Music streaming is now the main way people consume music. Platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube and Amazon Music have changed the industry and given millions of people access to songs and artists. But one crucial point is often overlooked: the payment of artists. A new report shows clear differences between the major providers. Apple Music in particular stands out positively, paying artists more than twice as much as Spotify. But why is that and what does it mean for the music industry?
When you stream music, you probably don't think about how much the artist earns from your favorite song. But this income is crucial for musicians who often depend on income from streams. Streaming services pay out different amounts per 1,000 streams, and the difference between platforms couldn't be greater. While Apple Music clearly prioritizes artist compensation, Spotify lags far behind despite growing user numbers and price increases.
Apple Music and Spotify in comparison
The numbers speak for themselves
According to the economic report For Duetti, the streaming providers pay the following amounts per 1,000 streams:
- Amazon Music: $8.80
- Apple Music: $6.20
- YouTube: $4,80
- Spotify: $3.00
Apple Music pays out $1,600,062.00 per 1,000 streams, significantly more than Spotify pays out $1,600,000. This means Apple Music pays out more than twice as much as Spotify. YouTube, which like Spotify is funded by advertising, also does better at $1,600,048. It is particularly noteworthy that Spotify has not increased its payouts to artists despite repeated price increases in recent years.
Why Apple Music Pays Fairer
A key factor in Apple Music's higher payouts is its pure subscription model. While Spotify relies on a free model with advertising funding, Apple Music requires all users to subscribe. This revenue flows more directly and to a greater extent to the artists. Despite the advertising revenue, Spotify's advertising-financed model contributes little to the artist's remuneration. In comparison, Apple Music manages to generate more stable and higher revenue through the subscription model.
The consequences of Spotify's strategy
Spotify has invested heavily in podcasts and audiobooks in recent years, which opens up new audiences but appears to be at the expense of artists. While this new content is growing, musicians' pay is stagnating. Duetti's report shows that Spotify's continuous price increases have not resulted in artists benefiting. Instead, payouts per stream are even continuing to decline. YouTube, which also offers an ad-financed model, pays significantly more in comparison. This shows that Spotify's low compensation is not only due to the business model but also to other internal decisions.
The significance for artists and the music industry
The numbers make it clear why many artists prefer Apple Music. Higher remuneration means more financial security for musicians and recognition for their work. The long-term development of the music industry is also influenced by this. Platforms like Apple Music set an important standard with their more sustainable model and promote fairer pay. For you as a user, it shows that your choice of streaming service has a direct impact. If you choose Apple Music, you support artists much more than with Spotify or YouTube.
Apple Music sets the standard
Apple Music clearly stands out from other providers when it comes to remuneration of artists. With above-average payments and a sustainable subscription model, the service shows that music streaming can also be fair. Duetti's report shows how important it is to focus on the payment of artists. The choice of your streaming service can make a difference. Apple Music not only gives you access to millions of songs but also ensures that artists are fairly compensated for their work. So if you want to contribute to a fairer music industry, Apple Music is the right choice. one of the best options. (Photo by Dean Drobot / Bigstockphoto)
update: A Spotify spokeswoman gave apfelpatient.de the following statement regarding the allegations in the Duetti report:
The claims are absurd and unfounded. No streaming service pays per stream because this approach would encourage the services to minimize streams on their own platform. This would lead to less engagement, fewer connections with artists and lower overall payouts. Instead, we take the opposite approach: we want users to be even more active so that they pay more - both through their time spent and by choosing our premium subscription. We are proud to be the leader in overall payouts. This is not a coincidence, but the result of a well-thought-out concept. For these reasons, we not only distance ourselves from the figures cited, but dispute the report as such, as it is based on unproven conjecture that has nothing to do with the reality of our industry.
- Luminar Mobile 2.2: The new update for photo editing professionals
- WhatsApp integration: Share status updates on all platforms
- Apple Music introduces three new global live radio stations
