<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Steve Cooper didn\u2019t expect much from Spotify.\nWhen the New York-based band Spirit Animal released \u201CThe Black Jack White\u201D last spring, the band\u2019s frontman didn\u2019t have high hopes about the streaming music service. He loves the platform and subscribes to it but didn\u2019t think Spotify would help his band this early in its career.\nBut out of nowhere, Sean Parker, Napster\u2019s infamous cofounder and early Spotify investor, added the funk-rock group\u2019s single to his trendy \u201CHipster International\u201D playlist. More than 880,000 fans follow the near-200 song collection, which includes established acts like The Black Keys and Phoenix alongside up-and-coming artists. For an emerging group with only 6,776 Facebook fans and 1,588 Twitter followers, the surprising exposure gave Spirit Animal an unanticipated boost. The frontman says the playlist inclusion had a similar effect to a DJ playing a radio single. \n\u201C[It] worked wonders for us,\u201D Cooper tells Mashable. \u201CThe Spotify plays have resulted in new fans and interest in the band. From a personal standpoint, I've had the pleasure of hearing our song blaring from a bar across from my apartment, unprompted.\u201D Spotify users have streamed \u201CThe Black Jack White\u201D more than 450,000 times since Parker laid ears on the tune. As a result, Spirit Animal has received unexpected royalties. The band\u2019s not getting rich or making a living off the cash. But the members have noticed a tangible impact: touring costs. \n \u201CIf things keep pace as they have this summer, our 2013 Spotify streams could pay for as many as 12 monthly payments on our new tour van,\u201D Cooper says about the group\u2019s 2008 Chevrolet Express 1500. \u201CIt's cool when you see that volume translate to dough.\u201D\nSpirit Animal\u2019s Spotify plays have triggered a noticeable uptick in digital music sales. But for the most part, guitarist Cal Stamp thinks the sheer number of Spotify streams, despite producing far less revenue per listen, has comparatively dwarfed the band\u2019s iTunes revenues. It\u2019s also helped convince online listeners to attend in-person shows. People sing along and know the accompanying dance from the single\u2019s video.\nNevertheless, the band thinks it still needs to take other traditional steps to ensure that Kingdom Phylum, its latest self-released EP, finds success. At this point, they think that goal requires far more than just the digital platform. But it\u2019s a start.\n\u201CI don't know if [Spotify\u2019s] a game-changer,\u201D Stamp tells Mashable. \u201CIt's definitely helpful. It's a tool in the box of tools.\u201D\nSpotify hopes more artists see rewards from working with the streaming service. During a SXSW 2013 keynote interview, cofounder and CEO Daniel Ek outlined his master plan to accomplish the company\u2019s goals. He painted an ambitious vision for his digital platform, which at the time boasted 24 million worldwide total users and 6 million paid subscribers.\n\u201CMy goal is to not just convert the 24 million into buying [a subscription],\u201D Ek told the L.A. Times. \u201CMy goal is to get 1 billion using streaming services rather than a piracy service.\"\nUnlike many music industry personnel, who are based in a field known more for reaping profits than rewarding artists, Ek\u2019s remarks stood out for his aim to champion artist interests. He proclaimed that part of his company\u2019s mission, which, unlike Apple or Google is able to keep its undivided attention on music-related issues, is to pay musicians their fair share down the road.\n\"I want to get back to the time when artists can create a piece of music for five years without worrying about how to pay rent,\" he told the Hollywood Reporter.\nIn many ways, Ek bears the torch for a company some think could revitalize the music industry. Spotify so far has poured $500 million back into the pockets of artists, labels and publishers. It\u2019s also promised to double those payments by the year\u2019s end and has suggested the figure could skyrocket in subsequent years as it continues to grow its user base and help curb piracy.\nIf Spotify, once referred to by Businessweek as \u201Cmusic\u2019s last best hope,\u201D can deliver on those promises, the Swedish streaming platform could save a dying industry. To help artists pay their bills, the company needs to attract more paying subscribers to use its online music service. That means steering folks away from current competitors Pandora, Rdio, MOG and Deezer. It\u2019ll also have to fend off recent launches of Apple\u2019s iTunes Radio and Google Play Music All Access. With that much competition, not everyone\u2019s convinced Spotify can successfully hit its lofty goals.