The music industry feels as though it’s approaching a turning point. Activity and outlooks are currently a mixed bag; UMG’s proposal of streaming 2.0, an increase in global expanded rights, but also a slowdown in the growth of music streaming, as well as concern over reduced earnings due to altered royalty models. Mark Mulligan, head of MiDIA Research, has put forward his thoughts on the state of things, and an alternative to music streaming that isn’t harmful to independent artists.

Current challenges in music streaming

One of the most concerning developments is the idea of “demonetisation.” Under some new models, tracks with fewer than 1,000 streams in the past year may no longer generate royalties. This means that many independent artists and smaller labels could see their music effectively removed from the revenue system. While this approach is intended to redistribute earnings towards more commercially successful artists, it raises concerns about fairness and sustainability for independent musicians.

The “long-tail” of music – the vast catalogue of smaller artists – is growing, thanks to a lower barrier to entry for music creation and distribution. At the same time, the risk of this group or artists is at increasing risk of being marginalised.

An alternative streaming model for independent artists

Mulligan has proposed a new vision for music streaming – one that prioritises independent artists and offers a more equitable approach. Instead of simply creating another version of existing platforms, his model suggests a fundamentally different way of monetising music.

Key features of the proposed model

  • Curation-Driven Experience – Rather than an open, algorithm-dominated platform, this service would focus on human curation, featuring smaller artists and independent labels in a more discoverable way.
  • Play Credit System – Listeners would purchase credits, with each credit equating to one stream. This ensures a fixed per-stream payment rather than an unpredictable share of a royalty pool. This concept is already widely utilised my stock photo sites, and is based on the idea that not all music (or photos, in this example) are worth the same.
  • Flexible Pricing – Artists and labels would have control over their pricing. Some tracks could be free, while others could require multiple credits, allowing artists to determine their own value.
  • Curated Freemium Tier – Instead of unlimited ad-supported streaming, the free tier could function more like a curated radio experience, featuring human DJs and scheduled programming.
  • Beyond Just Streaming – The platform would also integrate artist interviews, reviews, and additional content, similar to elements found in Bandcamp and Apple Music Radio.
  • Alternative Monetisation Options – Artists could earn through direct subscriptions, tipping, merchandise sales, and other revenue streams beyond traditional streaming payouts.

What are the potential benefits of an alternative music streaming model?

The potential benefits presented by an altnerative streaming model such as this are manifold for independent artists. A new, dedicated and thoughtfully crafted alternative to streaming would be far more beneficial than simply creating a new independent artist-focused streaming platform that follows the same existing principals as the likes of Spotify. A long-tail of the long-tail could be created, with the same issues around the distribution of royalties bubbling up again.

Here are the key benefits:

  • Fairer Payments – By removing the traditional royalty pool, artists would receive a predictable, fixed per-stream rate.
  • More Control – Artists can set their own pricing, offering free tracks for exposure while charging more for exclusive content.
  • Improved Discoverability – A curated platform ensures smaller artists are not buried under major label releases.
  • Diverse Revenue Streams – With tipping, subscriptions, and merch integration, artists are not solely reliant on streaming royalties.
  • Engaged Listeners – The model fosters a more invested audience, as fans would be choosing to spend credits rather than passively streaming.

What are the considerations and challenges?

While this concept offers many benefits, it also throws up some important challenges and roadblocks to consider. One key issue is adoption and scaling. Both artists and fans must embrace the alternative platform in order for it to gain traction. This also means that artists need to be willing to remove their music from mainstream DSPs, which can be scary if you’ve been used to trying to grow your streams and engagement on certain platforms for years.

Another challenge is shifting listener behaviour. Most music consumers have grown accustomed to the unlimited-access subscription model, where they can play any song at any time without thinking about cost per stream. Transitioning to a credit-based system would require a fundamental change in how people engage with music streaming. Lastly, the infrastructure and costs associated with launching and maintaining such a platform would be considerable. It would need substantial investment and strong partnerships to ensure its success and long-term viability.

Summing up

The current streaming model is not built to support smaller artists in a sustainable way. As revenue concentrates around the biggest players, indie musicians must explore alternatives. Mulligan’s proposal offers a compelling vision for a more artist-friendly platform, where streaming is not just about quantity but about real value. While challenges exist, this concept could mark the beginning of a new era in music streaming – one that prioritises fairness, flexibility, and financial sustainability for independent artists.

Get more industry updates, insights and advice by checking out more from the RouteNote blog.