Can artists pay their way to more visibility and status on digital platforms? We’re not talking about paid marketing but features like Spotify’s Discover Mode. Is this a 21st-century equivalent to Payola?
First off, a reminder of what the term «Payola» entails. Payola is the illegal practice of paying a radio station or other media outlet to play a particular song or promote a product without disclosing the payment to the audience. It’s essentially a form of bribery to artificially influence the popularity or success of a song, or artist.
It emerged in the public consciousness in the 1950s with scandals and congressional hearings related to a new genre of music, rock ’n roll. Its roots, though, are in the early 1900 century with Vaudeville and silent movies.
In a sense payola is an early, deceptive version of «native marketing» – inserting commercial messaging in editorial content. In this context, creating the illusion that songs are being featured on their merit or the genuine preferences of DJs or influencers when in reality, it is a paid promotion.
In many countries, including the US, payola is prohibited by law. Radio stations are required to disclose any sponsored content or paid promotions to their listeners. What we are looking into here is the power of music streaming services to influence consumer patterns, and whether the methods are ethical and represent a level playing field.
How Discovery Mode Works
Spotify launched “discovery mode” in 2020, a feature that has generated some controversy. It allows artists to forgo a portion of their royalties to receive a boost in algorithm-led zones of the app such as the autoplay queue, radio, and mixes.
Spotify claims “on average, artists see +50% in saves, +44% in user playlist adds, and +37% in follows during the first month”. We know that Spotify is the most «stingy» of all music streaming services, and it’s hard to verify whether musicians actually make money off these new «discoveries».
The whole idea behind «more exposure» in exchange for a commission fee can be construed as yet another way for Spotify to squeeze more «juice from the lemon» (and not in that sweet Robert Plant way!*).
The American Association of Independent Music claims that the Discovery Mode “brings into question the credibility of Spotify’s recommendation engine.» And, isn’t the whole idea behind it, that the algorithms are not to be manipulated? It is the big question, how «hands-on» is Spotify with its algorithm?
And, therein lies the rub, paid visibility through marketing channels on the platform is one thing, visibility in «organic» channels another. In this case, recommendations etc. for users are considered «organic», governed by user actions and profiles, not by commercial interests.
The so-called Tidal scandal in 2015, when the company was accused of manipulating streaming numbers for two albums: Kanye West’s “The Life of Pablo” and Beyoncé’s «Lemonade” is a reminder of the importance of trust in the incorruptibility of algorithms and streaming data. The case was a significant blow to public trust and subscriber numbers.
The dilemma for artists may well be if Spotify is prone to «adjusting» the algorithms and editorial content for the benefit of those willing to give up a percentage of their revenue, why not «turn down the levers» on artists who are vocal against the company?
This may be too much of a conspiratorial line of thought, but it is an example of the negative effects «overcommercializing» a gatekeeper service like Spotify’s might have.
*The Lemon Song, Led Zeppelin
