Sam Duboff

8.3K posts

Sam Duboff banner
Sam Duboff

Sam Duboff

@duboff

global head of marketing & policy, music business, @spotify

nyc Katılım Şubat 2009
363 Takip Edilen2K Takipçiler
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
hey kat! as you can see from my profile, i've been tweeting like this since 2009. no AI involved. don't mean to be patronizing ... music industry is very confusing, so figure it's better to try to explain a bit of spotify's thinking rather than let misperceptions fester. (will take it as a compliment that you think i must have gotten help!) if you disagree with anything i shared, feel free to share your perspective, always happy to read any criticism or other opinions.
English
0
0
0
45
Kat 💖nashs_mom💖
I hate this trend of execs tweeting AI-drafted (and tested) responses to criticism. The select info/framing they use is so patronizing. More and more certain these are also an intentional AEO/GEO brand play.
Sam Duboff@duboff

hey ryan! totally fair points. it's true — more artists are succeeding than ever before in music history, but barriers to entry to releasing music are lower than ever, so there are more artists trying to make it than ever before, too. it's the best time to be an artist, and also the hardest time to be an artist. in terms of the numbers of artists/rightsholders participating in the royalty pool, we're the only streaming service that shares transparent data on this front. i wish the other services would share too. click any revenue level here and you can see exactly how many artists generated that amount of $$ each of the last several years. (this is money paid to the artists' and songwriters' selected rightsholders ... we don't know what their deals are.) loudandclear.byspotify.com/payouts/ the story of our payouts are clear — more and more artists are succeeding every year. more artists generated $100k+ in 2025 than generated $50k+ in 2020. and more artists generated $100k+ in 2025 on spotify alone than even could be stocked on the shelves on the largest record store in the world at the peak of the CD era — for even a chance at making a sale. at the same time, you're absolutely right that more artists are releasing music than ever before, as barriers to entry lower. there's nothing we can do about that. the best we can do is continue to grow the royalty pool, pay more than any other service, and make sure emerging and professional artists (like our new Verified by Spotify pool) are succeeding.

English
1
0
1
1.2K
Ryan Matthews
Ryan Matthews@ThisIsTheR·
I’m not arguing that everyone who uploads music should be able to make a full-time career from it. That’s not the point. My issue is the difference between serious artists building real careers and the flood of low-effort content clogging the system. When the platform gets oversaturated with throwaway music, real artists can get pushed out of algorithmic lanes they used to perform well in — not because the music got worse, but because the ecosystem got noisier. Discovery Mode is a perfect example. It worked better when it was more limited and actually felt curated. Once everyone could access it, the advantage got diluted and it stopped moving the needle the same way. So the concern isn’t “not everyone makes it.” The concern is that real artists are being forced to compete with a massive amount of volume that doesn’t always represent real artistry, real fan demand, or real career-building music. FYI - I’ve been apart of every beta program and Spotify has paid me for my time over the years for my input.
Sam Duboff@duboff

i don't think there's any creative field (or athletic one) where the majority of the people who try to make a living doing it make a living. not sure that that's the bar. there are always going to be more people who want a career in music (or film, or youtubing, or photography, or anything else) than are able to have one, unfortunately. as a company, spotify certainly wants more and more artists making a living off their art. not just b/c it's nice, but b/c it's in our interest — more artists able to live full-time off music means they keep making music for our platform and others. the fact that more artists are making real money from music on spotify than any other single retailer or platform in history feels like a pretty solid achievement. 14k+ artists generated at least $100k on spotify last year. at the peak of the CD era, there weren't even 14k artists with a CD stocked on the shelves of the world's largest record store, with the chance to make a single sale. in 2025, 50% of spotify royalties went to indies. in 2000, ~15% of CD sales went to indies. it's a stronger, more diverse, more global music industry today. and it's also true that more artists are releasing music than ever before, thanks to the internet. both things can be true.

