Bifurcation theory | How today’s music business will become two

One of things we pride ourselves on at MIDiA is helping the marketplace peer over the horizon with disruptive, forward-looking ideas and vision. We have a long track record of doing this (you can find a list of report links at the bottom of this post). While many of these ideas were difficult to swallow, or a little ‘out there’ at the time of writing, they became (or are still becoming) a good reflection of where markets ended up heading. Well, it is now time for another of those big market shaping ideas: bifurcation theory.

Today, MIDiA publishes its major new report: ‘Bifurcation theory | How today’s music business will become two’. The full report is available to MIDiA clients here and a free synopsis of the report for non-clients is on our bifurcation theory page here. So, check those out to find more, but in the meantime, here is an overview of just what bifurcation theory is, and why it is going to affect everyone in the music business, whatever role you play in it. 

The old maxim that change is the only constant feels tailor-made for the 21st century music business. Piracy, downloads, streaming, and social all triggered music industry paradigm shifts. Now, all the indicators on the disruption dashboard are flashing red once more. AI is, of course, standing centre stage, but it is not the cause of the coming change. It is simply a change enabler.The causal factors this time round are all direct byproducts of today’s music business, unintended consequences of a streaming market that has cantered along its natural path of least resistance. Everyone across the music industry’s value chain has played their role, often unwittingly. Whether that be shortening

songs, increasing social efforts, changing royalty systems or following viral trends, each of these micro actions has contributed to a macro effect.

The fracture points of today’s music business are simultaneously the catalysts for tomorrow’s. For example, the commodification of consumption is resulting in a raft of apps and industry initiatives that try to serve superfans; the rise of the creator economy’s long tail is resulting in both traditional rightsholders raising the streaming drawbridge (long tail royalty thresholds) and a fast-growing body of creators opting to invest less time in streaming.

Streaming was once the future but now it is the establishment, the cornerstone of the traditional music business. It has rocketed from a lean forward, niche proposition for superfans into a lean back, mass market product for the mainstream. Music consumers have always fallen into two buckets:

1.    Fans

2.    Consumers

The former used to buy music, the latter used to listen to radio. Streaming put them both into the same place, pulling up the average spend but pulling down fandom into consumption. Streaming is the modern day music business’ radio, just much better monetised than the analogue predecessor. Now though, everyone across the music industry’s complex mesh of interconnected value chains is realising there needs to be something more, built alongside, not instead of, streaming. This is the dynamic behind bifurcation theory. This report explores how today’s music business challenges are becoming the causal factors of a new business defined by two parallel consumer worlds.

The music business is bifurcating – splitting into two – with streaming emerging as the place for mainstream music and lean back consumption, and social as the spiritual home of fandom and the creator economy. We identify these two segments as:

1.    LISTEN (user-led): streaming services, monetising consumption at scale

2.    PLAY (creator-led): highly social destinations where fans lean in to create, connect and express identity

Of course, this process has already started, but social is still largely seen as a driver for streaming. Many artists who try to get their fans to participate on social do so primarily in the hope of driving streams rather than for the inherent value of fans participating in their creativity. However, many next-generation creators are realising they will simply never reach the scale needed to earn meaningful income from streaming.They are therefore shifting focus to building fan relationships on social media and monetising them elsewhere, be it via merchandise or brand sponsorships. Meanwhile, a new generation of fans are creating as a form of consumption, whether that means using songs in their TikTok videos or modifying the audio of their favourite song. While copyright legislation and remuneration have lagged behind these developments, they will be an important part of the future of PLAY. Over time, PLAY will evolve as a self-contained set of ecosystems, built around the artist-fan relationship. It will not be an easy transition. Mainstream streaming will become even more lean back, and social and new apps will exert what will increasingly look like a stranglehold on fandom and the creator economy.

Social apps are plagued with challenges (royalty payments not the least of them) but they will emerge as a parallel alternative to streaming, rather than simply a feeder for it. To this end, the full bifurcation theory report not only describes the lay of the future land, but also presents bold visions of how we think both sides of the music business equation should evolve. We present detailed frameworks for what PLAY services will look like and how LISTEN services can evolve, focusing on core competences to continue to appeal to the mainstream but also deepen appeal to – and better monetise – superfans.

AI will play a key role in the future of both sides of the bifurcated music business, but rather than being tomorrow’s business, it will act as an accelerant for the underlying dynamics of bifurcation theory.

Bifurcation is such a big concept with so many layers and nuances, we have only been able to skim through some of the highest level trends here. We encourage you to check out the full report and report synopsis to learn more.

We’ve spent a long time gestating this concept, so we’d love to hear your thoughts. We’re not expecting bifurcation theory to be to everyone’s taste, but if nothing else, hopefully it will spark some creative thinking and debate.

Don’t forget to check out our bifurcation page for a video discussion of bifurcation theory and a free pdf report synopsis.