\nSpotify today is both a beacon of hope and a lightning rod for the music industry. As the company celebrates five years since it publicly launched its streaming service, the disruptive service stands at a crossroad. It could either revolutionize how listeners consume music on a global scale or fall by the wayside. Much of its future success hinges on a simple question: Is Spotify a savior or villain for musicians? \n\nImage: Louis Lanzano/ Bloomberg via Getty Images\nIn April 2006, Daniel Ek founded Spotify with Martin Lorentzon, a fellow Swedish entrepreneur who started the Internet marketing firm TradeDoubler, which had purchased one of Ek\u2019s early startups. Before the two businessmen met, Ek had led numerous other tech ventures, including BitTorrent client \u03BCTorrent and interactive browser game Stardoll.\nTogether, the technologists wanted Spotify to accomplish a simple goal: create an online platform that gave listeners access to a vast music catalog. They hoped to improve upon Napster\u2019s model and create a legal alternative to piracy that both consumers and the industry considered legitimate.\nSpotify first offered its services on Oct. 7, 2008, to select users in Scandinavian countries, the UK, France and Spain. After initially growing its user base across a handful of European countries, Spotify launched to American users in July 2011 following sluggish negotiations with major and independent record labels.\nThe now London-based company has expanded to four different continents and reached more than 26 million users, including 6 million paying subscribers. According to Chief Marketing and Revenue Officer Jeff Levick, Spotify access reaches 32 countries, including recent launches in Argentina, Greece, Taiwan and Turkey. The 42-year-old marketing head, a former Google and AOL exec who joined the company soon after its U.S. launch, has witnessed the company\u2019s transformation into a global music platform.\nAt the moment, Spotify currently employs more than 900 workers, up from 300 in 2011. Levick works out of the company\u2019s New York office and calls it the most collaborative work environment he\u2019s ever experienced. The company\u2019s second largest workspace has an open floor plan, synced Sonos speakers and exclusive in-office concerts. Many of its Chelsea-based employees, the exec tells Mashable, make collaborative playlists with one another and occasionally hold Friday jam sessions on a stage back-lined with musical equipment.\n\n\u201CWe're obsessed with music and we're obsessed with the industry,\u201D says Levick. \u201CEveryone comes to work every single day trying to make music a better experience for consumers, a better experience for artists, and to bring music and access to music to every single person on the planet.\u201D\nLevick says the average listener spends an estimated 110 minutes each day on the platform. Unlike radio, which traditionally plays in the background without much engagement, aside from the occasional dial turn, Spotify users actively listen. They search for specific artists, discover new bands, share playlists and send friends music recommendations.\n\u201CIf you mention any music to [users], it's two keystrokes and they're looking at it,\u201D says Mike Doughty, a New York-based singer-songwriter and Soul Coughing\u2019s former frontman. \u201CFrom early Judas Priest to my weird electronic album that I put out 30 years ago, it's all right there.\u201D\nFor Chief Content Officer Ken Parks, 49, who oversees Spotify\u2019s licensing agreements in the U.S., the service has transformed his relationship to music. \u201CI used to go to the store, buy something, bring it home, unwrap it,\u201D Parks tells Mashable. \u201CI don't have to do that anymore.\u201D\nParks has used Spotify to rediscover old personal favorites like Brian Eno through its mammoth library. The platform has also helped him receive a crash course from his son about hip hop. They create collaborative playlists together, which he says has expanded his musical horizons to include rappers such as Kendrick Lamar, A$AP Rocky and 2 Chainz, with relative ease and minimal costs.\nEven some of Spotify\u2019s largest critics grasp the platform\u2019s immense value and enjoy the user experience. Galaxie 500 drummer Damon Krukowski, an outspoken artist who\u2019s opposed the service\u2019s small and controversial payments, appreciates its deep catalog. He\u2019s a premium subscriber, which offers him the chance to hear more than 20 million songs, including a treasure trove of rare 1950s Catalonian music. Before Spotify, he had searched far and wide for select records, but even failed to find what he was looking for in Spain. Spotify allowed him to discover a vast collection of albums from that era. He cherishes that access.\n\u201CI'm not just a naysayer about [Spotify\u2019s artist payments],\u201D Krukowski explains. \u201CAs a consumer, I think it's incredible. It allows an access to music that I cannot find elsewhere. That, to me, is really precious.