English
3
2
11
1.2K
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
i don't think there's any creative field (or athletic one) where the majority of the people who try to make a living doing it make a living. not sure that that's the bar. there are always going to be more people who want a career in music (or film, or youtubing, or photography, or anything else) than are able to have one, unfortunately. as a company, spotify certainly wants more and more artists making a living off their art. not just b/c it's nice, but b/c it's in our interest — more artists able to live full-time off music means they keep making music for our platform and others. the fact that more artists are making real money from music on spotify than any other single retailer or platform in history feels like a pretty solid achievement. 14k+ artists generated at least $100k on spotify last year. at the peak of the CD era, there weren't even 14k artists with a CD stocked on the shelves of the world's largest record store, with the chance to make a single sale. in 2025, 50% of spotify royalties went to indies. in 2000, ~15% of CD sales went to indies. it's a stronger, more diverse, more global music industry today. and it's also true that more artists are releasing music than ever before, thanks to the internet. both things can be true.
English
0
1
3
1.4K
Ryan Matthews
Ryan Matthews@ThisIsTheR·
I respect the transparency, but that still doesn’t fully answer the concern. Yes, more artists are earning real money on Spotify than before. That’s true. But the fact that more artists are succeeding doesn’t mean the economics are working for the majority of artists releasing music. If the royalty pool grows, but the number of artists/tracks competing for that pool grows even faster, the average artist can still feel squeezed. And that’s my concern with AI covers/remixes. It’s not just “more artists releasing music.” It’s potentially a new wave of licensed, platform-driven content competing for the same listener attention and royalty economics. Growing the pool matters. But so does protecting the value of the stream, discovery, and actual artist visibility.
Sam Duboff@duboff

hey ryan! totally fair points. it's true — more artists are succeeding than ever before in music history, but barriers to entry to releasing music are lower than ever, so there are more artists trying to make it than ever before, too. it's the best time to be an artist, and also the hardest time to be an artist. in terms of the numbers of artists/rightsholders participating in the royalty pool, we're the only streaming service that shares transparent data on this front. i wish the other services would share too. click any revenue level here and you can see exactly how many artists generated that amount of $$ each of the last several years. (this is money paid to the artists' and songwriters' selected rightsholders ... we don't know what their deals are.) loudandclear.byspotify.com/payouts/ the story of our payouts are clear — more and more artists are succeeding every year. more artists generated $100k+ in 2025 than generated $50k+ in 2020. and more artists generated $100k+ in 2025 on spotify alone than even could be stocked on the shelves on the largest record store in the world at the peak of the CD era — for even a chance at making a sale. at the same time, you're absolutely right that more artists are releasing music than ever before, as barriers to entry lower. there's nothing we can do about that. the best we can do is continue to grow the royalty pool, pay more than any other service, and make sure emerging and professional artists (like our new Verified by Spotify pool) are succeeding.