As mentioned above, here are some of MIDiA’s most impactful future vision reports, in (roughly) chronological order:

Agile Music (Free report)

Music Format Bill of Rights (Free report)

Rising Power of UGC (Free report)

Independent Artists (Free report)

Music Rights Disruption

Insurgents and Incumbents

Creator Culture

Rebalancing the Song Economy (Free report)

New Top of Funnel

Slicing the Funnel

Music’s Instagram Moment

Scenes – a New Lens for Music Marketing

Attention Recession

Creator Rights (Free report)

Creator Hubs

Music Product Strategy

Fan Powered Royalties (Free report)

Addressable Creator Markets

Misaligned Incentives

Artist Subscriptions

Field of All Levels

Kill the Campaign

Rise of a Counterculture Industry

Music subscriber market shares 2023: New momentum

With UMG leading the charge to reshape the music industry into a more label-friendly form, 2023 may, with hindsight, go down as the year before everything changed. Whatever lies ahead though, new models will take time to deliver benefits. Music subscriptions are therefore going to remain the bedrock of music rightsholder revenues for the foreseeable future. So, it is a good thing that music subscriptions had such a good year in 2023.

As of Q3 2023, there were 713.4 million music subscribers globally, which was 90 million up on the 623.4 million one year earlier in Q3 2022. This matters for two reasons:

1. We are already nearly three quarters of the way to having one billion music subscribers globally. That is no small achievement. For context, as recently as five years ago, we had only just passed the quarter of a billion subscriber mark
   
2. The 90 million subscribers added in the 12 months to Q3 2023 was more, yes more(!), than the 83.5 million added one year earlier. In fact, the number added was nearly as many as those added in 2020. Not bad for a maturing category with key markets hitting near-saturation

However, there is a bit of a problem with looking at the global market: it is increasingly no longer a global market, but instead, one of two halves: the West and the Global South, with each region throwing off dramatically different metrics and growth narratives.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the market share rankings:

• Spotify dominated the global music subscriber base in Q3 2023 with 31.7% market share. More than that, it actually increased its share from 0.4 points from Q3 2022. So, for all the flak Spotify has thrown at it, it outgrew the market in 2023. Newer, emerging market territories were central to this growth, but it was Spotify’s traditional heartland (North America and Europe) that drove the majority (59%) of its subscriber growth. Compare and contrast this with the all-DSP picture, where North America and Europe drove just 29% of subscriber growth, with Asia Pacific accounting for nearly two thirds of all non-Western subscriber growth
  
• China, a market in which only Apple of the Western DSP operates, underpins this non-Western growth, and the clearest manifestation of this is Tencent Music Entertainment (TME). With 102.7 million subscribers in Q3 2023, TME represents 14.4% of all global subscribers, despite this being an effectively China-only number. NetEase Cloud Music (6.1% share and China-only) and Yandex (3.4% share and Russia-only), further represent the dynamic growth from regions where Western DSPs largely do not operate. This is the new, bifurcated nature of the global music subscriber market
  
• Apple Music (12.6%), Amazon Music (11.1%) and YouTube Music (9.7%) represent the remainder of the leading Western DSP pack. Along with Spotify, these three DSPs represent 65% of the global market, but only 59% of 2023 growth. Western DSPs are still the core of the market, but they are collectively losing share. But, even within these four, there is a diverging picture, with YouTube Music and Spotify gaining share in 2023 while Amazon and Apple lost share. Between Q3 2022 and Q3 2023, Spotify added more subscribers than all three other leading Western DSPs combined

2023 was a strong year for music subscriptions, delivering more growth than perhaps had been expected in such challenging macro-economic and geo-political circumstances. Even North America and Europe grew slightly faster in 2023 than in 2022. But, as commendable as squeezing more growth out of otherwise mature markets is, the inescapable paradigm shift is the emergence of the Global South as the growth driver of tomorrow’s music subscriber base.

Want even more detail? Check out the full music subscriber market shares report and data set, with data for more than 20 DSPs across more than 40 territories, with data for every quarter from Q4 2015 to Q3 2023.

For more info email stephen@midiaresearch.com

Spotify re-positions two-tier licensing (we are getting closer, and it can be even better)

Spotify released a blog post laying out how it wants the world to understand its new two-tier royalty system. The positioning is clear, leading with the statement that it will drive “an additional $1 billion toward[s] emerging and professional artists” and the PR push included several supporting quotes from the independent sector (with no major label quote to be seen). Positioning-wise, this is certainly now a case of ‘where it started’ (reverse Robin Hood) and ‘how it is going (everyone is a winner). Of course, the truth lies somewhere in between, but we are getting to a better place and there are some really important positive points made by Spotify. 

The main benefits outlined by Spotify are:

• Reducing fraud (financial penalties for actors that manipulate streams)
• Cutting back on ‘noise’ (increasing the minimum stream length to two minutes)

The cumulative impact of these measures will be more money going into the royalty pot for ‘honest hard-working artists’. This is all positive and represents part of a much needed recalibration of the wider model to tackle the long-term rise of unintended consequences of the streaming economy.

However, because the two-tier royalty system is also deployed alongside these measures, it will still be bigger artists that benefit from the larger royalty pool. Spotify states that redistributing the revenues from the end of the tail will be more impactful for ‘these tens of millions of dollars per year to increase payments to those most dependent on streaming revenue — rather than being spread out in tiny payments that typically don’t even reach an artist’. Spotify also makes the important point that most of the royalties from <1,000 stream tracks do not even make it to the artists because they do not meet the minimum payout levels set by labels and distributors.