\u201D\n\nImage: Spotify\nIt\u2019s that kind of unprecedented access that has helped the company become a disruptive service. Levick thinks the company has just scratched the surface in terms of its international expansion, particularly as users begin to value access to the celestial jukebox more than the ownership of physical records, CDs or MP3s. Spotify and other digital services are tasked with shifting listeners\u2019 consumption patterns, which is no small undertaking.\nDespite the challenges, Levick insists the access-based model is a superior one. \u201CYou can listen to small amount of music over and over again that you purchased, or you can have an infinite amount of music selection and access,\u201D he says. \nFrom those who intuitively grasp the service, he repeatedly hears one message loud and clear: \u201CSpotify has changed my relationship with music.\u201D\nOne of Spotify\u2019s most promising signs is its growing number of paying subscribers between the ages of 18 and 24, which spokesman Graham James calls the company\u2019s core demographic (Spotify declined to elaborate). Parks, who worked for EMI Music for more than three years, remembers how much of the industry\u2019s old guard assumed young adults were no longer willing to purchase records, given how free music has become available in the post-Napster era. Spotify, he says, has defied those expectations.\n\u201CYou can't put the genie back in the bottle,\u201D Parks says. \u201CThe industry has learned a lot from the experiences of the last decade. Spotify\u2019s model is very different. We've monetized users and usage, rather than selling the units of music. It challenges a lot of the assumptions people have had in the business.\u201D\nCellist Nick Ogawa, who currently performs under the name Tak\u00E9nobu, has witnessed how Spotify has re-engaged fans once unwilling to pay for music. The Atlanta-based artist makes much of his income through digital services, namely iTunes sales driven through people who first streamed his songs on Pandora and Spotify. It pays his rent. \nOgawa thinks Spotify has triggered an important shift in the way people listen to music. That\u2019s a monumental change as once-reluctant listeners have opened their pockets to the subscription service.\n\u201CSpotify is really the replacement of illegal downloads,\u201D Ogawa tells Mashable. \u201CI have friends who swore that they would never buy music again, basically since Napster happened. But once there was a streaming service that had everything available for $10 a month, they were like, 'Okay, I will begin paying for music again.'\u201D\nAccording to Parks, Spotify\u2019s growing user base has translated into millions of dollars without cannibalizing the pre-existing revenue streams that have traditionally bolstered artist and label incomes. As more skeptics figure out Spotify\u2019s benefits and overcome their resistance to technological advances throughout the music industry, he thinks they\u2019ll embrace the service.\n\u201CFor a long time, the music business was focused on trying to wring more out of the existing people who still have memory of ever buying music,\u201D Parks says. \u201CWhen you look at the rest of the world, there\u2019s a ton of consumption, maybe a billion people online consuming a lot of music without paying for it and without being monetized at all. We're just getting started.\u201D\n\nImage: Flickr, Jon \u00C5slund\nDespite the encouraging signs, ones reflected in Spotify\u2019s recent $3 billion valuation from investors, the company hasn\u2019t turned a profit since it first launched the service five years ago. Spotify reported revenues of $578 million in 2012, up 128% from the prior year, but its losses also swelled from $60 million to $78 million.\nSpotify declined to discuss specifics regarding its financial standing in 2013 to date. Levick says the company stands \u201Csignificantly ahead\u201D of where it was at this point last year. Since approximately 70% of its revenue gets paid back to rights holders, he says the digital platform is forced to make a tough decision between focusing on growth and profit. For now, the company will emphasize global expansion.\n\u201CIt's more important to take that money and reinvest it into new markets, versus putting it back into this being a small service in a small number of places,\u201D Levick says. \u201COur investors are behind that, our board is behind that and our consumers are behind that.\u201D\nBeyond its worldwide expansion, Spotify is focusing on improving service so it remains enjoyable for consumers, brand partners and advertisers. The company has taken enormous steps to ensure it\u2019s not just a listening experience, but a social one too. It\u2019s allowed users to make collaborative playlists, view friends\u2019 music tastes and follow favorite artists. Spotify has also partnered with hardware companies, including automobile manufacturers and high-end electronic brands, to bundle the software with their products. With one of its latest announcements, Spotify Connect, it\u2019s attempting to let listeners switch devices and move across different environments in a seamless manner.