Spotify Masterclass Teaches Artists How to Avoid Fake Stream Schemes: ‘This Is a Moving Target’

Spotify has launched a new masterclass to help artists understand what artificial streaming is and how to prevent them from falling for scams related to it. Featuring Bryan Johnson, head of artist and industry partnerships, international at Spotify; Andreea Gleeson, CEO of TuneCore and member of the Music Fights Fraud Alliance; and David Martin, CEO of the Featured Artists Coalition, the executives also tell artists in the masterclass what to do if they’ve noticed abnormal and suspicious streaming activity has occurred on their accounts.

In recent years, artificial streaming (sometimes known as ‘streaming fraud’) has become a hot topic in the music business, but last year, the issue hit new heights when the first-ever U.S. streaming fraud case was brought against a man named Michael Smith in the Southern District of New York. According to the lawsuit, Smith allegedly stole more than $10 million in royalties across all streaming platforms by uploading AI-generated songs and driving up their stream counts with bots.

A lot of artificial streaming instances, however, are not so extreme — or deliberate. It’s an issue that can impact even well-meaning independent artists, looking earnestly for marketing and promotion help. Whether it’s a digital marketer on Fiverr promising to get an artist on a playlist, or a savvy promoter DMing an artist on Instagram, promising a certain number of streams, many artists, particularly those without representation, fall for a scheme which, as Gleeson puts it, “is too good to be true.”

“It undermines the fair playing field that streaming represents,” says Johnson in the masterclass. “If left unchecked, artificial streams can dilute the royalty pool and shift money away from artists who are genuinely trying to release music and build an audience, and it can divert that money to bad actors looking to take advantage of system.”

As Johnson explains in the masterclass, whether the artificial streaming scheme was done wittingly or not, there can be real consequences. If an artist is caught with suspicious streaming activity, the track can no longer earn royalties, future streams do not count toward public metrics, future streams do not positively influence recommendation algorithms, and the activity is reported to the distributor or label. In a worst-case scenario, the song can also be removed from Spotify playlists, or the platform overall, and the artists’ label or distributor will be charged a fine.

“This is something we take seriously at every level, all around the world, and our efforts are working. Less than 1% of all streams on Spotify are determined to be artificial,” says Johnson.

Johnson, along with Gleeson, spoke to Billboard to explain why they teamed up on this masterclass, and what they hope artists take away from it.

“Our tactics are working, but this is not the time for us to pause. We have to keep going, because this is a moving target. We have to keep investing, keep educating, and keep trying to minimize the impact of artificial streaming,” says Johnson.

Why did you decide to do this masterclass now?

We have an existing video on artificial streaming from a few years ago, but we think this is a great way to update what we’ve done previously. This moves so quickly, and we will keep building on this and updating it. This masterclass now includes information that wasn’t around a few years ago. Why now? We found it’s very clear on our socials that people want to know about artificial streaming. We’ve read through a lot of comments, talked to industry partners and tried to figure out what information people want to see from this. And how can we do this in a way that will deter people from falling for this in the first place?

If artists only took one thing away from this video, what would you want them to have learned?

Gleeson: The big thing that that we really stress is that artists should know who they’re working with. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. So do your education up front with the marketing programs that you are utilizing. If a company is guaranteeing playlist placements or a certain number of streams or it sounds just way too good to be true, it probably is. If I can add a second thing it would be: start to open up a proactive discussion with your distributor or your label to make them aware if you see anything abnormal happen to your account. This can help you reduce any penalties, like the risk of your music getting taken down. Spotify also now has a way to submit information if you think there’s abnormal activity on your account. Reporting it is really important.

Bryan, often in these conversations about artificial streaming, it’s hard to know where the buck should stop. Is it the distributors fault? The user’s fault? The streaming service’s? How are you approaching it at Spotify?

Johnson: I think it’s an industry responsibility. There’s an industry body called Music Fights Fraud Alliance, which is a collection of digital services, like Spotify, and rights holders, like distributors and labels. And it’s an opportunity for the industry to come together and rally around the same topic and share information, share intel. And it’s been highly effective — super, super productive. We have a responsibility. We are the leading streaming service globally. We are across 184 markets with a huge audience, and we are a significant partner to the music industry. So it’s important that we come to the table, and we’re part of this conversation.

Scammers evolve quickly over time. It’s often said that there’s a danger in educating the public too much about artificial streaming, for fear that it will help the scammers evolve and better their efforts. How did you guys approach that challenge with this master class?

Gleeson: It’s always a work in progress to figure out the right balance of education and secrecy. You want to be specific to help educate, but you don’t want to give someone a playbook of how to do the fraud either.

From your vantage point, what are some of the measures that have been have implemented over the last few years that have shown really strong results in decreasing artificial streams? What has been the most effective?

Gleeson: We’ve tried to take down some of the playlists where this is happening. That can be a little bit of Whack-a-Mole, but that has been really effective. What we’ve observed also is the [streaming services] that focus on the reporting tools for artists and preventative tools have much lower abnormal stream levels than other [streaming services]. And it makes sense, right? If you’re a bad actor, you’re going to go to the path of least resistance. If a [streaming service] hasn’t invested yet in a robust reporting system, you can do your scam there and achieve more with less effort.

Johnson: We launched the very effective tool around a year ago, and it’s essentially a form that artists can go to, and they can tell us if they’ve seen abnormal activity, like in their Spotify For Artists data, and if they think they’ve been added to some sort of suspicious playlist. This born out of their feedback. We were getting requests online for a way in which they could let us know directly. Yes, they let their label and distributor know, but they also wanted to let Spotify know directly, and it’s super useful for us. We’re able to use that information effectively to stop artificial activity. So I think that playlist reporter form has been, has been really useful.