Of course, this means that labels and distributors who have a substantial numbers of songs with <1,000 streams will see portions of their income withheld. For smaller labels this could be impactful. All labels shoulder risk knowing that a majority of their artists are unlikely to deliver them a profit. Bigger labels, major labels especially, hedge this bet by only paying artists royalties once they have generated more income than the advances the labels pay them. Smaller labels can rarely afford to pay advances and they also typically pay a higher share of royalties (e.g., 50%) to artists. So, having a payout threshold of, say, $50 per track, is their means of hedging risk. Some of that hedged risk will go out of the window for smaller labels. 

And to be clear, I am referring here to genuine smaller labels, not to synical ones that who trade in 30 second noise clips to gain the system. Those labels will suffer in this system, and rightly so.

A larger label might argue that smaller labels should simply focus on signing tracks with more potential, but the label marketplace is a competitive one. The ‘bigger artists want to go to bigger labels’ dynamic applies to the bottom of the tail too – it just translates to ‘not-so-small artists want to go to not-so-small labels’. Unless a label is investor backed, they all need to start small. There is a risk that these smaller labels do not have a voice in this debate.

But, let’s revisit this objective: ‘increase payments to those most dependent on streaming revenue — rather than being spread out in tiny payments’. 

(It is also important to note that the 1,000 streams threshold is for songs, not artists. So, many artists (and labels) will receive royalties for some, but not all of their songs. So this is not just about artists with <1,000 streams.)

While this is true at the input stage, it does not necessarily translate on the output stage. Assuming that the <1,000 streams revenue was worth around $60 million in 2023 (Spotify says “tens of millions”). Then, taking Spotify’s own Loud and Clear figures, applying the $0.03 per stream royalty, and distributing that on a share-of-streams basis for all other artists, provides an income translating to an extra +/- 1% of annual Spotify royalty income for those artists. So, the system takes money that is insignificant to the bottom of the tail and then divides it up into amounts that are insignificant, in relative terms, to the rest.

To be clear, some artists will get a good payout, peaking at somewhere around $20,000 for the top artists. However, as they already earn over a couple of a million each, that amount is probably not meaningful to them in relative terms.

So, where am I driving at with all this? How about we take the proposed system and instead of dividing into micro payments for everyone, just target it at one small group of emerging artists with potential. Turn it into an artist development fund rather than an inverted redistribution of wealth. That way the money can be put to really good use, investing in the very part of the market where the money came from in the first place. 

In summary, Spotify’s new positioning of two-tier licensing is fair, reasonable and positive in most respects. The associated (but separate) noise and fraud measures are super important and will help bring greater fairness and equity to the system. But distribution of the <1,000 stream royalties remains a sticking point. As it will have such a small impact on the income of other artists, surely funnelling these “tens of millions” into an artist development fund is a win-win that the industry can get behind?

Two-tier licensing is about to become a reality

With the dust still far from settled on the UMG / Deezer streaming royalty proposal, something even bigger is coming: Spotify is turning the concept into reality in Q1 2024. The behind-the-scenes conversations have been ongoing for some time, but the details were stated publicly on panels at last week’s ADE conference, meaning that the information is now firmly in the public domain. Obviously, nothing is official at this stage, so consider this ‘as reported’ information. Even if the final details end up varying, what is clear is that two-tier licensing is about to become a reality.

Things are moving fast, going from ‘limited trial’ to ‘actually happening’ in the proverbial blink of the eye. If Spotify is indeed set to launch two-tier royalties just months from now, it begs the question as to what the Deezer trial was about in the first place? If decisions had already been made elsewhere, then the likelihood is that it was a way of softening up industry opinion before the big news hit next year, to acclimatise the industry community to the concept ahead of launch.

Streaming democratised access to the means of distribution, enabling an unprecedented growth in artists and releases. But the brake is now being firmly applied. Streams may have all been created equal, but now some streams are becoming more equal than others. 

There are, of course, compelling arguments for ‘fixing’ streaming royalties (arguments that we have discussed at length). But if consumers are choosing to listen to long-tail artists, or if the algorithms consider long-tail artists to be the right fit for their tastes, then the ‘problem’ lies with consumption patterns, not royalties. (And of course, what consumers are listening to is also the most precise way measure where and how subscribers allocate the value pf their subscription.)

Between 2019 and 2022, artists direct streaming revenue grew by 130% while the majors grew by 58%. Long-tail artists are growing their share of ear (even accounting for the fact that algorithms are not neutral agents). In 2022, artists direct accounted for 8% of global streaming revenue and at current trajectory would reach 10% by 2025. Consider that WMG’s share was 16% in 2022, and it becomes clear just how significant the long-tail pool is.

But here is where the cynical genius of the two-tier system comes into play. Right now, streams and revenue are effectively synonymous, but by this time next year, they will mean very different things. The majority of artists direct artists will no longer be paid for their contribution to the value of the $11.99 subscription. The c.10% of consumption they will generate will disappear from the streaming revenue map. They will be othered, their revenue becoming a new black box for the biggest artists to share between themselves. Which means that, hey presto, all that annoying artists direct market share suddenly gets reallocated to everyone else. Market share erosion? What market share erosion?

