The conversation about streaming pay is louder than ever. But the real problem isn't the per-stream rate — it's something much more structural.
TL;DR
The per-stream rate debate misses the real issue: the pro-rata distribution model. When you stream an artist, your subscription money doesn't go to them — it goes into a pool divided by total platform streams. User-centric payment would be fairer but platforms resist the change.
The Per-Stream Rate Is a Red Herring
Every few months, a viral post calculates how many streams you need to earn minimum wage on Spotify, and the outrage cycle begins again. And while the frustration is legitimate — streaming economics are genuinely difficult for most artists — the focus on per-stream rate misses the fundamental structural problem.
The per-stream rate isn't fixed — it fluctuates based on total streams and total revenue. Doubling the per-stream rate wouldn't change the distribution model that determines who gets paid and how much. The real issue is how the revenue pool is divided among artists, and that's where the conversation should be.
The current system is called 'pro-rata' distribution: all subscription revenue goes into a single pool, and each artist's share is determined by their proportion of total platform streams. This means your £10/month subscription doesn't go to the artists you listen to — it goes into a pool that's mostly paid to the biggest artists on the platform, regardless of whether you listen to them.
User-Centric Payment: The Fairer Alternative
Under user-centric payment (UCP), your subscription fee would be divided among only the artists you personally streamed. If you listen to 10 artists in a month, your £10 is split among those 10 artists. If one of them is a bedroom producer with 500 monthly listeners, they'd get a fair share of your subscription rather than having it absorbed into a pool dominated by Drake and Taylor Swift.
Studies by the CNMC (French music regulator) found that UCP would increase payments to mid-tier and niche artists by 5-15% while slightly reducing payments to the top 0.1% of artists. It wouldn't solve all of streaming's economic problems, but it would create a more direct relationship between listeners and the artists they choose to support.
Deezer adopted user-centric payment in 2024, becoming the first major platform to make the switch. Their initial data supports the theoretical models — more money flowing to mid-tier artists, slightly less to the absolute top tier. SoundCloud's 'fan-powered royalties' follow a similar principle. But Spotify and Apple Music have shown no intention of following.
Why Platforms Resist Change
The cynical answer: pro-rata benefits the biggest rights holders (major labels), who have the most leverage over platform negotiations. A shift to UCP would redistribute revenue away from major labels' biggest artists toward independent artists — which isn't in the major labels' financial interest.
The practical answer: implementing UCP is genuinely complex. It requires tracking individual subscriber listening at a granular level and performing millions of unique payment calculations. The computational and accounting infrastructure is significantly more demanding than the current pooled model.
The political answer: any change to the payment model creates winners and losers. The losers (major labels and top-tier artists who receive less under UCP) have significantly more lobbying power than the winners (mid-tier and independent artists who receive more). The power imbalance in the negotiating room mirrors the power imbalance in the payment model.
What Else Needs to Change
Transparency. Artists should receive detailed breakdowns of how their royalties are calculated — which countries their streams came from, what proportion were free-tier vs premium, and how the per-stream rate was determined. Currently, most artists receive opaque payment statements with minimal explanatory detail.
Minimum payment floors. If a track is streamed, it should generate payment — even if the total is tiny. Spotify's new minimum stream threshold before payment kicks in effectively demonetises the long tail of music, disproportionately affecting emerging and niche artists.
Reducing fraud. Fake streams from bot farms and artificial streaming services dilute the royalty pool for legitimate artists. Platforms have improved their fraud detection, but the incentive structure (more streams = more money) means fraud remains profitable and persistent.
And beyond streaming: the industry needs to rebuild revenue models that don't depend entirely on a system that pays fractions of pennies per play. Direct-to-fan sales, sync licensing, live performance, and subscription models (Patreon, Bandcamp subscriptions) all pay artists more fairly per interaction. Diversifying the revenue ecosystem reduces dependence on streaming's broken economics.
Where We Stand
Noise's position is clear: the current streaming payment model is structurally unfair to independent and mid-tier artists, and the industry — platforms, labels, and legislators — should work toward a user-centric model that better reflects the relationship between listeners and the artists they choose to support.
We also believe artists should build careers that don't depend entirely on streaming revenue. The most resilient artists have diversified income streams where streaming is one component, not the whole picture. This isn't letting platforms off the hook — it's practical advice for surviving in a system that isn't fair yet.
The fight for fairer streaming payments is important and worth having. But it's one battle in a larger war for an artist-first industry. We'll keep pushing, keep advocating, and keep building alternatives. The music industry should work for the people who make the music. Full stop.