How do streaming royalty flows work from platform to artist and where do the biggest leaks occur?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Streaming platforms pool subscription and ad revenue, keep a platform cut, then allocate the remaining “royalty pool” to rights holders using either a market‑share (pro‑rata) or, increasingly in debate, a user‑centric model; money for masters flows to labels/distributors while publishing flows through PROs, creating timing and allocation frictions that shrink artist receipts [1] [2]. The biggest leaks are not only headline low per‑stream rates but systemic points where revenue is diverted or delayed: platform fee mechanics, label/distributor splits and recoupment, publisher/PRO delays, promotional tools that devalue paid streams, and regional/contractal variation in pay rates [3] [4] [5].
1. How the money is collected and pooled on platforms
Streaming services generate revenue from paid subscriptions and advertising, keep a platform share, then construct a royalty pool from the remainder that will be distributed to rights holders—most platforms historically use a pro‑rata (market‑share) accounting method that assigns each track a share of the pool based on its total streams in a period [1] [2].
2. Two models for splitting the pool: pro‑rata vs user‑centric
Under pro‑rata the pool is split by overall stream share; critics say this benefits superstar tracks and playlists, while user‑centric models (used by TIDAL and Deezer in limited form) allocate an individual subscriber’s fee to only the artists that subscriber played, a shift proponents argue reduces leakage to hugely popular catalogues though adoption remains limited [2] [4].
3. Split paths: masters vs publishing and the plumbing that slows payments
Master royalties (recording owners) typically flow to labels or aggregators, who then pay artists per contract; publishing (songwriting/composition) is collected separately through PROs using identifiers like ISRC/ISWC, meaning money travels on different tracks and at different speeds—this divergence creates delays, mismatches and opportunities for funds to be held up or misallocated [2] [4].
4. Where headline “per‑stream” rates mislead
Per‑stream averages widely cited (e.g., $0.003–$0.005 for Spotify, higher for TIDAL) are blunt summaries that mask variation by country, subscription type, platform economics and contractual splits; platforms and industry calculators weight streams by region and service mix, so a “flat rate” number is often inaccurate and can hide where money is retained upstream [6] [7] [8].
5. Biggest leaks: platform policies, label/distributor cuts and recoupment
Significant leakage happens before artists see a cent: platforms retain a slice of gross revenue to fund operations [1]; labels and distributors extract large percentages or recoup costs—industry norms can leave new acts with single‑digit shares [5]; and when artists sell or fractionalize rights, payments must traverse new accounts and smart contracts, creating pauses or routing errors that interrupt flows [9] [5].
6. Secondary leaks: promotional tools, payment thresholds and regional economics
In‑app promotion schemes (e.g., Discovery Mode) can boost plays but pay less per stream; platforms have introduced thresholds and play validity rules (Spotify’s 1,000‑stream policy and 30‑second minimum) that reduce micro‑payments; and regional price differences lower revenue per stream in lower‑priced markets—together these features diminish effective artist income even as gross streams rise [4] [8] [10].
7. Fixes under discussion and trade‑offs to watch
Proposals like broader user‑centric adoption, greater transparency in payouts, faster reconciliation between PROs and labels, and improved metadata/ISRC usage would reduce leakage and unclaimed funds, but each carries trade‑offs: user‑centric benefits niche artists but redistributes revenue away from mass catalogue holders, and transparency pressures incumbent contracts and intermediaries who currently benefit from opacity [1] [2] [4].
8. Bottom line: where artists lose most and what to monitor
Artists lose most where money is siphoned upstream—platform accounting choices, label/distributor contractual splits and recoupment, delayed or fragmented publishing collections, and promotional mechanisms that devalue streams; tracking exact impact requires platform‑level data and contract details, which are often confidential, so improvement depends on policy, disclosure and better metadata across the ecosystem [3] [5] [7].