The two-tier system does not even try to turn back the clock on the rise of independence, it simply funnels the growing revenue from this cultural paradigm shift to the bigger artists who are losing share. If DSP streaming was the only game in town, then the risks of antagonising long-tail artists (label and direct) would be relatively low. But the music consumption and creation landscapes are changing. Non-DSP streaming revenue is outgrowing DSP streaming, while creators choosing to release only on non-DSP platforms is growing twice as fast as artists releasing onto DSPs.

Perhaps it would serve bigger labels and artists well, to have smaller artists and labels focus their attention elsewhere. But if they do so, then they will take audience attention and cultural capital with them. At some stage or another, that kind of shift will start to bite into DSP acquisition and retention rates. By which stage it may be too late to halt the decline. 

Music has become a ‘just-in-time’ economy

The modern day economy is built upon ‘just-in-time’ supply chains. This framework has enabled the benefits of consumerism that we have come to enjoy, such as next day delivery, out of season foods on our shelves, and the digital devices we live our lives through. Each component of the just-in-time economy works in tightly coordinated partnership, from factories, through transport, to point of sale. The underlying principle is that every component is manufactured and delivered at just the right time, to ensure that there is a continual throughput of production, assembly, and consumption. Gone are the old days of large warehouses containing product, just in case it is needed. Instead, just the right amount makes its way around the world in shipping containers to meet demand. Most of us never even knew this system existed until the pandemic, when it suddenly broke down and we found ourselves short of essentials, like toilet paper. Perhaps without even realising it, the music business has become a just-in-time economy too, and that is not a good thing.

The music business used to be characterised by artists disappearing into the studio for months on end and emerging with an album for expectant fans to get their hands on at some time in the future. Bands like the Red Hot Chili Peppers were able to average four years between their albums and still expect their fanbase to be there, waiting eagerly for the next release. Streaming and social media combined to turn that model on its head, heralding the era of the always-on artist. Now, artists fear the consequences of not putting out a single every month. Heck, even Daniel Ek said it is “not enough” for artists to release albums “every 3-4 years” and that they need to create “continuous engagement with their fans”.

Add this to the very real fear that the algorithm will ‘forget’ artists if they do not keep up a steady flow of social posts and releases, and you have the foundation stones for music’s just-in-time economy. The implication, no, the reality, is that if artists do not conform to the always-on model then they will be lost by (not in) the system. Artists (and their rightsholders) have become just-in-time suppliers, with the subtle, yet seismic, shift from delivering art to their fans when they have finished their creative process, at their pace, to filling a slot in the never ceasing supply chain. It is an environment that, unsurprisingly, has created the hit today, gone tomorrow world that today’s music business operates within.

The model works well for platforms, and consumers, but less so for artists, due to misaligned incentives across the industry. The underlying problem with the system is that the content platforms that shape today’s entertainment business (TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Spotify, etc.) value creation more than they do creators. The more creation that there is, the more that the platforms’ algorithms are able to target users with ever more specific and personalised content. The platforms all, of course, talk a good talk about creators, but what matters most to them is that their users get the right content. It does not matter whether that means a thousand creators delivering one piece of content to a thousand users, or one creator to one thousand users. With the pervasive obsession with ‘new’, as soon as one piece of content has been served, another is needed.

This is how we described this dynamic back in early 2021:

“In the attention economy’s volume and velocity game, the streaming platform is a hungry beast that is perpetually hungry. Each new song is just another bit of calorific input to sate its appetite.”

And it is not just the consumer platforms that fuel this fire. Artist distribution platforms play a role too. The unspoken promise of the platforms is that artists have a chance to compete with the likes of Taylor Swift. Of course, 99.99% of the nearly six and a half million self-releasing artists will never get into the same race, let alone win it. 

We are at the point where there needs to be a duty of care to creators, from both distributors and platforms. This starts with selling the right dream. Some artists may only ever have a thousand fans (or fewer) who want to listen to their music. That should be embraced as an aspirational goal, not failure. Service offerings should be geared around helping creators understand what their realistic (but aspirational) goals should be, and helping them achieve them. Not a nudge and a wink implication that they can all become superstars.

If this does not happen, we are heading towards a massive creator backlash, driven by a generation of creators wondering why they are not superstars yet. And that is not in the interest of any of the industry’s stakeholders, except perhaps the homes of superstars.

The just-in-time model in the wider economy has underpinned an unprecedented amount of consumption, and that comes with its own set of challenges, especially with regards to sustainability. It has also contributed to, as the Guardian put it, “the growth of low-wage, often more precarious jobs, with workers recruited only when they would beneeded. This constant squeezing of workers has fuelled our 24/7 work culture and the mental health problems that go with it, while attempts to cut the price of labour have added tothe growth of economic inequality, regardless of who sits in government”. All of which sounds remarkably similar to the plight of many of today’s artists.

Everyone hurts – the problem with ‘fixing’ streaming

Apple’s Q4 2022 revenue fall was further illustration that the global economic environment is affecting everyone. During such times, companies look for ways to avoid the worst of the impacts, partially through ‘efficiencies’ but also through growth, by exploring new income streams and improving deal terms. The music industry is no exception. With global streaming revenues slowing – despite a strong performance from Spotify– there is growing pressure on music rightsholders to identify new growth drivers. This is especially the case for major labels, who have new institutional investors who have become acclimatised to rapid growth. All of which leads to streaming royalties taking centre stage. But the problem is that everyone in the streaming ecosystem has problems with the model. So, can any fix make everyone happy? [TL;DR, no]

To heavily oversimplify, streaming has three main constituents:

• Creators (songwriters, artists, etc.)
• Rightsholders (labels, publishers, distributors, CMOs, etc.)
• Streaming services 

At the start of 2023, all three have issues with streaming:

1. Songwriters continue to push for higher royalties while long and mid-tail artists cannot make streaming economics add up
2. Publishers continue to lobby for higher rates while UMG is now advocating for a new royalty system
3. Spotify just reported a net loss of nearly half a billion dollars for 2022

Then add in all the perennials: too much music being released; no artist longevity; the commodification of music; listening fragmentation; the decline of superstars etc.

We have a streaming market in which none of the stakeholder groups feel entirely content with the current market and all would like a larger share of the revenues to flow to them. Because they all extract value from the same revenue pot, the arithmetic is simple: one stakeholder’s gain is another’s loss.

None of this is an argument for, or against, the relative merits of the case of any of the three main interest groups. But it does mean that any change to the system will leave someone unhappy. This is the impossible equation that must be balanced.

What further complicates matters is that market benefits to different stakeholders can be perceived as negatives to others. For example:

• Streaming helped democratise the means of production and distribution. Long-tail and mid-tail artists benefit, and superstars lose their share
• Streaming helped make music the soundtrack of daily routines. Suppliers of mood music benefit, traditional artists, and labels lose listening share
• Streaming helped level the playing field, making it easier for smaller labels to compete. Larger labels faced stronger competition

The debate around new royalty regimes has been around for some time, but momentum is picking up. When the CEO of the world’s biggest record label weighs in, then you know that change is going to come. But as the above illustrates, what might make a major label happy, has the potential be detrimental to other stakeholders. There is no ‘make everyone happy’ fix.

Here are two pragmatic alternatives:

Lean forward premium 

One of the cleanest fixes would be to create a two-tier royalty system based on the nature of the plays:

1. Lean forward plays (higher royalty): when a consumer plays from their own collection or seeks out a song to play it
2. Lean back plays (lower royalty): when a consumer listens to music in an algorithmic ‘radio’ channel or listens to curated playlists

As with all streaming ‘fixes’, the approach would not be without problems. Mood-based music would certainly find itself generally collecting a smaller share of royalties, but also, many of streaming’s hits (including those from majors) rely on driving larger numbers of streams in curated playlists and ‘stations’ – which in turn help fire up the algorithms and power songs to further success.

Penny per stream

Another approach would be a fixed stream rate, which would effectively mean metered streaming. For example, if every stream generated $0.01, a subscriber would be able to listen until their subscription fee was used up, with the ability to top up to listen further or upgrade to a higher capacity tier. This would certainly help drive increased ARPU (something all parties want) but could deter some subscribers as it would mean an end to the all-you-can-eat (AYCE) proposition. But maybe it is time for that. Music is not a scalable resource in the way that, say, mobile data is. Everyone’s song is someone’s creation. Also, there would need to be a solution for free streams.

Don’t forget the listener, ever

Of course, there is a massive missing detail in all of this, the missing stakeholder in the streaming economy: the listener. Crucially though, for all the problems creators and rightsholders face, consumers are not complaining en masse. They are content with a proposition that not only represents exceptional value for money but that also evolves to meet their tastes and behaviours. 

Streaming’s problems are supply side issues, not demand-side. All industry stakeholders should be careful about pushing solutions that could favour the supply side without proper consideration of the demand side. The history of business is littered with the corpses of companies that did not properly consider the needs of their customers.

Streaming was built for yesterday’s music business

The saying goes that in a good compromise, no one is truly happy. So, there is an argument that streaming is already the balance of compromise. Against this though, streaming was built for an industry that is very different than today, so it is only logical that the model needs honing to catch up, and many of streaming’s second-order consequences cannot be undone. On the demand side, music consumption has become commodified, transformed from a largely artist-centric fan experience (radio excepted) into an audio soundtrack to everyday life. On the supply side, there are simply more people than seats at the table.

Any significant ‘fix’ is going to come at one, or more, stakeholder’s expense. And even then, increased royalties will only go so far. For example, an independent label artist might expect to earn around $2,000 from a million streams (after distribution and label deductions). Members of a four-piece band would thus take home $250 each. Even doubling the standard royalty rate (which could not happen without breaking the entire model) would still only mean $500 each, which is not going to turn streaming into a living wage for most mid-tail artists, let alone the long-tail. So, ‘fixes’ will only go so far. Perhaps it is time to double down on building new things on top of and around streaming, and nurture those that already exist (Bandcamp, etc.). 

Absolutely continue to focus on improving streaming economics but do so alongside building a new industry infrastructure that is built to meet the needs of today’s creators and business rather than those of the noughties. In short, grow the pie rather than simply look at how to re-slice it.