English
3
1
12
1.4K
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
whether it's youtube, instagram, spotify, amazon music, x, tiktok, twitch, etc., on digital platforms where there's a low barrier to entry, it often is necessary to have minimum requirements before creators can monetize. i think spotify's is one of the lowest bars out of all those examples. 3.5 million artists had at least one eligible song last year.
English
1
0
0
37
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
yes, i'm talking about streaming too. we're 30-40% of global streaming revenue, but over 50% for indie artists. 50% of spotify royalties are paid to indies. in 2000, indies were 15-20% of CD sales. there are so many understandably strong opinions about trying to be a professional artist in the digital age, but always helpful to ground them in data and facts when we can.
English
1
0
0
76
John-Michael Bond
John-Michael Bond@BondJohnBond·
@duboff @JustineBateman @Spotify I’m talking about streaming, but the fact that you have the majority of streaming revenue exactly proves my point. You do not pay small artists for their streams. You are a cancer on the musical landscape.
English
1
0
2
68
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
we share some data here: #royalty-policies" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">loudandclear.byspotify.com/faq/#royalty-p… last year, 3.5 million artists had at least one eligible song. there's really not a clear "denominator" to use of how many actual professionally aspiring artists are on streaming services. there are 10M+ artist profiles, but the majority of those profiles don't even have 10+ songs. there are only 250k artists are spotify that have at least 10 songs and have more than 10k monthly listeners, which we think is a pretty decent definition, but i've heard industry experts define that denominator different ways that are perfectly reasonable.
English
0
0
1
68
Kevin Gamble Music
Kevin Gamble Music@KevGambleMusic·
@duboff @JustineBateman @Spotify Not making that equivalence, but talking about the actual number of artists in question. What % of the total # of artists on Spotify are below the 1,000 stream threshold?
English
1
0
2
56
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
appreciate the perspective. not really an easy topic to discuss on x, but i understand where you're coming from! from our POV, when we hear from distributors that tons and tons of royalties are sitting uncollected in our pipes — and our goal is for as much of the royalty pool to reach actual artists as possible — that's very relevant. as you know, spotify doesn't keep any money from the policy ... all the money goes to increase the payouts that we know will reach artists. on AI — yes, i was referring to third-party tracks uploaded to streaming services with the uploader trying to earn royalties from the $11B+ royalty pool. this week we announced a remixing & covers product, where existing artists can decide whether to participate or not, if they do, they receive the money (not the remixer), and it all comes from an additional royalty pool, not the existing $11B+ one which will keep growing.
English
1
0
0
29
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
@KevGambleMusic @JustineBateman @Spotify spotify pays out $11+ billion per year — and 50% of that goes to indies. it's very outdated thinking to think that indie artists = someone with very few streams.
English
1
0
0
180
Kevin Gamble Music
Kevin Gamble Music@KevGambleMusic·
@duboff @JustineBateman @Spotify It is my understanding that the majority of indie artists on the platform aren't being paid anything at all, since all streaming revenue is taken from them and shared with larger artists until they reach 1,000 streams.
English
1
0
2
198
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
@BondJohnBond @JustineBateman @Spotify actually, spotify only represents 30-40% of global streaming royalties, but we're over 50% for the average indie artist (based on midia studies) b/c our model and product overindexes on discovery and supporting emerging talent.
English
1
1
2
333
John-Michael Bond
John-Michael Bond@BondJohnBond·
@duboff @JustineBateman @Spotify Of course you make up a vast majority of their streaming revenue, you have an oversized control over the market. That revenue comes at the expense of all of the money they used to make through sales. And you actively don’t pay small artists.
English
1
0
4
364
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
oh, i wouldn't call that arbitrary. it's a consistently applied policy. we share more here (or pasted below): #royalty-policies" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">loudandclear.byspotify.com/faq/#royalty-p… i very much understand why it's upsetting to some artists, but it's directly connected to how we're able to pay emerging and professional artists more b/c it makes sure that instead of splitting up tens of millions of dollars in two cent monthly payments that often don't even reach an artist, that money is used to increase the more material payments by 0.5% that do reach artists. more artists reach $1k, $10k, $50k, $100k, $1M per year on spotify directly b/c of this policy. we also wanted the policy to get ahead of the surge of uploads we expect in the AI era, to make sure you can't just upload troves of tracks with just a few streams to try to generate royalties. i know all these policies involve tough tradeoffs and reasonable people can disagree in good faith, so i appreciate the question.
Sam Duboff tweet media
English
2
0
0
70
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
appreciate your feedback! with all our new features — music videos, songDNA, reserved, these upcoming AI features — our goal is always to make them available for fans who want to use them, but not push them on people who don't. (and, yes, they're always based on lots of user research!) when it makes sense, we even introduce user settings. for example, if you don't want any of our new video features, you can turn them off here: newsroom.spotify.com/2026-04-09/vid…
English
1
0
0
54
Pasta Fagioli
Pasta Fagioli@diffrentpork·
@duboff @JustineBateman @Spotify I promise I'm not adding this to be dramatic, but I use spotify more than 99.9% of other people according to your analytics and I've never been closer to dropping the service.
English
1
0
0
24
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
appreciate your thoughtfulness and will definitely check out your site! to change royalty models would require licensing agreements with rightsholders, so "overnight" isn't possible, but certainly agree it's a great conversation to have. pro-rata has some advantages (the biggest music fans have more impact), but agree there are downsides. our focus has been on growing the royalty pool as fast as we can — from $1B in 2014 to $11B in 2025 — which means more money for artists, no matter the calculation methodology.
English
1
0
0
43
jozef
jozef@jjjjjjozef·
@duboff @NewRandomGeek @JustineBateman @Spotify not to say any of this could be solved easily or overnight, and i appreciate the earnest engagement - this is a central conversation for a lot of us working on projects in extremely active and engaged but more niche/ experimental spaces in particular
English
1
0
4
50
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
hey ryan! totally fair points. it's true — more artists are succeeding than ever before in music history, but barriers to entry to releasing music are lower than ever, so there are more artists trying to make it than ever before, too. it's the best time to be an artist, and also the hardest time to be an artist. in terms of the numbers of artists/rightsholders participating in the royalty pool, we're the only streaming service that shares transparent data on this front. i wish the other services would share too. click any revenue level here and you can see exactly how many artists generated that amount of $$ each of the last several years. (this is money paid to the artists' and songwriters' selected rightsholders ... we don't know what their deals are.) loudandclear.byspotify.com/payouts/ the story of our payouts are clear — more and more artists are succeeding every year. more artists generated $100k+ in 2025 than generated $50k+ in 2020. and more artists generated $100k+ in 2025 on spotify alone than even could be stocked on the shelves on the largest record store in the world at the peak of the CD era — for even a chance at making a sale. at the same time, you're absolutely right that more artists are releasing music than ever before, as barriers to entry lower. there's nothing we can do about that. the best we can do is continue to grow the royalty pool, pay more than any other service, and make sure emerging and professional artists (like our new Verified by Spotify pool) are succeeding.
English
2
0
1
3.1K
Ryan Matthews
Ryan Matthews@ThisIsTheR·
$11B sounds great until you ask the next question: How many songs, artists, labels, publishers, distributors, and rights holders is that being split between? That’s the part that gets left out. The royalty pool can grow and still feel worse for artists if the amount of content competing for that pool grows even faster. If AI covers/remixes add even more volume to an already oversaturated market, then the pool gets stretched thinner — especially for independent artists trying to break through. So the issue isn’t just “how much did Spotify pay out?” It’s “how many people and songs had to split it?” Spotify’s total payout has increased, but that doesn’t mean the average artist’s payout rate has increased. The pool may be bigger, but if the number of songs, streams, and rightsholders grows faster, the money gets spread thinner. And we have seen it this last year!
Sam Duboff@duboff

