist that consisted solely of Laura Sauvage’s “Alien (Anything Like It, Have You?)” and the Weeknd’s “Hurt You.” Two years later, whenever I hear either song, I’m transported back onto that dimly-lit Costa Rican bus, as it speeds down narrow roads, amidst a downpour that made the skies prematurely dark.

I’ve recently converted that kind of dedicated – and organic – streaming into strategic streaming, deployed to support artists, particularly lesser-known ones. Like organic streaming, strategic streaming is an intense “play that song or album for 10 days in a row” strategy (where there’s wi-fi there’s a way). I do it to give a deliberate lift to songs that I feel are under-appreciated or under-played. I do it because streaming is growing more powerful, with algorithms built to favour the giants in music, not those who are new or lesser-known. It’s a David-versus-Goliath type of battle, and the gigantic ball of money is in Goliath’s court.

A few weeks ago, Selena Gomez became the poster child for what strategic streaming looks like in the hands of Goliath, after posting an Instagram video of herself and friends hopping from store to store in order to buy out, and boost sales of, her latest album Rare. As if that wasn’t enough of a “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” to her army of 168 million Insta fans, she went further by asking them to stream the album as much as possible to hoist it up the charts. That they did, catapulting it to Billboard’s No. 1 spot. The success of the campaign apparently left Gomez feeling icky. “I was a bit embarrassed asking so often for you to stream or buy my album,” she later wrote on a post celebrating the win. “It felt inauthentic.” Yet it’s also made her the first woman of the decade with a No. 1 album, and a big paycheck to boot.

To be fair, she’s not alone. Justin Bieber was accused of trying to do the same for his track “Yummy.” Taylor Swift kept the band Tool at bay from the No. 1 slot she held by summoning her fans to strategically stream Lover. And I assume many artists strategically stream to help build plays on their music. Some may say, ‘What’s an enormous fan base worth if not to support the artists they claim to love?’ Yes, but when used so aggressively, it puts lesser-known artists (without massive fan bases, promotion machines, and big labels with the money, to sway the algorithms in their direction) even further behind.

Speaking of algorithms, they have a great deal to do with what pops up “randomly” in your feed, helping determine what becomes popular, or even gets the chance to be discovered and heard. Greater exposure and discoverability often leads to greater audiences and success; that’s why it matters what we hear and what we don’t. And like the proverbial “secret sauce,” only those on the back end of these platforms know what the exact algorithm ingredients are. And unlike Instagram or Twitter, “gaming” the system – learning when to post, what to post, what hashtags to use – is a challenge on music platforms.

It’s worth noting that a recent final report from the federal Broadcasting & Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel recommended that the government of Canada introduce new legislation that includes a provision making it mandatory for online streaming companies to contribute to Canadian content. Since streaming customers’ viewing choices are guided by algorithms, the report recommends enforcing “discoverability” obligations to ensure Canadian streaming content is visible and easy to find. Post-report, Canadian music rights organizations are meeting with streaming services to advocate for algorithms that put Canadians more in the forefront.

Still, that may not help new and lesser-known Canadian artists. Without an army behind them, we who care about music thriving organically must fight fire with fire. That means purchasing the physical copies of albums. Supporting live music. Buying merch at shows. That also means strategic streaming: When you get free wi-fi, deliberately pick an artist whose work you respect or enjoy, hashtag it #SSD ( for Strategic Stream Day), and play the heck out of their song or album.

By the way, these aren’t “pity plays”; it’s the exact opposite. Strategic streaming celebrates and supports under-appreciated artists making music we love. (That music looks, or should I say sounds, different for each of us, which makes it random and exciting.) Since strategic streaming, I’ve added thousands of plays to numerous artist tracks. I’ve also chronicled the counts as the days go along, and will purposefully pick a single song to focus on, making it easier to gauge if it makes its way into their top tracks.

And I don’t just focus on new artists. there are beloved artists whose careers have since died down, or never made it to great popularity, but still rely on revenue from past music. So, I send some love their way by strategic-streaming favourite tracks as well, especially artists who’ve re-recorded music to get out of limiting contracts. When Fiona Apple pledged that all the royalties from her song “Criminal” will go to refugee organizations for the next year, I streamed it to support the cause.

I’m the first to admit that this is just a drop in the bucket – there are millions of artists vying to be heard. And even when strategically streaming, it may only result in pennies, revenue-wise. But over time, and with many others doing the same, it may mean that the gap between the lesser-knowns and giant stars isn’t ever-widening. It may also mean that those mysterious algorithms will begin including more voices in their secret sauce.

More about Chaka V. Grier

Streaming roundup: A summary of who said what

Published 11/18/2014

By Howard Druckman

With Taylor Swift pulling all of her music from Spotify – and her fellow hit country artists Jason Aldean, (and Big Machine record company labelmates of Swift) Brantley Gilbert and Justin Moore following suit with their new albums – there’s been an avalanche of comment from all quarters. Following is a summary of the most notable ones.

In an interview with Yahoo, reported in Rolling Stone, Taylor Swift herself said, “Music is changing so quickly, and the landscape of the music industry itself is changing so quickly, that everything new… feels to me a bit like a grand experiment. And I’m not willing to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists and creators of this music. And I just don’t agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free.”

Rolling Stone also reported the comments of Scott Borchetta, President of the Big Machine, in a radio interview with Motley Crue’s Nikki Sixx. Borchetta said, “[Spotify] can’t be endless free. Give people a 30-day trial, and then make them convert. Music has never been free. It’s always cost something and it’s time to make a stand and this is the time to do it.”

R&B Singer-songwriter Aloe Blacc wrote in Wired magazine, “I believe policymakers will one day recognize that a system that allows digital streaming services to enjoy enormous profits while music creators struggle is imbalanced and broken.”

U2’s Bono, speaking at a Web Summit Conference in Dublin, was reported in The Guardian as saying, “The real fight is between opacity and transparency. . . For this new model to be successful and to take root, there has to be some kind of fairness… fair models of distribution. And I think when that happens, the music business will be a rising tide that lifts all boats.”

Speaking at the same conference, Adele’s manager Jonathan Dickins was reported in Billboard magazine to have said, “Streaming is the future, whether people like it or not. Within five years it will be ubiquitous… For an artist that needs discovering, anyone who has got a real good album, but is very niche, I think streaming is great for them. Taylor Swift probably looks at it and thinks, ‘There is an element of cannibalization. I am a brand. People know who I am and I want to protect the record sales.’ And that’s fair enough… Whatever it is, the power of being able to say no, fight for your rights and be the gatekeeper to these opportunities, is key.”

Time magazine, meanwhile, quoted a few entertainment and music industry analysts. According to Russ Crupnick, an entertainment analyst at NPD Group, “If you say ‘Hey, I don’t want to be on streaming because I sort of object to the way it tastes,’ you’re kind of ignoring where the whole audience is.” Mark Mulligan, a long-time music industry analyst and co-founder of MIDiA, said “Ultimately, Taylor Swift’s music going off Spotify is a short-term tactical thing. It’s all about selling 1989 and also selling back catalogue. That’s not a long-term strategy, but it can work for her in the here and now.”

David Lowery, on The Trichordist blog, said, “Spotify is not paying sustainable rates for the cost of goods. Look – it’s like this, if something cost you $100 to make, and someone else sells it for $10… it doesn’t matter that you are getting 70% of the gross, you’re still over 90% unrecouped on a per-unit basis. This is the problem with Spotify, is that it undervalues the true cost of goods (including R&D, etc).” Lowery also said that the streaming business model can be fixed with windowing and pay gates.

Daniel Ek of Spotify said: “Our whole reason for existence is to help fans find music and help artists connect with fans through a platform that protects them from piracy and pays them for their amazing work… Piracy doesn’t pay artists a penny – nothing, zilch, zero. Spotify has paid more than two billion dollars to labels, publishers and collecting societies for distribution to songwriters and recording artists… If that money is not flowing to the creative community in a timely and transparent way, that’s a big problem. We will do anything we can to work with the industry to increase transparency, improve speed of payments, and give artists the opportunity to promote themselves and connect with fans… You can’t look at Spotify in isolation – even though Taylor Swift can pull her music off Spotify (where we license and pay for every song we’ve ever played), her songs are all over services and sites like YouTube and Soundcloud, where people can listen all they want for free.”

Dave Grohl told Rolling Stone that he personally doesn’t care, as long as people listen to the music.

In a recent report, Fair Compensation for Music Creators in the Digital Age, released by the International Council of Creators of Music (CIAM), key findings about the structure of the digital streaming market included that music is undervalued by digital music platforms, split in revenues between the different sets of rights holders is imbalanced to the detriment of music creators, and licensing deals with streaming services lack transparency. The study concluded that a more balanced business model is needed in order to ensure the sustainability of digital distribution services for music and guarantee a fairer remuneration to all rights holders, and suggests that a negotiation process between all stakeholders is the way forward.

SOCAN CEO Eric Baptiste said in a recent blog post, “I welcome music streaming services of all types, and stand ready to support Canadian-based and international services so that they may thrive here in Canada. On one key condition: they must fairly compensate all of the creators and other rights holders responsible for the music that is the very lifeblood of their business. Yes, all creators and rights-holders, including authors, composers and music publishers, as well as the record companies and the artists they represent.”

What do you think?