The music industry needs a new format

Non-DSP streaming was one of – arguably the – differences between steady growth and stellar growth for the music business in 2021. With three billion dollars of retail revenues in 2021, non-DSP has quickly become a key source of revenue, but not without bringing its own set of challenges. Music rightsholders have been criticised in the past, including by MIDiA, for being too prescriptive in their licensing approaches, often curtailing the potential of new ventures. The homogenised nature of Western DSP streaming being a case in point. But with non-DSP partners, rightsholder recognised that it was still too early to define exactly what the dominant use cases would be and opted for blanket type deals instead, thus monetising new partners while leaving room for innovation. Now though, creators and rightsholders alike are coming to the point of view that the time is right for greater clarity and definition, with calls for ad revenue share as a starting point. But even if these changes were to come into play, there is a much more fundamental issue at hand: the music business does not have a format to license to non-DSP partners.

Value gaps

Much has been made of the comparison between YouTube and TikTok, and their perceived ‘value gaps’ (YouTube’s former value gap, and TikTok’s current one). YouTube’s road to music industry partnership was a rocky one, but now the relationship is positively rosy, as is YouTube’s contribution to music industry revenues. In 2021, YouTube delivered around $3.4 billion in revenues to record labels alone, with ad supported accounting for around two thirds of that. YouTube has gone from pariah to the second largest contributor of label streaming revenue. But, regardless of all the infighting, negotiating and lobbying that happened in the intervening years, it would not have been able to become the success it has were it not for the fact it was already using a well-established music industry format: music videos. This contrasts with non-DSP partners, like TikTok, Meta and Snap, that are, instead, licensing music to soundtrack their formats. In many respects, this is 21^st century sync, soundtracking the parts of digital entertainment where traditional sync does not reach. Indeed, the deals also tend to be classed as sync deals. 

Sync’s strengths and weaknesses 

Sync’s strength is being able to take music to places where music formats do not exist. Its problem, however, is that there has always been a massive value gap between its cultural impact (not least giving music exposure) versus its revenue contribution (less than 10% of 2021 retail revenues). But there is an even bigger challenge with this new ‘digital sync’: whereas traditional sync simply enhances traditional audio-visual formats (TV, games, ads, etc.), in many of digital sync’s use cases it is actually a central component of the experience. Duets, lip-syncs and other lean-through behaviour has music at its core. Without music, the behaviour does not exist. So a licensing structure that leans on monetising a soundtrack falls short of music’s defining role in many of these non-DSP experiences. On top of this, there is much that music creators do on non-DSP platforms (e.g., live chats, non-music posts) that delivers value to the platforms (by generating ad impressions) but do not generate income for those creators nor their rightsholders (if they have them).

A new format for non-DSP

So, how can this circle be squared? The solution is simple in concept but complex in practice: the music industry needs a new format for non-DSP environments, one that will ideally pave the way for metaverse monetisation also. Non-DSP music behaviours rarely revolve around the full-length song, nor full-length music videos. Instead, they revolve around components and snippets of songs, as well as the music creator’s non-music activity. The music industry needs a licensable format that reflects this new usage, not least because everything points to ‘lean through’ and the consumerisation of creation growing, not shrinking. A 15-30 second music format would be one solution, but that would likely be too static, as the more that creator culture grows, the more cultural value will reside in the music being modified by users – as illustrated by TikTok’s new partnership with Stemdrop – which could also form part of a new format structure. And, of course, it would miss the non-music activity. Last year, MIDiA published a report with Utopia (free to download here) that proposed a creator right that would ensure that value accrues to the creator for all their activity, not just musical. It may sound far-fetched, but it is not much different than an actor getting paid for appearing on a TV show.

The solution likely lies in a combination of short-form music formats and new licensable rights – which does not necessarily need to have legislation, there are other widely licensed ‘rights’ that do not legislative underpinnings. As I have already said, the concept is simple, the implementation is difficult. But things worth doing are often difficult to do. Over to you, music industry!

WMG is moving beyond superstars – and that is a good thing

Warner Music Group’s (WMG’s) Steve Cooper recently stated that the major is no longer financially dependent on superstars – which is, of course, quite a different thing from not being culturally dependent on them, but we’ll get to that. For a major’s CEO (exiting or not) to make such a claim is both bold and a reflection of the reality on the ground. In fact, it is a natural milestone in a trend MIDiA identified years ago: fragmented fandom. As streaming audiences and consumption fragment, so does the impact of superstars. As with any transition, the shift is not linear and there will continue to be more Olivia Rodrigos and Billie Eilishes, but they will be fewer and farther between, and crucially, they will be smaller than their pre-fragmentation peers.

Superstars getting smaller is music to the ears of independent labels and artists alike, but it is far from the death knell for big labels. Instead, it simply reflects the new environment in which they will operate. Indeed, Cooper said WMG is pursuing a “portfolio” strategy “across a bigger number of artists” to reduce financial “dependency on superstars”. This comes after BMG’s CEO, Hartwig Masuch, said of their latest results: “The extraordinary thing about our first half result is that we grew revenue 25% with virtually no hits”. Having no superstars does not mean having no hits, instead it means more, smaller hits.