\nSpotify, perhaps more than any other digital music service, is convincing listeners to not just use the platform, but fully engage with it. That level of interaction has led to lucrative partnerships with companies such as Advanced Auto Parts and Trojan, whose advertisements blare between songs on the free version. That\u2019s allowed the tech startup to keep its services available to non-paying subscribers. Brands like Coca-Cola and Reebok have partnered with Spotify, too, co-branding their own respective location-based and workout apps. Needless to say, behemoth social networking site Facebook integrated with Spotify early on.\nThe combination of all those moving parts, Parks says, has helped labels and artists swallow the pill and give up some control of their catalogs. \u201CIt's been embraced by rights holders,\u201D he says. \u201CIt ultimately benefits everybody involved in making music.\u201D\nThose rights holders, including the three major record companies and some independent labels, are largely supportive of Spotify\u2019s impact because they\u2019ve reportedly received equity in the streaming service. It\u2019s an oft-overlooked piece of the equation, but it\u2019s ultimately how Spotify convinced labels to work with its platform.\n\u201C[Spotify is] giving up a small piece of the business, but a piece nonetheless, in exchange for the access to these catalogs,\u201D explains David Macias, president of Thirty Tigers, an independent Nashville-based label that works with Trampled By Turtles, Jason Isbell and numerous other acts. \u201CIf you're Sony or Universal, then you're like, 'Okay, nobody's given me that before. Everybody wants our catalog and under these terms, but nobody's ever offered us a small piece of equity.\u2019\u201D\n\nImage: Flickr,  Birkinbine \n\u201CIf Spotify ever goes public, they could make a lot of money,\u201D Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker frontman David Lowery (above) tells Mashable. \u201CThey [would\u2019ve done] that by pimping our songs out, our recordings. Where's our share when the IPO comes? Where's our share of money?\u201D\nMusicians typically earn varying mechanical royalties based on whether they own a composition (as either a songwriter or publisher) and for the recorded performance of a song. But they\u2019re unlikely to profit from the label\u2019s speculative play with Spotify, in which the those institutions traded short-term access for long-term assets. If the tech startup goes public, which many observers suspect will happen, those labels stand to make a fair share of money. Artists won\u2019t.\nLevick says Spotify shouldn\u2019t determine how money goes back to artists during the creative process. While the company is more than happy to educate musicians on how to use the service to connect with listeners, it won\u2019t meddle with the intricate relationships between labels and songwriters.\n\u201CIt's not our goal to mediate payments between artists and labels,\u201D Levick says. That's a business [in which] we have zero expertise \u2026 How the payments and the entitlements down the chain get sorted, I think that's for the music industry to [decide]. We're focused on being the best platform for listening.\u201D\nCertain artists find that stance hypocritical. Doughty thinks Spotify\u2019s position casts doubts on its promises to help musicians pay the rent. While he sees value in the service, he recognizes that, no matter the promises, the company is still a self-interested corporation with a bottom line. He thinks it\u2019s unlikely the company will fully change its tune and become a benevolent entity.\n\u201C[They\u2019re not] going to suddenly turn around and say, 'Well, we're making enough money. Where we can spread the wealth?\u2019\u201D he says.\nThe way Krukowski (above, left) sees things, artists could be worse off than ever before, due to the platform expansion. Given digital streaming services are becoming a major part of how artists connect to fans, he says labels are becoming increasingly irrelevant, which could diminish the amount musicians make across the board. \u201CSpotify, Pandora and Apple are not record companies,\u201D he says. \u201CThey do not flow that money back to musicians to make records.\u201D\n\u201CThese tech companies have many, many plans for where that income goes,\u201D Krukowski continues. \u201CMusicians are not stockholders. We're not clients. We're not even providers. We're nowhere on the list. They did their deals with the major labels that gave them the keys to the kingdom \u2026They're not counting on royalties for payback.