Spotify Exec: Ignore per-stream rates and focus on engagement

Much of the debate over whether or not Spotify is paying artists and songwriters fairly centers on estimated per stream rates. But according to Spotify executive Sam Duboff, it’s time to ignore per-stream rates which he calls “one of the most misleading metrics in music.”

“The next time someone asks about a per-stream rate,” says Duboff, “ask a better question: Which platform generates the highest fan engagement and, consequently, the largest payouts to the music industry?”

Spotify Exec: Ignore per-stream rates and focus on engagement

“many continue to promote this misconception that a high “per-stream rate” is somehow a good thing”

from Sam Duboff, Spotify Global Head of Marketing & Policy posted on LinkedIn and X

“There are a lot of people in the music industry who continue to cling to the concept of a “per-stream rate.” Most people know better, but many continue to promote this misconception that a high “per-stream rate” is somehow a good thing. I get why. It seems like a straightforward way to compare streaming services. But in reality, it’s one of the most misleading metrics in music.

Have been reading a bunch of the year-end music industry reports, and a few numbers stood out that reflect what’s actually going on:

• From MIDiA Research: Spotify accounts for just over one-third of global music subscribers (excluding China).
• From Luminate: In 2024, across all services, there were 4.8 trillion global streams (excluding China). Spotify’s internal data shows that nearly two-thirds of all streams from the paid tiers of streaming services happened on Spotify Premium.

Let’s put the two stats together: Spotify has one-third of global subscribers but drives two-thirds of total paid streams. Meanwhile, all other services combined account for two-thirds of subscribers, but only one-third of paid streams. What does that tell us? Spotify subscribers stream WAY more music – at least 4x more. And likely even more than that: eMarketer recently estimated that US adults spend 32.3 hours a month on Spotify, versus 3.5 hours on Amazon Music and under an hour on Apple Music.

And because all major streaming services charge around the same price (and pay out royalties in the same way), that means Spotify is providing way more value to users per dollar,

“Some argue that a higher rate means a better deal for artists.”

Now, back to “per-stream rate”. Some argue that a higher rate means a better deal for artists. But that’s misleading. The math is simple: [total payouts] / [total streams] = “per-stream rate”. What makes the per-stream rate look lower? You guessed it: more streams. That’s exactly what’s happening on Spotify. Because it’s the most engaging service, the calculated per-stream rate is lower.

“more streams per listener mean deeper engagement”

But here’s what matters most: More streams per listener mean deeper engagement, which is great for artists. Engagement is the strongest driver of Premium conversion and retention (which is what actually increases payouts to the music industry, since roughly two-thirds of all music revenue goes back to artists’ and songwriters’ rightsholders). In other words, more streams are a GOOD THING. It’s why Spotify paid out $10B to the music industry in 2024 (more than any other service) and why payouts have grown 10x in the last decade, much faster than the industry overall. In 2014, Spotify had contributed less than 10% of annual global recorded music revenue. Today, it contributes well over 25%.

So next time someone asks about a “per-stream rate,” ask a better question: Which platform generates the highest fan engagement and, consequently, the largest payouts to the music industry? Whenever you see a chart comparing the calculated “per stream rate” for music services, ask to see a chart of which service cut the biggest check, too.