In 2019, MIDiA wrote that “Niche is the new mainstream”, that the water cooler moments of the linear era were being replaced by cultural moments. Audiences are in different places at different times, with algorithms delivering them different personalised content. Concepts, such as ‘song of the summer’, are becoming different for everyone. Each listener has their own song of the summer. In the era of fragmented fandom, water cooler moments across the masses, where everyone heard the song on the radio at the same time, are replaced by smaller groups of people finding pockets of likeminded fans across the world.

The consequence for artist marketing is a progressive shift from ‘carpet bombing’ mass media in order to build artist brand reach, to campaigns that, instead, reach real fans with laser-focused targeting. In the old model, a superstar artist was a household name, with mum and dad just as likely to know them as their kids. But what was the value of mum and dad knowing the artist if they were not the target audience? It might play to the artists’ egos, but it was an inefficient spend of marketing budget. Now, targeted marketing reaches the consumers who care. The result is smaller, but more passionate, fanbases. This is marketing to build fans rather than audiences. It is just a shame that western DSPs are built for passive audiences rather than fandoms. That will need to change. DSPs paradoxically triggered the fragmentation, but they do not provide the mechanisms for artists and labels to benefit. A cynic might argue that that is by design.

Indeed, the fragmentation of listening that streaming is pushing consumption towards the middle, away from the superstars, as Music Business Worldwide’s Luminate chart for streams of the US top-10 tracks shows.

For the superstars who are used to mega-fame from the pre-fragmentation days, a new release’s performance can look like diminishing success when measured by traditional metrics – just ask Beyonce. But, because fragmentation means it is truer fans that engage with the music, the cultural relevance of these smaller hits can actually be bigger – again just ask Beyonce.

There are, however, extra complications. As we are currently in a transition phase, pre-fragmentation hangovers are muddying the streaming waters. Pre-fragmentation hits stick around for longer on streaming because they had the pre-fragmentation brand reach. Since they benefited from the old-world mainstream media exposure, their hits cut through on streaming in a way that newer ones often struggle to. These pre-fragmentation hangovers have the effect of fragmenting new hits even further as they take up so much of streaming’s consumption. The result is that streaming is not so much a level playing field as a field of all levels.This transition phase will play out, and while it does, there is a world of opportunity for artists and labels that can harness the deeply held fandom that fragmentation creates.

The rise of scenes

The most exciting knock-on effect of fragmentation is the rise of scenes and micro scenes. In the old world, consumers had a limited range of things with which they could identify themselves, as everyone was watching the same TV, reading the same magazines, listening to the same radio, and shopping in the same shops. Now, consumers can build their own identity from an ever more diverse set of attributes, across fashion, music, TV / film, games, politics, etc. 

As my colleague Tatiana Cirisano put it:

“The result is that scenes are becoming more complex and splintered. Consider the seemingly endless range of subcultures on TikTok, from #cottagecore to #EGirl, or the Instagram account @starterpacksofnyc, which has garnered more than 64,500 followers by crystallising super-specific, yet eerily-familiar, personality types.”

This rise of scenes is what will shape the future of marketing, with scenes becoming the new territories, transcending borders and cultures. Superstars will get smaller, but they will get better at monetising their superfans (this is why Taylor Swift’s Universal Music Group deal includes a broader range of rights than just recordings, as her sales were only going to go in one direction). Superstars are not dead, they are changing, become smaller and less, well, super. It is an inevitable second-order consequence of streaming splintering listening and the smart labels will harness the trend rather than try to fight it.

Music subscriber market shares Q2 2021

MIDiA’s annual music subscriber market shares report is now available here (see below for more details of the report). Here are some of the key findings.

The global base of music subscribers continues to grow strongly with 523.9 million music subscribers at the end of Q2 2021, which was up by 109.5 million (26.4%) from one year earlier. Crucially, this was faster growth than the prior year. There is a difference between revenue and subscribers – with ARPU deflators, such as the rise of multi-user plans and the growth of lower-spending emerging markets – but growth in monetised users represents the foundation stone of the digital service provider (DSP) streaming market. So, accelerating growth at this relatively late stage of the streaming market’s evolution is clearly positive.

Spotify remains the DSP with the highest market share (31%), but this was down from 33% in Q2 2020 and 34% in Q2 2019. With Apple Music being a distant second with 15% market share, and Spotify adding more subscribers in the 12 months leading up to Q2 2021 than any other single DSP, there is no risk of Spotify losing its leading position anytime soon – but the erosion of its share is steady and persistent. Amazon Music once again out-performed Spotify in terms of growth (25% compared to 20%), but the standout success story among Western DSPs was YouTube Music, for the second successive year. Google was once the laggard of the space, but the launch of YouTube Music has transformed its fortunes, growing by more than 50% in the 12 months leading up to Q2 2021. YouTube Music was the only Western DSP to increase global market share during this the period. YouTube Music particularly resonates among Gen Z and younger Millennials, which should have alarm bells ringing for Spotify, as their core base of Millennial subscribers from the 2010s in the West are now beginning to age.