\u201D\nTo an extent, Krukowski knows better than to expect financial rewards from Spotify. The longtime Galaxie 500 drummer, who recently has focused on his indie-folk project Damon and Naomi (below), has never made a living solely from music, despite his involvement in several critically acclaimed bands over the past quarter century. Along the way, he\u2019s attended graduate school, overseen a small book publishing house and taught at Harvard University.\n\nImage: Damon &amp; Naomi\nKrukowski wrote a scathing feature for Pitchfork in November 2012 that berated Spotify, Pandora and other streaming services regarding how little they paid artists. Citing his BMI royalty check from that year\u2019s first quarter, he says Galaxie 500 received a total of $1.05 for the 5,960 times Spotify users played \u201CTugboat,\u201D one of the trio\u2019s oldest songs. His total share amounted to $0.35 \u2014 a better deal than most artists, since the band owns its masters. At that rate, he calculated one LP was worth 47,680 plays. \nWith major digital streaming platforms expanding, it\u2019s hard for Krukowski to see financial conditions improving for artists. He worries just a handful of companies controlling what music consumers have access to will ultimately hurt artists and their ability to reach fans, without sacrificing part of their paychecks. \"We've never had that huge of a monopoly on the distribution of music,\" he says. \nKrukowski\u2019s meager royalties portray a grim picture, with several companies dominating the digital landscape. It\u2019s kept large artists like AC/DC and Garth Brooks from working with Spotify. A growing legion of artists, including Atoms for Peace, Aimee Mann and LaRoux, have removed some or all of their catalogs from the service in protest.\n\u201CWhen you have people at the top of the industry saying they haven't been fairly compensated, you know that no one's being fairly compensated, not just me,\u201D Krukowski says. \u201CIt's [happening to] people getting [several thousand] plays, like David Lowery, or a millions of plays, like Thom Yorke, who feel grossly taken advantage of financially.\u201D\nLowery, Krukowski and other musicians have helped lead the conversation on streaming services by publicly discussing their royalty statements. Lowery, who currently works as a lecturer for the University of Georgia\u2019s music business program, received $12.05 for 116,280 Spotify streams for \u201CLow,\u201D Cracker\u2019s huge 1993 single, over a three-month period. That\u2019s better, he says, than the $16.89 he earned for more than 1,159,000 plays on Pandora.\nWhile Lowery thinks Spotify treats artists better, particularly given Pandora\u2019s attempts to lower the rates required to pay songwriters, he questions the Swedish company\u2019s ability to increase payments to artists, which its leaders promise in the years to come. \n\u201CPaid subscribers must grow for artists to gain a greater share of revenue,\u201D Lowery says. \u201CThat's indisputable \u2026 The percentage paid to artists cannot increase unless the rate of premium subscribers grows relative to free subscribers. And it's not clear that that's going to happen.\u201D\nIt's important to note that some analysts think Spotify's payouts only seem small, compared to downloads and radio plays, because they're incremental verus paid up front or spread out. They argue that if artists aren't seeing an equitable share of the revenue, the blame should be placed squarely on the record labels, not on Spotify.\nYorke expressed his views in blunter fashion when he tweeted in July: \n\nMake no mistake new artists you discover on #Spotify will no get paid. meanwhile shareholders will shortly being rolling in it. Simples.\n\u2014 Thom Yorke (@thomyorke) July 14, 2013\n\nNigel Godrich, Yorke\u2019s Atoms for Peace bandmate and Radiohead producer, added: \n\nThe numbers don't even add up for spotify yet.. But it's not about that.. It's about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable\n\u2014 nigel godrich (@nigelgod) July 14, 2013\n\n\"We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers,\" a Spotify spokesperson replied to their remarks in Fast Company.\nRecently, Yorke had even more pointed words for Spotify. In an expletive-laden interview with a Mexican website, he said fighting the service was a \"massive battle\" for the \"future of the music industry.\"\nMacias thinks his artists receive a fair deal from the music platform, but that it\u2019s too early to judge the service in the U.S. \u201CIt's a tree that will grow into a very sustaining shelter,\u201D he says.