BY: JOSEPH DEBELL, OPINION EDITOR
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Despite its carefully cultivated image as a champion of artists and music lovers, Spotify cares more about profit than the people who make its platform worth using.
The latest revelation? A $150,000 donation to Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony.
Spotify defended the move, claiming it was merely business — as usual.
In an email to Bloomberg, Spotify said, “Spotify has long hosted events in Washington, D.C., and other capitals worldwide, bringing together political leaders, media figures, and industry peers from across the political spectrum. These engagements are business as usual.”
Spotify has built its brand on an artist-friendly facade. Yet, many of the people who contribute to its success — LGBTQ+ artists, independent musicians and those whose work challenges the status quo — are the same people whose rights and livelihoods have been jeopardized by President Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies.
If Spotify is truly artist-friendly, then it must not be passing a $150,000 donation over to an administration that continues to work against LGBTQ+ artists.
While its support for the Trump administration might seem like a separate incident — it fits into a pattern of prioritizing profits over workers who fund the company itself. Another example is how Spotify has spent millions lobbying the U.S. government.
One of the better examples is Spotify’s relationship with Joe Rogan.
Spotify invested $250,000,000 in exclusive deals with Rogan, who frequently spreads misinformation under the guise of free speech. Spotify’s actions have clarified that its priorities are with people who generate revenue — no matter how harmful their content is.
Spotify’s CEO, Daniel Ek, recently cashed out another $29 million in stock, bringing his total share sales since mid-2023 to nearly $600 million.
Instead of reinvesting in artists — the people who make Spotify possible — Ek’s wealth is more likely to fund military tech.
Now Spotify’s latest move in their partnership with Universal Music Group is dubbed “Streaming 2.0.”
This so-called evolution of music streaming promises a subscription model that “adjusts to user listening habits” and alters monetization rates based on an artist’s popularity.
This means small, independent artists who rely on Spotify’s reach to grow their fan base will be pushed out.
Streaming was created to help music distribution by allowing artists to reach listeners without the gatekeeping of major labels and radio conglomerates. Instead, Spotify is doubling down on an industry hierarchy.
Ek made the real purpose behind “Streaming 2.0” obvious in an article on theneedledrop.com.
“For nearly two decades, Spotify has made good on its commitment to return the music industry to growth, ensuring that we deliver record payouts to the benefit of artists and songwriters each new year,” wrote Ek. “This partnership ensures we can continue to deliver on this promise by embracing the certainty that constant innovation is key to making paid music subscriptions even more attractive to a broader audience of fans around the world.”
Ek is promising growth for the music industry but not for musicians or music.
If there was ever a time to abandon the illusion that Spotify is a company defending artists — it’s now. Spotify isn’t a revolutionary platform — it’s another corporate giant playing the game of capitalism to ensure that those at the top — stay at the top.
debelljb22@bonaventure.edu