But the biggest subscriber growth came from emerging markets. Between them, Tencent Music Entertainment (TME) and NetEase Cloud Music added 35.7 million subscribers in the 12 months leading up to Q2 2021. Together, they accounted for 18% of global market shares, despite being available only in China. Yandex, in Russia, was the other big gainer, doubling its subscriber base to reach 2% of global market share.

Combined, Yandex, TME and NetEase account for 20% of subscriber market share, but they drive 37% of all subscriber growth in the 12 months leading up to Q2 2021.

The strong growth in subscribers holds an extra meaning going into 2022. The surge in non-DSP streaming in 2021 means that the streaming market is no longer dependent on the revenue contribution of maturing Western subscriber markets (nor indeed ARPU-diluting emerging markets). With non-DSP streaming revenue looking set to have contributed between a quarter and a third of streaming revenue increase in 2021, streaming revenues look set for strong growth, even if subscriber growth lessens. That is what you call a diversified market.

A little more detail on the subscriber market shares report:

The report has 23 pages and 13 figures featuring country level subscriber numbers, revenues and demographics by DSP. The accompanying data set has quarterly subscriber numbers and annual revenue figures from Q4 2015 to Q2 2016 by DSP by country, with 33 markets and 27 DSPs. The report and dataset is available to MIDiA subscribers hereand also available for individual purchase via the same link.

Email stephen@midiaresearch.com for more details.

Adele’s success will be measured in cultural impact – not sales

Adele is something of an anomaly in the modern music business, a throwback to how things used to be. These days even the biggest artists struggle to get mainstream attention for their new releases in a flooded market that is defined by more releases than ever before, and the ‘always on’ artist who is continually releasing new music and talking to their audience. Adele, though, follows the old model of landmark releases every half a decade and, up to now, she has managed to make it work by creating a cultural zeitgeist that the world opts into at scale. But the world has moved on a lot since her 2015 release, 25, and the nagging question is whether she can do it again with 30 in the much-changed music world.

Adele’s album releases act as chapter markers for the evolution of the recorded music market. Back in 2008, when 19 was released, it was still a sales (physical and downloads) and album dominated world. 90% of global revenues were from sales, while streaming was just 2%. With each half-decade release, the music world had moved on. Indeed, it could be argued that the biggest risk was with 25 in 2015, when streaming was already more than a fifth of revenues, and physical sales had fallen by 44% from 2008. Yet the album still managed to rack up 22 million sales and, in turn, became one of the biggest selling albums of the millennium. Adele bucked the prevailing industry trends.

Streaming does not favour albums

Fast forward to 2021 and the world has shifted even further, with 65% of revenues coming from streaming, and sales accounting for just a quarter. This is a dramatically different music world from the one in which 25 was released. Streaming will be the main way in which success is measured. Yet, just 15% of people listen to full albums on streaming services, so either Adele pulls an Ed Sheeran and has her entire album dominate the most streamed song charts (a possibility, but not a probability), or she has a few really big songs that rack up big streaming numbers. And to do that, she has to perform like a streaming-era artist.

Competing with streaming-era artists

Right now, Adele has two songs on Spotify with a billion streams. Compare this with Travis Scott who has three songs, two of which are more than 1.5 billion. Or Ed Sheeran, who has five songs, one of which is about to hit three billion (Shape of You). Heck, even Marshmello has three one billion stream tracks, of which one has 1.5 billion. No offence to Marshmello, but Adele will be expecting to have bigger cultural impact than him. It should be achievable (assuming that the music is strong enough), if for no other reason than the fact that there are three quarters of a billion more people streaming than in 2015.

Cultural impact will be the truest measure of success

But even if she does catch up on streaming figures, that probably is not how we should measure Adele’s success. In today’s world of fragmented fandom, fandom is defined by cultural movements rather than cultural moments. This is a dynamic that is intensified by the fact that media is also far more fragmented. Audiences are spread more thinly across a much wider range of platforms, shows and apps. It is simply much harder to create cultural moments. But that is exactly what Adele’s team will be planning to do. And given the current media buzz, she looks on track to do so once again, supported, as ever, by a simple but clever marketing campaign.

Recently, Adele has become much more visible, using Instagram and Facebook Live, pushing herself back into the public consciousness and even playing into meme culture. Beyond the music itself, it will be the continued use of social media, coupled with meeting the eager demand of traditional media that will determine whether 30 can become the sort of cultural phenomenon that 21 and 25 were. The fact that she still sings from the heart and is so relatable gives her an authenticity that is so often thin on the ground with today’s pop stars.

Creating a cultural moment

So, the success of 30 will probably be best measured in terms of whether there is a genuine cultural moment. In short, how long will Adele’s music and her team be able to maintain global interest and relevance? Success may be more about whether, two months down the line, we still have memes flooding TikTok and James Corden doing skits. This will say as much about how the world is responding to her music than how many streams she clocks up. And, of course, I have not even mentioned sales – not by accident. These metrics are just not going to be the way to gauge her success anymore (even considering the industry’s obsession with artificially boosted ‘sales’ figures with ‘sales equivalent streams’).

Adele has always been something of an anomaly, finding success through the power of her music rather than by playing whatever the latest marketing game is. Of course, expect every contemporary marketing card to be played (especially TikTok). But it will be through cultural impact, not streams, that we will truly understand how loudly her music still speaks.