Spotify and Apple Music need to recruit more indies to corner the market

While on-demand music streaming started slowly – Spotify was founded in 2006 – it’s the default music option for many people today. Monthly subscriptions are cheaper than buying dozens of albums, and even people who use unconventional methods to get their music have to admit that having an on-demand library is more convenient.

Persistent downloads from services like Bandcamp remain popular for several reasons, but the main one is simple: lack of content. Sometimes that’s because of exclusive deals or contractual battles, but many artists and indie labels just don’t think streaming is worth it. Giants like Spotify and Apple Music need to attract these holdouts to become one-stop shops. While there are a few tactics these companies could try, they will likely continue to reject the most effective one.

The first and easiest solution concerns the user interface. The Spotify and Apple Music home screens currently focus equally on great artists and a person’s existing listening habits. This leads to a sea of ​​related playlists and previously played items – the result is that listeners can get stuck on a narrow street, especially if their tastes are already leaning towards the mainstream or just a genre or two. For example, a person who starts listening to Jay-Z and Kendrick Lamar may not be listening to much indie rap.

They are even less likely to be exposed to genres outside of their comfort zone, such as ambient or industrial, which are limited in appeal anyway but need all of the attention they can get when their artists get a chance. An industry label won’t sign up for streaming if it can reach more people through Bandcamp, where it can keep more money. More on that later.

See also: YouTube Music vs Spotify – Can Google Keep Up At All?

Streaming services try to promote discovery, only to a limited extent. For example, Spotify has an automatically updated Discover Weekly playlist, and a service called Qobuz relies on manually created employee referrals. What may be needed is the creation, promotion, and standardization of a wider range of auto-generated discovery playlists. Listeners should be able to hear new genres every day and be just a few taps away from what’s popular locally or with friends. Spotify and Apple Music have social features, but could make better use of them.

The next step is better marketing. Apple and Spotify are throwing some of their weight behind indies but seem afraid of taking risks. Perhaps the most obvious example is Apple Music’s “Up Next” artist sponsorship, which – at least in the US – is dominated by pop, rap and hip-hop artists. Acts in these genres may deserve attention, but they already blend in well with the mainstream and major labels. Even country and EDM artists rarely get any attention.

It is of course a balancing act. From a business perspective, there is no point in dumping millions of dollars behind artists who appeal to a few thousand people. Yet without marketing, even the most talented and least controversial musician will perform in front of a zero audience, and genres that might catch on will never. The balance needs to be adjusted – perhaps by giving small labels a spotlight on the home screen instead of mixing them up in generic indie-themed playlists. A similar approach could be taken with genres. This would improve the exposure without putting everything on individual bands that people don’t recognize.

The biggest obstacle to getting more indies on board, however, is revenue sharing. It’s no secret that most musicians can’t live on streaming revenue – the New York Times reports that only about 13,000 Spotify artists made $ 50,000 or more in payments in 2020. Even when services like Apple Music, YouTube, and Pandora are included, many artists rely on touring and merch.

Many are currently unable to tour much or not at all. As a result, their labels may decide that it is better to make albums available only as downloads or physical copies. A $ 10 download or a $ 30 vinyl might not reach that many people, but the math can work better than fractions of a cent per stream.

Paying higher rights holders would make streaming more sustainable, but the platforms have struggled against it due to their own unfortunate economic situation. Spotify pays according to the Los Angeles times. While companies like Apple or Google can take losses with fairer revenue distributions, Spotify is completely dependent on music and podcast revenues and has only recently made a quarterly profit. Nobody wants the industry to be controlled solely by companies for whom music is second fiddle.

It could be that there will never be a way to get every indie on board. Economics and marketing are unlikely to work perfectly, and some labels are no doubt ideologically opposed to streaming – anarchist punk bands are unlikely to warm to trillion-dollar companies and supply chain abuse. Still, there are things that platforms like Spotify and Apple Music can and should do to become more indie-friendly, and therefore friendlier to a wider variety of tastes.

Next read: 15 Spotify Tips to Get More From Your Spotify Premium or Free Account