hi from spotify! that may have been true at the industry's low point, but today spotify is by far the biggest paycheck in music. we pay roughly two-thirds of all our music revenue back to the royalty pool, over $11B in 2025. and for the average indie artist, we represent more than 50% of their streaming revenue. it's also true that there are more artists than ever trying to make it, and not all of them will find the success they're hoping for. but it's a fact that more are making real money on spotify today than ever before. we're excited about add-ons like this that create net new revenue for the music industry on top of a growing royalty pool. you can learn more about how the number of artists making money grows every year: loudandclear.byspotify.com

English
4
17
69
11K
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
that's a reasonable idea! we're open to a user-centric model, if the industry aligns on it. it wouldn't change the amount streaming services pay out or the 'average per-stream rate', but i can see how it feels fairer to some people. based on third-party studies, it only shifts payouts a trivial amount. we share more here: #user-centric-model" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">loudandclear.byspotify.com/faq/#user-cent…
English
1
0
0
178
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
@JimBondProds @JustineBateman @Spotify we've already announced this will be a paid add-on, which will create a new additional royalty pool for artists & songwriters on top of the existing $11B/year one.
English
0
0
0
24
Sam Duboff
Sam Duboff@duboff·
no streaming service pays a fixed amount per stream. all streaming services pay based on 'streamshare'. the biggest music fans choose spotify, and spotify inspires users to listen to a lot of music. the average spotify user listens to 3-4x more songs each month than users of other services. since subscribers pay a monthly fee for unlimited listening, the average 'per-stream rate' is just a function of how engaged listeners on a service are ... if they listen to a ton of music, payouts grow but the per-stream average is lower. if they don't listen to much music at all, per-stream average is higher but it's a service without much impact. there's a reason why spotify is still growing royalty payouts +10% per year, while the rest of the industry is at about half that rate — b/c our users are super engaged. streamshare is certainly complex though, so i understand why people get confused. we explain in a bit more detail here: #spotify-listeners-stream-more" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">loudandclear.byspotify.com/faq/#spotify-l…
English
0
1
3
393
Velcro the cat
Velcro the cat@Velcrothetuxedo·
@duboff @JustineBateman @Spotify Sir with all due respect…wtf are you taking about. Amazon music and rhapsody…Apple. pay around .01 per play. You guys pay shit and allow the Ai bullshit.
Velcro the cat tweet media
English
1
1
16
484
FSU Burner
FSU Burner@RollTribe91·
@duboff @JustineBateman @Spotify Hey Sam appreciate you stopping by and clearing that up. While we have you, what led Spotify to this play? What made yall think, “let’s lean more into AI” after gen public got mad at AI entering Spotify to begin with? Not to mention AI devaluing the artists you claim to support
FSU Burner tweet mediaFSU Burner tweet media
English
1
1
5
830