Exclusive: Deezer Is Exploring User Centric Licensing


One of the great, though less heralded, successes of streaming in 2016 was keeping the lid on artist angst. Previous years had been defined by seemingly endless complaints from worried and angry artists and songwriters. Now that torrent has dwindled to a relative trickle. This is largely due to a) a combination of artist outreach efforts from the services, b) so many artists now seeing meaningful streaming income and c) a general increased confidence in the model. Despite this though, the issues that gave creators concern (eg transparency, accountability) remain largely in place. The temptation might be to simply leave things as they are but it is exactly at this sort of time, when stakeholders are seeing eye to eye (relatively speaking at least), that bold change should be made rather than wait for crisis to re-emerge. It is no easy task fixing a plane mid flight. So it is encouraging to hear that Deezer is looking to change one the key anomalies in the streaming model: service centric licensing.

Service Centric Licensing

Currently streaming services license by taking the total pot of revenue generated, dividing that by the total number of tracks streamed and then multiplying that per stream rate by the number of streams per track per artist. Artists effectively get paid on a share of ‘airplay’ basis. This is service centric licensing. It all sounds eminently logical, and it indeed it the logic has been sound enough to enable the streaming market to get to where it is today. But is far from flawless. Imagine a metal fan who only streams metal bands. With the airplay model if Katy Perry accounted for 10% of all streams in a month, the 10% of that metal fan’s subscription fee effectively goes towards Katy Perry and her label and publisher. Other than aggrieved metal fans, this matters because those metal bands are effectively seeing a portion of their listening time contributing to a super star pop artist. To make it clearer still, what if that metal fan only listened to Metallica, yet still 10% of that subscriber’s revenue went to Katy Perry?

User Centric Licensing

The alternative is user centric licensing, where royalties are paid out as a percentage of the subscription fee of the listener. So if a subscriber listens 100% to Metallica, Metallica gets 100% of the royalty revenue generated by that subscriber. It is an intrinsically fairer model that creates a more direct relationship between what a subscriber listens to and who gets paid. This is the model that I can exclusively reveal that Deezer is now exploring with the record labels. It is a bold move from Deezer, which though still the 3rd ranking subscription service globally has seen Spotify and Apple get ever more of the limelight. While Deezer will undoubtedly be hoping to see the PR benefit of driving some thought leadership in the market, the fact it must find new ways to challenge the top 2 means that it can start thinking with more freedom than the leading incumbents. And a good idea done for mixed reasons is still a good idea.

Honing The Model

Deezer has had encouraging if not wildly enthusiastic feedback from labels, not least because this could be an operationally difficult process to implement. The general consensus among labels I have spoken to is cautious optimism and a willingness to run the models and see how things look. When I first wrote about user centric licensing back in July 2015 I got a large volume of back channel feedback. One of the key concerns was that the model could penalize some indie labels as fans of their acts could be more likely be music aficionados and thus listen more diversely and more heavily. This could result in the effective per stream rate for those fans being relatively low. By contrast, a super star pop act might have a large number of light listeners and therefore higher effective per stream rates.

The truth is that there is not a single answer for how user centric licensing will affect artists and labels. Because there are so many variables (especially the distribution of fans and the distribution of plays among them) it is simply not possible to say that a left field noise artist will do worse while a bubble gum pop star will do better. But in some respects, that shouldn’t be the determining factor. This is an intrinsically more transparent way of paying royalties, that is based upon a much more direct relationship between the artist and their fan’s listening. There may well be some unintended consequences but ultimately if you want fairness and equality then you don’t pick and choose which fairness and equality you want.

If Deezer is able to persuade the labels to put user centric licensing in place, it will be another sign of increasingly maturity for the streaming market. Streaming drove $1bn of revenue growth for the recorded music business in 2016, without it the market would have declined by $1bn (due to revenue decline elsewhere). Streaming is now a monumentally important market segment and there is no better time to hone the model than now. User centric licensing could, and should, be just one part of getting streaming ready for another 5 years of growth. Deezer might just have made the first move.

15 thoughts on “Exclusive: Deezer Is Exploring User Centric Licensing

  1. User centric royalty fee calculation ain’t new. In fact, it was the original play negotiated by cofounder Charles Grimsdale when OD2 introduced unlimited streaming in Europe back in 2004. Not only is fairer for artists, but also for the streaming service, as no royalty is paid for any given month when the user don’t stream at all.

  2. Pingback: LES NEWS MUSIQUE / TECH / BUSINESS DE LA SEMAINE - #S16 | Next In Music

  3. I’m very happy to hear this news and am curious to see the results in a year or two. I’m not quite understanding this sentence… “It all sounds eminently logical, and it indeed it the logic has been sound enough to enable the streaming market to get to where it is today.”

  4. Pingback: Deezer To Trial User Centric Licencing - BASCA | British Academy of Songwriters Composers and Authors

  5. Pingback: Fairness-Debatte: Deezer möchte neuartige Musik-Lizenzen – Avada Classic

  6. That eclectically warm fuzzy feeling about physically touching, owning, collecting, even just gazing at the stuff without listening: a few vinyl records, some CDs, DAT Tape, reel-2-real – all gone – only our (public) playlists are left; hardly ours [with] recommendabots ‘choosing’. Comfortably numb and why not – for what to touch or to grasp and hold – Oculus Rift? For all living things to understand the nature of care means knowing touch. It’s impossible to stream 40 million songs, even over several lifetimes – but we must have it – for about the same reasons that Range Rover drivers never go off-road.

  7. Pingback: sharing means caring Umbruch des Musikmarkts in Zeiten des Internets | sharing means caring


  9. Pingback: Weekly Music Publishing Update: Friday, July 14, 2017 | Songtrust

  10. Pingback: IMNZ Newsletter: Polar blasts. Antarctic ice shelves moving closer. Winter, eh? – Independent Music NZ Inc.

  11. Pingback: Should Spotify Change The Way It Pays Artists? | RazzleTazzle

  12. Pingback: Spotify still pays artists out of one big ‘pot’. Should the company change its policy? | Hynana

  13. Pingback: Spotify Still Pays Artists Out Of One Big Pot, Should The Company Change Its Policy?

  14. A huge thank you for this. I simply must tell you that I love your pages article. These blogs really force me to think more about the world. I seriously like this work a lot!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s