\nHe specifically cites Sweden, which he says has \u201Cgrown into an entire forest,\u201D as a prime example of the service\u2019s potential impact on artists. The country has an estimated 1.5 million subscribers \u2014 15% of its entire population. As a result, Spotify comprises 70% of the country\u2019s entire pre-recorded music revenues, more than any other individual retailer. Macias says those figures still haven\u2019t peaked as revenue has grown during each of the past five years, including a 14% jump in 2012 and a 12% rise so far in 2013. \u201CThe impact isn't just theoretical or hypothetical \u2014 it's real,\u201D he says. \u201CHow anyone can make the argument that this isn't a viable business or they don't pay rights holders?\u201D In a Billboard op-ed, the Thirty Tigers president applied the Swedish market to one of his American artists, singer-songwriter John Fullbright, as an example to project the service\u2019s potential impact. He found a stark difference for the Oklahoma-based artist, who Macias noted had sold a little less than 20,000 records. Fullbright, who currently makes $2,300 from the service, could earn $65,000 if the U.S. had Sweden\u2019s market penetration. Parks says Spotify is the best thing that\u2019s happened to Sweden\u2019s music industry in a long time. It\u2019s for those reasons, the ones Macias described, that he remains hopeful about the service\u2019s longterm potential across the globe.\n\u201CArtists are earning a livelihood now in a market that was absolutely dead before Spotify came along,\u201D he says, \u201CIt's an incredibly efficient and compelling way to deliver music to users. A big fraction of that population actually pays for this service. A bigger fraction uses it. And scale will turn every market into the Sweden experience.\u201D\n\nImage: Flickr, Jon \u00C5slund\nIn most markets, artists aren\u2019t benefitting from Spotify as much as its execs would like to see. The Swedish example hasn\u2019t transpired in many other countries, so the company is trying to prove its worth elsewhere. Beyond expanding its operations into new markets, Spotify hopes to curb illegal downloads and torrents. To do so, its officials have adopted an anti-piracy stance whereby it hopes the platform will be adopted by one-time illegal downloaders.\n\u201CIf you're not going to pay for music, you're going to steal it,\u201D Levick says. \u201CSpotify is a much better place to house your music legally and make it accessible for people so that they don't have to choose other options like piracy. \u201C\nWill Page, Spotify\u2019s director of economics, released a study this past July suggesting the digital platform may help lower piracy rates. Based on his research in the Netherlands, a country where the service has grown its presence, he reported that artists who opposed Spotify experienced a higher illegal download rate than musicians streaming their music through the service. Based on the study\u2019s findings, the company suggested it could minimize piracy in other markets where illegal downloading runs rampant.\nKrukowski isn\u2019t convinced Spotify is fighting piracy for the right reasons. While company executives claim that want to end piracy for the sake of artists, he thinks it\u2019s merely a self-serving attempt for the company to improve its bottom line. It\u2019s a financial play more than benevolent goodwill toward musicians, he says.\n\u201CThey don't have relationships with artists,\u201D Krukowski says. \u201CThey have relationships with shareholders. They are shutting down piracy for their own gain, not for the gain of the artists.\u201D\nThe company does stand to gain from shutting down piracy websites. According to Levick, it\u2019s an option that\u2019s better for artists than illegal downloads, which offers them little-to-no cash. \u201CWe have to license that music with rightsholders,\u201D he says. \u201CThat's what sets us apart from companies like Napster, which had a similar model as ours, except the difference is that they were technically stealing the music that people were listening to.\u201D George Howard, an associate professor of management at Berklee College of Music and chief operating officer of the parent company that owns Wolfgang's Vault, Daytrotter and Paste Magazine, believes Spotify offers non-financial rewards, often overlooked since artists aren\u2019t receiving their money\u2019s worth. The longtime music business veteran says musicians now possess an important and undervalued tool to reach new listeners, who can become fans and may support their careers by purchasing records, tickets and other merchandise. More than anything, he says the platform\u2019s ability to connect bands to active listeners remains critical in helping artists make a living.\n Austin-based songwriter Matt Hines hasn\u2019t broken through to a true mainstream audience at this point of his career. The founder of The Eastern Sea, a one-time bedroom project, currently sees the indie-rock group as a startup. In order to be successful, Hines believes it\u2019s crucial to get the word out about the project\u2019s music and thinks Spotify will help them achieve their goals. \u201CAs a new band on the market, the majority of the music listening world is resistant to unknown names,\u201D Hines tells Mashable. \u201CSpotify makes it easy to digest something new. If we keep the content high in quality, we can rely on Spotify listeners to deviate from their usual playlists and take a chance on something we know they'll enjoy.