The Rise In “Fake” Streams, And How It Impacts Small Creators

The digital era has brought forward many opportunities, even for creatives. In some ways, being an artist has never been this exciting with advancements in tech, art styles and mediums used to share art. But in other ways, creatives have began to feel unaccounted for.

Ryan Edwards, CEO at Audoo says, “Roughly 75% of performers’ income comes from live events, however, the importance of streaming should not be underestimated. Just look at the pandemic, live events were paused and streaming became a lifeline for music artists. However, artists are not being fairly compensated for their work because of issues like fake streaming.”
 

Music Through The Years

 
Music was one of the more progressive industries when it came to tech, with musicians having gone from selling physical copies of tapes, vinyls and CDs to being able to sell their music digitally.

An interesting fact: the first song that became available for digital downloading was ‘Head First‘ by Aerosmith in 1994. Billboard confirms this, saying, “In 1994, Geffen Records released Aerosmith’s “Head First” as a free digital download; “Electric Barbarella” was the first digital single for sale.”
 

Music Streaming Becomes Popular

 
When the iPod, and MP3 players in general became popular, so did the need for music that can be easily accessed from these portable devices. The tech world took it a step further by combining the MP3 player’s features with newer cellphone models.

Companies like iTunes allowed listeners to purchase singles and albums through their platforms, and artists began to sell their music that way, as an extension of selling physically formatted music.

In 2015, Apple made history by launching Apple Music, a platform that lets Apple users stream music at any time. Instead of buying each song or album, users could pay a monthly subscription fee after a free month trial for unlimited access to music.

At first, this was not quite received well as many took the internet to criticise the interface and overall experience of the app. Eventually, after redesigning the app, Apple gained popularity and not long after became a leading streaming platform.

The worry as to how artists would be compensated when listeners are no longer purchasing their albums came up as Spotify also gained its popularity years after its launch.

Streaming became the norm at this point and the mid 2010s fuelled the fire for the US, then the UK charts to finally recognise a certain amount of streams as an equivalent to purchasing. The rest of the world followed until most record companies would recognise the album equivalent value to streams.
 

 

The Rise Of Fake Streams: How It Affects Artists

 
Streaming was and is still the primary way listeners access their favourite music, but a new threat to creators presents. Ryan Edwards says, “The world of music streaming and monitoring lacks any form of strict monitoring, leading to new ways of cheating the system. Streaming farms for example exist to simulate fans listening to songs or artists hundreds and thousands of times (illegally boosting royalty payments).”

Fake streams are a form of fraudulent activity that helps artists look like they have more streams than they actually do. This could be done with bot farms, and can be seriously harmful to artists who actually achieve certain milestones, and small creators.

Edwards coninues, “Other categories of royalty distribution, such as public performance royalties, are often paid out using data collection methods which include insights from streaming and radio play. Meaning fake streams can lead to unfair distributions of royalties across the board , with artists receiving money at the expense of others. These practices disproportionately harm the smallest artists who lack the money or resources to compete, shifting the nature of the competition from music quality to monetary.”
 

What Should The Industry Do?

 
After several reports of fake streams on Spotify, the company addressed the matter in a statement:

“Spotify has introduced a new deterrent to combat artificial streaming, effective April 1, 2024, charging labels and distributors per track when flagrant artificial streaming is detected on their content. (This charge is only applied for very high rates of artificial streaming per track.)”

Edwards also shared, “For the industry to thrive, fair compensation, strict regulations and robust music recognition solutions must continue to be invested in. The technology to do this is out there, the industry must now scale this to truly protect artists’ rights, and give smaller musicians the chance to succeed and earn a sustainable income from their work.”

Joseph Black. Co-Founder and CEO of influencer marketing agency SHOUT also shares, “Fake streams can be extremely damaging for smaller artists. They might seem like a quick and easy fix, helping music to get noticed as the plays rack up – but the consequences of this really undermine the whole system. And that makes it unfair for everyone.

“For smaller artists, genuine connections and natural growth are crucial for building a loyal fan base. Fake streams throw off the numbers, leading to bad marketing decisions that could spoil the whole music venture. Plus, the trust between artists, fans and industry specialists is eroded, which will only hurt the artist’s reputation in the long run.

“In the end, being real and building true connections with listeners is way more valuable than an inflated play count – and authenticity must always come first.”