Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Culture
  2. Music
1 December 2021

Why I hate Spotify Wrapped

We know Spotify exploits artists. We shouldn’t let it exploit music fans too.

By Ellen Peirson-Hagger

Spotify doesn’t pay musicians fairly. And now it’s asking us to do its marketing for free?

This thought comes to my mind every December when I see someone tweeting about having streamed Ed Sheeran via Spotify for 5,000 hours during the year, or feigning embarrassment about the inclusion of Abba in the list of their top five most-played artists of the last 12 months. Spotify Wrapped – a feature made available to the platform’s users today – distils a year’s listening into statistics, such as your most-streamed songs, artists and genres. It claims to take a “deep dive” into your listening habits, producing a graphic that is easily shared on social media, and so often ends up trending on Twitter, offering ever more advertising for Spotify. I can’t stand it.

Songwriting and music-making may be an aspirational career, but there is labour involved – beyond the artists and including the writers, producers, instrumentalists, mixers and more. And while Spotify doesn’t disclose exactly how much it pays, industry experts suggest the rate is less than $0.004 per stream – an amount that is cut up by a record company and shared out between the many people who may have worked on a single song. That’s no way to make a living – never mind the fact that the touring industry (where artists often do stand a chance of making money) has been decimated by the pandemic over the last 20 months. 

This is why I hate Spotify Wrapped (which should at least be called “Spotify Unwrapped”: it works as some kind of nauseating revelation after all). It’s a marketing tool – plain and simple – that the streaming platform dishes out as an attempt at a bit of fun. But its bright colours and “All is well here! Look how much music you’re streaming!” message obscures the sinister nature of Spotify’s power over the music industry and the artists no longer able to make a living from their music. It’s not fun when people’s livelihoods are at stake.

[See also: Thanks to Adele, Spotify will no longer shuffle albums by default. Music fans should be grateful]

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A weekly dig into the New Statesman’s archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

I don’t blame the fans. Music listeners only want to support their favourite artists. Many musicians choose to promote Spotify’s services too, and I don’t blame them either: the horrible infrastructure of the current industry has left them with few viable alternatives than to suck up to streaming platforms, in the hope that they will appear on the most sought-after playlists. Fans want to please artists, and artists want to please Spotify to appeal to more fans – how can this loop of exploitation ever end?

Content from our partners
How automation can help telecoms companies unlock their growth potential
The pandemic has had a scarring effect on loneliness, but we can do better
Feel confident gifting tech to your children this Christmas

If Spotify is going to continue encouraging its users (paying customers!) to do its marketing for free, despite being valued at $54bn, then I’d have thought it could afford to bump up its per-song rate. Apparently not. Last year, it even “experimented” with a new feature that would offer artists an algorithmic boost on playlists – for which musicians would have to take a cut in their already pitiful royalties.

If that’s not enough, we can of course go through all the other suspicious things Spotify and its CEO Daniel Ek (whose reported net worth is $4.7bn) have been up to in the past 12 months, such as the €1bn stake Ek’s tech investment group has made in Helsing, a “defence start-up” that will use AI to build battlefield maps in an “ethical, responsible and transparent way”. A truly inspiring use of music-loving customers’ subscription fees.

Besides, Spotify Wrapped’s insistence on breaking down the ethereal pleasures of music listening into hard, number-led data feels pretty joyless to me. Streaming has already taken away the tangible pleasures of a vinyl record or CD. We know it exploits artists. I won’t allow it to diminish the emotional power of my favourite music too.

[See also: How environmentally damaging is music streaming?]

Topics in this article: , ,