The "Death to Spotify" Boycott

 

    Spotify has pioneered the world of music streaming to the forefront of global music consumption. It is the go-to platform for listening anywhere on the go. With its vast catalogue and convenient, user-friendly interface, it bests competing platforms. Recently, a movement titled "Death to Spotify" began circulating on social media regarding the supposed exploitation and unfair treatment towards musicians who distribute to the platform. I'm choosing to write about the recent boycott as an avid user of Spotify. I listen to it every day; whether I'm on a walk, driving to school, or doing homework. Music is a centerpiece of my life. So I feel as though it is appropriate for me, as a listener and musician, to observe and comment on what the media is saying. 

    Launched in 2008 by founder and CEO Daniel Ek, Spotify set out to have a playlist for everyone. Their value proposition is to provide a vast, personalized platform for users to listen to any song they wanted. Spotify contains hundreds of millions of tracks, podcasts, and audiobooks. "We are the world's most popular audio streaming subscription service with more than 696 million users..." according to Spotify's about page. (https://newsroom.spotify.com/company-info/)

    The biggest talking point of the Spotify controversy is by far artist compensation. This topic has been an ongoing dilemma for musicians for years. But it has floated back up to the surface with the waves created by "Death to Spotify." Spotify is often called out for its stream to dollar ratio being less than $0.004. Critics argue that this unfair given the company's massive budget and that artists who don't get at least over 300,000 monthly listeners can't even afford to pay rent. Let alone make a living. Musician and social media personality Chan Prix took TikTok to express his frustration with how despite one of his songs having 140k streams, the song in total accumulated only $45. Users in his comment section were divisive, many agreeing with Prix. Calling attention to Spotify's habit of paying "notoriously low." 

https://www.tiktok.com/@chanchanchandler/video/7485932784293367071?q=spotify%20artist%20pay&t=1760733367791

    The recent ethical image of Spotify is another crucial player in the boycott. With recent investments in AI defense and warfare technology from founder Daniel Ek, users have begun to question if his true intentions are even related to music at all. Amidst the backlash received from his multimillion dollar investments, Ek has stepped down from his role as Spotify CEO in order to focus on his "European moonshot projects." His most notable investment in the German defense startup Helsing has caused considerable damage to Spotify's image. The company makes AI-controlled weapons such as drones, receiving over a billion dollars from Ek's own wealth. In response, many artists and music groups have pulled their music from Spotify's library as a form of protest. Arguing that a creative outlet like music and weapons should not be intertwined. 

    On top of all the controversy, Spotify's responses to audiences have been lackluster. The lack of transparency and action has left users upset and unsatisfied. Despite the uproar, the company continues on, even implementing new features relating to AI, unsolicited by fans. Spotify has attempted to address the issue regarding artist compensation, stating that the company has paid $40 billion to the music industry in total. But this act of "transparency" was met with criticism and proved to be insufficient. Because artists want more than just a go at transparency. They want reasonable pay and for the company to reevaluate their ethical affiliations. And as of the "Death to Spotify" boycott, they have yet to say anything regarding the matter. Continuing to post their typical promotional, brand-related content. In the heat of the active backlash, many say this behavior is tone-deaf.

    A Spotify profile is present on virtually every major social media platform. Garnering millions of followers across each one. They post content consistently on each platform, some even daily. With platforms like TikTok and Instagram, the company primarily participates in trends and marketing campaigns. While X is their main mode of directly engaging with their audience. 

    Spotify, since inception, has set out to stand out from the rest in its industry. Constantly coming up with new innovative ways to immerse listeners in a personalized story of their own. Using user data, such as Spotify Wrapped, to make people feel seen. While they have proven to be remarkable in terms of storytelling and global success through these niche innovations, they also prove to be just as remarkable in terms of controversy. Despite the brand facing major image and ethical critiques, Spotify remains on the surface conversation. And in the height of the "Death to Spotify" boycott, many say that the streaming platform isn't going anywhere. Reddit user @ThisIsNotACryForHelp commented "Unless a truly massive number of artists stop supporting streaming platforms, I don't see them going away. Their ease of use and low cost make them extremely desirable for consumers." This speaks volumes the way Spotify has engrained itself into music and streaming culture. Becoming an "obvious" first choice for millions.

    Right now, Spotify's relationship with its artists is on thin ice. Those at the top juggle with remaining the apex predator of music streaming and fixing broken trust with it's artists. The majority (listeners) seem to outweigh the minority (artists). This is the brand's biggest moral dilemma. Then when you throw in other marketing challenges such as CEO Daniel Ek's investment scandals and failure to address what fans are saying, the Spotify image is skewed. So while they may still be on top with that green and black logo that everybody knows, until Spotify earns the trust of artists and angry fans back, the brand is stained as morally ambiguous. 

    If I were in Ek's shoes, not only would I disassociate with warfare technology companies, but I would also contribute considerably more efforts towards transparency and discussion about royalties. Rather than just sweeping controversy under the rug, it would be addressed on social media platforms with users directly. Spotify would be equally at the hands of artists and listeners, rather than at the fingertips of the CEO. If I've learned anything from observing Daniel Ek and Spotify, it's that building a relationship with your audience is the ethical key to sustaining a brand that earns the favor of the masses. Communicating with users in real time to sort out confusion and conflict.

Sources:

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/spotify-founder-daniel-eks-next-act-long-bets-european-defence-health-2025-10-01/

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/17/spotifys-daniel-ek-leads-investment-in-defense-startup-helsing.html

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/sep/18/massive-attack-remove-music-from-spotify-to-protest-ceo-daniel-eks-investment-in-ai-military?utm_source=chatgpt.com