Spotify CEO Daniel Ek is making headlines again, but this time for all the wrong reasons. In a series of tweets, Ek mused about content creation costs being “close to zero” – a notion that rightfully irked many artists.
Ek was seemingly pondering ways to attract more subscribers while minimizing payouts. He pondered classics that could retain value for centuries, like Marcus Aurelius’ writings. But his framing of expenses drew instant criticism from creators.
Singer-songwriter Cheryl B. Engelhardt fired back that her Grammy-nominated album required “thousands spent on quality sounds, my education, my gear.” Fellow indie artist Shimmer Johnson echoed the sentiment, remarking “Great, you’re a billionaire off everyone else’s hard work and time. Congrats!”
The facts say otherwise. Most artists earn paltry sums from streams – a million plays nets about $4,000. And over 80% have fewer than 1,000 monthly listeners. For niche creators like “Weird Al” Yankovic, the game heavily favors mega-stars.
After igniting a firestorm, Ek clarified he didn’t mean to undermine creative efforts. But the damage was done. And his timing couldn’t be worse, coming after Spotify cut over 1,500 jobs and its micro-genre site, delighting music nerds.
Ek admitted the layoffs disrupted more than expected. And questioning content costs now seems desperate as the podcast boom cools and music copyright pushback grows. It’s as if he’s searching for the next cash cow to replace fading strategies. But upsetting artists is a surefire way to shorten shelf life. Ek would be wise to consider the true costs of creativity before counting his next billions.
