We can't keep having this conversation:It's time for change...
R. Rahim Chattaika Jr.
Building for the future of the Electronic Music Creator economy.
Just a few weeks ago, my social media timelines were buzzing with an unusual twist. The typical flood of Spotify Wrapped stats—celebrations of streams, playlists, and top artists—was replaced with pointed critiques from musicians and industry insiders. For many, the shiny veneer of Spotify’s year-end campaign felt like salt in the wound, masking a deeper and systemic issue: a platform that thrives on exploiting the very creators who make it viable.
As we slowly approach the festive period, it's not the green of the grinch that continuously holds the narrative but the ball is in Spotify's half again as Liz Pelly’s Harper’s Magazine article, The Ghosts in the Machine, has landed at the centre of this growing conversation. It exposes Spotify’s use of fake artists to undercut royalty payments, a practice emblematic of a model designed to maximize profits at the expense of fairness. For every dollar Spotify generates, artists earn mere fractions of a cent—if they even see a cut of the revenue at all. In reality, Spotify is less a music company and more a data-driven platform, leveraging user listening habits to cement its dominance while minimising payouts to the people who make the music.
The Illusion of Democratisation
From the beginning, Spotify has sold itself as a champion of music discovery—a platform where any artist, big or small, could find an audience. But beneath the surface lies a different story. As Pelly reveals, Spotify’s use of “Perfect Fit Content” (PFC)—commissioned tracks designed to fill playlists for moods and activities—has allowed the company to quietly replace real artists with low-cost, royalty-free alternatives. These fake artists, often created by production companies working in partnership with Spotify, dominate playlists like “Deep Focus” and “Ambient Relaxation,” which boast millions of followers.
This isn’t a minor operational choice—it’s a strategy that undercuts the value of actual musicians. By populating playlists with generic, algorithmically tailored tracks, Spotify reduces its royalty obligations, effectively rigging the system against independent artists who rely on streams to survive. The tracks aren’t designed for artistic value; they’re made to blend seamlessly into the background, unnoticed and uncredited.
For Spotify, this model works brilliantly: users stay engaged, metrics go up, and costs stay low. But for artists, it’s a disaster. Playlists that once served as a lifeline for exposure and revenue are now dominated by music factories churning out stock tracks. The result? A massive transfer of value from creators to corporate shareholders.
The Bigger Picture: Exploitation by Design
Spotify’s reliance on fake artists is just one part of a larger problem. The platform’s entire model is built on minimising payouts while maximising control. Artists have long decried the meger royalties offered by streaming, but as streaming becomes the dominant revenue source for the industry, their options are increasingly limited. It’s not just about being underpaid—it’s about being systematically sidelined in favour of cheaper, less authentic content.
This approach isn’t a bug in the system; it’s a feature. By embedding itself as the primary gatekeeper for music consumption, Spotify wields outsized power over how music is distributed, discovered, and monetised. Wrapped campaigns and playlist features create the illusion of a meritocratic platform, but the reality is a tightly controlled ecosystem designed to benefit Spotify first, major labels second, and artists last.
The Call for Change
The cracks in Spotify’s model are becoming harder to ignore. Artists and listeners alike are growing disillusioned with a platform that prioritises profits over creativity. Social media has become a battleground for these frustrations, with musicians speaking out against the inequities of streaming. As alternative platforms and collective action gain momentum, it feels inevitable that the industry will face a reckoning.
But change won’t come easily. Spotify, like other legacy players, has little incentive to disrupt its own lucrative model. It will take sustained pressure from artists, fans, and innovators to force a shift toward a fairer system—one that values music not as a commodity, but as an art form.
A Moment of Choice
Spotify’s use of fake artists is more than just a financial strategy; it’s a betrayal of the very ideals it claims to uphold. The platform that promised to democratise music has instead entrenched inequalities, steamrolling real musicians and cultures to prop up a facade of endless playlists and curated experiences.
As the tide of discontent grows, we face a choice: continue to support a system that exploits creativity or push for something new. The tools for change are within reach, from alternative platforms to collective bargaining. The question is whether we’ll act before the walls of the current system come crumbling down.
The tide is shifting. It’s time for Spotify—and the industry as a whole—to listen.
The Peachz team is heavily motivated and inspired to make a shift in the right direction, if you would like to have a conversation with us or support in any way-feel free to shoot us a message.
Full Article: