For over a decade, the promise of “visibility” has been Spotify’s primary defense against criticism of its low payouts. The argument was that the platform was a powerful marketing tool, offering artists priceless exposure to a global audience. But a key driver of the new boycott movement is the growing consensus that this currency of exposure has been severely devalued.
Professor Eric Drott captures this sentiment perfectly, noting that the sheer saturation of the platform leads artists to question “whether it’s doing much for them.” When you are one of millions of artists on a platform where over 100,000 new songs are added daily, the mathematical probability of a meaningful discovery is vanishingly small. The promise of visibility has become, for many, an illusion.
Furthermore, the nature of the “visibility” Spotify provides is often passive and low-quality. A listener might hear a song on a playlist while working or driving, but never learn the artist’s name or seek out their other work. This fleeting, anonymous exposure rarely translates into the kind of dedicated fandom that actually sustains a career—the fans who buy tickets and t-shirts.
Artists are now making a pragmatic calculation. They are realizing that the tangible income from selling a few hundred albums on Bandcamp to a dedicated audience is worth more than the intangible hope of being discovered by millions of passive streamers. They are trading the illusion of mass exposure for the reality of community-based support.
This collapse in the value of “visibility” is a fundamental threat to Spotify’s business model. The implicit contract with artists is breaking down. As more creators recognize that the exposure they are being offered is a poor substitute for a living wage, the exodus from the platform is likely to accelerate.