Songwriters Must Keep Score on Digital Services. Here’s How (Guest Column)

Irving Azoff recently slammed YouTube as “by far the worst offender” when it comes to paying creators fairly. As one of the largest and most successful managers of artists in history, his opinion carries a great deal of weight.

Songwriters specifically are paid through a complex, regulated environment, so digital services have myriad ways of manipulating the system. Those who care about creators often hear about how these platforms mistreat them — and if you ask 10 industry leaders who is the worst, you might get 10 different answers.

To make sense of who is friend or foe, here is a ranking based on what they’re doing for and against songwriters today. Beyond their public relations and industry parties, it is essential to understand how these services actually treat the creators they depend on*,* so here are the broad criticisms.

One must start with Spotify, the largest music-focused streaming service. While Mr. Azoff ranks YouTube as enemy number one, when it comes to songwriters, no one comes close to Spotify.

Last year, the streaming giant revealed — months after imposing the scheme — that it had unilaterally added audiobooks to premium subscriptions so that it could attempt to qualify for paying a lower royalty rate — since music was now part of a “bundle.”

This scheme is currently being challenged in court by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), which pays streaming royalties to rights holders. The NMPA has also pushed for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into this as an unfair business practice, as once Spotify imposed this bundle on its users, it raised prices and made it virtually impossible to return to a music-only premium plan.

Spotify also has fought for extremely low royalty rates at the trial that determines streaming royalties, which takes place every five years in Washington, D.C. And when we, alongside NSAI, won a significant royalty increase in 2018, Spotify spent years appealing that decision. Eventually, they lost that appeal — but songwriters were denied much-needed income throughout the process. Justice delayed is justice denied.

The platform also has added insult to injury through tone-deaf PR stunts like its “Secret Genius” campaign — honoring the very songwriters whose genius is no secret — while it simultaneously fought them in court.

Another significant swipe at songwriters is its free service. Instead of being a free trial period or an on-ramp to encouraging users to pay for music, millions of users can listen to unlimited songs for free without ever signing up. This service delivers the most minuscule royalties to songwriters — it’s almost incalculable.

Mr. Azoff’s opinion about YouTube is shared by many in the industry. The service is notorious for using hardball tactics in negotiations. Since the YouTube platform largely involves synchronization (video) royalties — which are in a free market for songwriters — there is even more opportunity cost. The general perception for years has been that YouTube benefits much more from the music on its service than it pays.

Amazon is complex in that music is only part of its much larger ecosystem. Unfortunately, it has also recently taken advantage of lower rates by bundling music with other services. However, it has not been as brazen as Spotify and has generally been more concerned with its relationship with songwriters. There are opportunities for the platform to improve, and we are hopeful that it continues to keep conversations open with the end goal of seeing music creators as business partners instead of pawns.

TikTok leads the world in social media music consumption — it is essential to the platform’s success. While deals have been struck in the past, the service has used its size to pressure songwriters and artists to return to the platform when there were attempts to negotiate fairer rates. Songwriters suffer disproportionately from this dynamic. While artists receive exposure on the service that can be monetized through touring and merchandise, songwriters need direct compensation, so holding out for more is essential, and thus far has been largely unsuccessful.

Apple Music continues to stand alone in several areas. When other services appealed the aforementioned royalty rate increase in 2018, Apple did not. Additionally, as Apple Music head Oliver Schusser announced at our Annual Meeting in Manhattan earlier this year, the platform will never give music away. “I think it’s crazy that 20 years in, we still offer music for free,” Schusser said. “We’re the only service that doesn’t have a free service. As a company, we look at music as art, and we would never want to give away art for free.” While we will still push for higher rates from Apple, this sentiment must be appreciated and amplified.

Satellite radio shouldn’t be counted out. SiriusXM — which now owns Pandora — has a troubling history of paying extremely low rates to songwriters. In fact, today digital radio pays significantly more to artists annually than AM/FM radio pays songwriters. Think about that. The radio relationship has completely flipped. Songwriters used to make a large percentage of their income from terrestrial radio, and now they make less than artists make from satellite radio — which is dwarfed by interactive streaming — alone.

So who is the worst offender? The answer depends on who is in a current contract negotiation or a rate-setting proceeding. However, when entering into any of these marketplace or regulatory environments, it is crucial to understand where the players stand and how they have historically positioned themselves.

The Super Bowl of all of this starts in a few months before the Copyright Royalty Board in Washington, D.C. At that time, the major streaming services will put forth their proposals for how they want to pay songwriters for 2028–2032. This will be illuminating, and all creators and advocates must seriously consider what they put forth. We will make sure songwriters know what they propose.

There is an opportunity for digital platforms to make serious headway in terms of their relationships with songwriters at this proceeding. So pay close attention, and we will adjust rankings after they reveal their positions. Stay tuned.

David Israelite is the president and CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA). Founded in 1917, NMPA is the trade association representing all American music publishers and their songwriting partners.