\u201D\nIn placing music on Spotify, Hines had made its catalog available to users beyond the group\u2019s active fan base. Fans of indie-rock acts California Wives or Mother Falcon can stumble upon The Eastern Sea in each band\u2019s \u201Crelated artists\u201D section. If cuts like \u201CThe Snow\u201D or \u201CThe Match\u201D gain enough traction, the songs can find their ways into Spotify's Radio rotation, on certain stations. Spotify may also help The Eastern Sea through its Discover tool, which creates an individualized homepage for consumers, based on their unique listening habits. If a user listens to The Eastern Sea, she might learn about one of the band\u2019s upcoming shows in her hometown. So far, The Eastern Sea\u2019s exposure to new listeners has netted the band some fans and prompted them to buy records and attend shows. While Hines hasn\u2019t earned his keep from Spotify, the streaming platform has helped build a foundation with unlikely audiences who otherwise might have missed its music. \"Allowing our full albums to be streamed on Spotify is worth its bandwidth in gold,\u201D Hines says. \u201CWe meet people every night on tour that discovered our music by streaming, which ends up being dollars in our pocket in the long run.\u201D Ogawa has had some fans, who discovered his work from digital services like Spotify, reach out to him. But he\u2019s also been on the consumer end and purchased concert tickets \u2014 Twin Shadow, Beach House, Alt-J \u2014 after using his premium subscription to check out new artists.\nNot everyone believes in Spotify\u2019s promotional value and ability to drive digital and physical sales. While the service has launched features like Radio and Discover to improve user experience, they\u2019re also relatively new and not always used by listeners. And Lowery doesn't believe people are using features like Discover and Radio enough to actually provide much benefit to artists.\nFor emerging artists like Hines and Ogawa, Howard thinks it\u2019s particularly important to develop multiple revenue streams. Could Spotify pay artists better as it grows? Possibly. But the music businessman believes that speculation at this moment doesn\u2019t help acts make money today. What matters most, he says, is reaching fans through a variety of different avenues. And Spotify is part of that equation.\n\nThe Spotify House at SXSW 2012.Image: Flickr, Johan Ejermark\nAt this point, Spotify will likely continue to increase its revenues and expand its footprint. The company will launch into new countries, grow its user base and convince more people to fork over $10 per month. What remains uncertain, however, is the rate at which consumers follow in lockstep as tech titans Google and Apple grow their presences in the crowded streaming music service market.\nRemember Ek\u2019s promise to do right by artists? That can still happen, Levick says, if the company can continue its current levels of expansion and convince users along the way to buy into its relatively affordable premium model.\n\u201CA global Spotify, and a Spotify with hundreds of millions of consumers on it, presents a massive opportunity for artists,\u201D he says. \u201C[At that scale], in Daniel's vision, he's right. Artists will be able to support themselves on that line of revenue when you're talking at that level.\u201D\nParks thinks it\u2019s unfair for Spotify\u2019s critics to point out the company\u2019s flaws in its infancy. The platform needs to scale first before it can be adequately judged. He remains confident it will eventually mature just like other online services have over the past decade.\n\u201CIn 2003, iTunes was a small business,\u201D he says. \u201CThey weren't paying out a lot of money either. We're paying out a significant amount of money to our rights holders, and we're still just starting. This is something that can reach potentially everybody on the planet, and we've only sort of just touched the surface.\u201D\nApple, Parks adds, endured controversies with iTunes before the online retailer became a wildly successful venture. Radiohead, as he recalls, initially refrained from making its music available on Apple\u2019s digital retail service. To an extent, musicians who withheld their songs from digital retailers were fighting an ownership model based on the same basic principles as traditional record sales. Spotify is different given its access-based model, which could make battles even more arduous.