On October 25, singer Lily Allen posted several close-up photos of her feet on X, along with a link to her OnlyFans page, which caught the attention of many netizens.
One commenter remarked, “Imagine being one of the biggest pop stars/musicians in Europe and then being reduced to this.”
Lily Allen responded, “Imagine being an artist with nearly 8 million monthly listeners on Spotify but earning more money from having 1,000 people subscribe to pictures of your feet. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
It’s no surprise that this discussion once again turned to Spotify, with a comment receiving over 600 likes stating, “I think this says more about @Spotify and what they pay than anything else.”
This incident sparked my great interest because during a class on Creative Market, while discussing the biggest challenges facing the creative industry today, I jokingly mentioned that it seems OnlyFans is currently the only platform enabling artists to earn reasonable compensation directly from consumers.
When we talked about Spotify in class, my biggest question was: Why has it been losing money for over a decade despite having such a large user base, a strong cultural identity, and significant influence?
Then this news conveniently emerged.
I took a moment to look up some relevant data on Spotify and OnlyFans.
Last year, only 66,000 artists earned $10,000 or more in royalties from Spotify streaming, while the number of creators on the platform has long surpassed 11 million. In contrast, based on Lily Allen’s subscription numbers on OnlyFans, she can earn a stable $10,000 monthly with just 1,000 subscribers—an amount that most musicians would take a year to earn through streaming royalties.
According toOnlyFans’ 2023 financial report, the platform shares a significant portion of its revenue with creators—up to 80%—which far exceeds what a performer might earnworking for a production company or agency. (OnlyFans’ 80% revenue share is feasible only because it does not offer App Store-based billing, which would take 15-30% off the top.)
In simple terms, the essence of the Lily Allen incident is that “a new value distribution mechanism is set to replace the old one.”
A few weeks ago, I was watching Spotify’s Netflix show, Playlist, and after finishing it, I felt that the issue of “exploiting artists,” which has been widely criticized, is essentially unsolvable for Spotify. With 70% of its revenue going to pay for royalties, the responsibility for secondary distribution still lies with the copyright companies, leaving the platform with limited options.
From this incident, it’s clear that the solution is for artists to seek opportunities elsewhere; if they can thrive in other venues, they can afford to walk away from this one.
At its core, the old “record company-centered value chain” needs to die. The previously valuable rights to music have depreciated sharply due to technological advancements and a vast array of choices. Meanwhile, the role of record companies, which previously discovered, packaged, and promoted artists, has diminished significantly as the internet has drastically shortened the distance between consumers and artists. This is a given; the value chain in this industry has long needed a reset.
Spotify should have been the last hope for these record companies, yet it has acted as an intermediary, propping up this outdated value chain for over a decade. However, like all beneficiaries of the status quo, record companies cling tightly to their existing profits.
Now that OnlyFans has emerged and with future advancements in blockchain technology, the redistribution of interests is merely a matter of time. As creators receive less from record companies, those companies will become increasingly irrelevant. After all, who can’t release music on TikTok or OnlyFans nowadays?
In class, I even discussed with the professor why Spotify continues to lose money. He expressed his belief that Spotify would eventually become profitable. I’m now not so sure; opportunity windows are undoubtedly among the most fleeting elements in the business world. Once an alternative system is fully in place, Spotify’s window of opportunity will likely close.
Reference:
- Allen, L. [@lilyallen]. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2024, from https://x.com/lilyallen
- Ball, M. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2024, from https://www.matthewball.co/all/ofpl
- Dredge, S. (2024, September 6). OnlyFans owner paid $359m dividend as company’s revenues grow 20% in a year. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/sep/06/onlyfans-owner-paid-359m-dividend-as-companys-revenues-grow-20-in-a-year#:~:text=OnlyFans%20creators%20take%2080%25%20of,revenue%20generator%20for%20the%20platform
- Spotify. (n.d.). Loud and clear. Retrieved November 1, 2024, from https://loudandclear.byspotify.com
