IMPALA is speaking out against the minimum-play thresholds established by Amazon Music as part of its ‘artist-centric’ pivot. Photo Credit: IMPALA
New details are emerging about Amazon Music’s “artist-centric” recalibration, which, like its Spotify counterpart, includes minimum-play thresholds before uploads can begin accruing royalties.
Brussels-based IMPALA fired back against the thresholds today, after Amazon Music unveiled an “artist-centric” Universal Music deal late last year. At the time, we didn’t have an abundance of concrete information about the pact, which was followed in January 2025 by a new round of Amazon Music price increases.
But logic and evidence suggested that streaming thresholds could well be in the cards. Looking to reverse slowing subscription growth via a “Streaming 2.0” initiative, Universal Music had previously negotiated a 1,000-stream annual minimum at Spotify.
Now, Spotify uploads must crack that threshold before they can generate recording royalties. In practice, the across-the-board policy means the vast majority of works are no longer monetized – with much-played major-label releases continuing to rack up payments, of course.
Meanwhile, indie and unsigned acts are simultaneously competing with a tidal wave of AI-generated uploads, making it harder yet to stand out from the streaming crowd. Then there are AI-facilitated streaming-fraud operations (at least the ones we know about) and similar efforts that, though perhaps not technically fraudulent, are questionable.
In sum, this all amounts to a not-great deal for the indie sector – hence IMPALA’s criticism of Amazon Music’s “artist-centric” pivot.
The 25-year-old organization voiced said criticism in a formal release concerning Universal Music’s alleged “juggernaut strategy.” Not limited to Streaming 2.0, the latter also refers to the major’s decidedly aggressive acquisition strategy, which has delivered buyouts of Downtown, [PIAS], and most recently the Netherlands’ 8Ball Music.
When it comes to the streaming component, IMPALA head Helen Smith drove home the Amazon Music changes’ far-reaching monetization impact.
“Amazon is one example in real time. Working alongside AIM and other members, the reports coming in are very clear,” Smith communicated. “Independents are being asked to sign terms with Amazon based on thresholds that have a disproportionate impact on their artists and revenue with some reporting that around 70% or more of their repertoire being demonetised overnight and a large number of artists being impacted in some way.”
As things stand, it’s unclear whether these thresholds (the plural is interesting there as well) involve the same 1,000-stream annual minimum as on Spotify. Among other things, Spotify’s competitors have fewer users and inherently lower stream volumes.
Overall, there definitely isn’t an upside to suffering a 70% catalog-monetization blow at once. Longer term, the situation raises questions about forthcoming royalty-calculation adjustments – including establishing thresholds on different platforms and setting heightened minimum-play requirements.
Following the points to their logical conclusion, the coming months and years may present opportunities for new music-streaming entrants. Things are already trending in this direction; Snoop Dogg recently released a track exclusively via Tune.fm, to name one example.
Admittedly, stepping away from traditional streaming services altogether is still easier said than done. But for proper artists whose works aren’t generating royalties in any event, the possibility is worth keeping in mind.
So is the potential appeal of on-demand platforms that aren’t drowning in podcasts, audiobooks, videos, and AI audio. Even now, with the underlying song-creation technology in its relative infancy, thousands upon thousands of AI tracks are inundating DSPs daily.
Content shared from www.digitalmusicnews.com.