\nParks acknowledges it could take even longer than iTunes to convince certain holdout artists to see the Spotify benefits. Metallica and Pink Floyd, two legacy acts that have reluctantly shared their catalogs, have made their music available on the platform during the past year. For those unwilling to work with the service, Howard says owners of master recordings have the ability to withdraw their catalogs. That\u2019s not an option all streaming services offer.\n\u201CThey allow artists to drop from Spotify if it's not working for their model of how they want to make money,\u201D Lowery says. \u201CThat's actually a good thing to have [that] choice.\u201D\nFor Camper Van Beethoven\u2019s next record, Lowery says his longtime band cold-experimented with a \u201Cnuclear option.\u201D If all goes according to plan, his group will withdraw their digital rights so they\u2019re not webcast. It\u2019s difficult to make that happen, but other bands like Tool have successfully done so. He thinks that route may give artists an alternate option that leads to higher profits.\n\u201CWe\u2019d have this window, six months, where it's only [sold] on analog or only on some streaming service that wants to pay us a premium,\u201D he says.\nSpotify doesn\u2019t publicly skirmish with it detractors, but rather points out how many are on the platform. Levick guesses that \u201C99.9%\u201D of all artists work with the company. For the remaining batch, they have an entire team, including Parks, who are willing to answer questions, engage in constructive dialogues and talk to artist management. But at the end of the day, he says it\u2019s making less and less sense for musicians to hold out. \u201CFor an artist to deny their fans a way to listen to their music, that's not a good long-term strategy,\u201D Levick says.\n\nImage: Flickr, Blixt  If one thing\u2019s certain, Spotify is nearing a tipping point as it celebrates its fifth birthday. The Swedish company has persuaded many observers of its merits, but still has a significant amount of work left to fulfill its promises. For every band like Spirit Animal that\u2019s able to pay its bills, there are plenty of musicians who see pennies on the dollar. In some musicians\u2019 eyes, Spotify is the lesser of evils in the music industry. It\u2019s not as bad, some artists say, as companies like Pandora and Grooveshark, which are respectively lobbying to change laws in their favor or allegedly stealing from songwriters. Musicians do think the Swedish startup can treat them better en route to its grand vision. \nOne way to accomplish that goal, say artists, is to increase the transparency of how Spotify deals with musicians and ownership. The company could also place more limits on the service\u2019s free access in order to push additional listeners to subscribe. In addition, Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason even suggested that a \u201C50/50 split\u201D of streaming revenues between artists and labels would be ideal. As an inevitable watershed moment approaches, Spotify has a strong shot at redefining the music business. The platform has the potential to disrupt what\u2019s long been considered a broken and dying industry in need of major overhauls. Many believe the service is in the best position to right the sinking ship.\nWhile Spotify may be able to help some artists today, enormous expectations have fallen upon the Swedish startup. Some opponents want the company to stop acting as a neutral third party unwilling to interfere with the music industry\u2019s longstanding practices. Like anything with promise, be it a one-hit wonder or a rising startup company, Spotify\u2019s praise at times has been overshadowed by its critics. Levick says even more patience is required, given its potential longterm impact. Perhaps he\u2019s right \u2014 maybe all Spotify needs is more time and a big enough window of opportunity from listeners and artists to prove its valor.\nAs Levick said, legions of consumers have already raved that Spotify has changed their relationship with music. But if Spotify\u2019s employees are really that obsessed with music and serving musicians, shouldn\u2019t they go one step further and disrupt the way artists get paid? If the company wants to be music\u2019s last best hope, couldn\u2019t it work toward redefining the music industry on all sides? \nThe remaining question isn\u2019t whether Spotify is capable of going that far, but whether its execs want to go all-in on their promises to artists. Only then will musicians truly look to Spotify as their savior.\nFeatured image: Mashable, Bob Al-Greene\n      window._msla=window.loadScriptAsync||function(src,id){if(document.getElementById(id))return;var js=document.createElement('script');js.id=id;js.src=src;document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0].parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);};\n_msla(\"//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js\",\"twitter_jssdk\");"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2013/10/06/spotify-music-economy/?ico=ushome%5Eeditors_choice>