• Welcome to ROFLMAO.com—the ultimate destination for unfiltered discussions and endless entertainment! Whether it’s movies, TV, music, games, or whatever’s on your mind, this is your space to connect and share. Be funny. Be serious. Be You. Don’t just watch the conversation—join it now and be heard!

music The Drake and Kendrick Lamar Feud Is Just the Surface of a Deeper Streaming Industry Scandal

For threads introducing new music releases, discoveries, or recommendations.

Cpvr

Real Fanatic
ROFLMAO Staff
Moderator
Joined
Aug 28, 2024
Messages
652
LOL Coins
Ṩ422
Signature Pro
Cherries & Berries
Bolden Your Name
Spotify’s role in Drake’s payola accusations reveals streaming’s unchecked power over artists.

Drake’s recent claims against Spotify and Universal Music Group (UMG) have brought payola back into the music industry spotlight. At the heart of the drama? Kendrick Lamar’s Not Like Us—a diss track Drake says got a little “help” in going viral.

The feud between these two rap heavyweights makes for great headlines, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: the way streaming platforms and labels may be pulling strings behind the scenes to decide what music gets heard.

The Accusations That Rocked Hip-Hop

Drake. (From: Britannica)
Drake. (From: Britannica)
Drake has taken his feud with UMG and Spotify to court, filing two legal petitions that accuse the two powerhouses of stacking the deck for Kendrick Lamar’s diss track, Not Like Us. His claims paint a picture of a pay-to-play scheme that includes:

  • Bot-generated streamsto artificially inflate the track’s numbers.
  • Algorithmic favoritism, with Spotify nudging Not Like Us to the top of users’ recommendations.
  • Discounted licensing fees, where UMG allegedly sweetened the deal with Spotify to give Lamar’s track extra love.
Kendrick Lamar. (From: Kendrick Lamar/YouTube)
Kendrick Lamar. (From: Kendrick Lamar/YouTube)
According to Drake’s team, these moves turned Not Like Us into a juggernaut, racking up over 900 million streamson Spotify and conquering the Billboard charts. He argues this success came at the expense of other artists—himself included.

In one filing, his lawyers wrote, “Every time a song ‘breaks through,’ it means another artist does not. UMG’s choice to saturate the music market with Not Like Us comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake.”
UMG, unsurprisingly, denies it all, calling the allegations “offensive and untrue.” As for Spotify? They’re keeping quiet—for now.

Payola in the Streaming Era

Drake’s accusations shine a light on payola, the controversial practice of paying for unfair promotion.

Back in the day, payola meant record labels slipping cash to radio stations to ensure their songs dominated the airwaves. DJ Funkmaster Flex claims it’s still alive and well, with top radio slots allegedly costing as much as $350,000.

Fast forward to the streaming era, and payola has gone digital. Now, it’s all about bots inflating streams, algorithm tweaks, and behind-the-scenes deals with platforms like Spotify to push specific tracks.

Drake isn’t having it. He argues Spotify’s financial agreements and algorithm changes unfairly boost some songs while leaving others in the dust. According to him, this doesn’t just mess with neutrality—it rigs the game entirely.

Spotify, for its part, insists it has “automated and manual reviews to prevent, detect, and reduce artificial streaming.”
That sounds good on paper, but they’ve stayed silent when it comes to Drake’s specific claims.

The Business of Favoritism

Drake’s filings shed light on a cozy UMG-Spotify relationship that seems to blur the line between fair promotion and outright manipulation.

As Spotify’s largest label partner, UMG holds plenty of sway over how music gets promoted. Back in 2017, just before Spotify’s IPO, UMG reportedly locked in a dealthat guaranteed strong promotion for its artists. On top of that, Spotify lets labels like UMG influence playlist placements and recommendations—basically giving their artists a spotlight.

And who’s on UMG’s star-studded roster? Oh, just megastars like Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, and Kendrick Lamar. Naturally, these big names don’t just rake in streams—they also pull in subscribers and drive revenue for Spotify. It’s a win-win for both parties, as UMG’s tracks dominate Spotify’s most-followed playlists, like Today’s Top Hits.

However, this collaboration often comes at the expense of other artists. Drake claims UMG leaned on its Spotify connection to boost Not Like Us while sidelining others. Here’s the breakdown of his allegations:

  • Licensing discounts:UMG allegedly offered Spotify a deal on fees to prioritize Lamar’s track.
  • Playlist domination: Not Like Us was plastered all over high-profile playlists, guaranteeing massive exposure.
  • Retaliation: UMG supposedly fired employees seen as loyal to Drake—profits over fairness, according to his filings.
UMG, of course, denies everything, insisting its success is driven by fan choices, not behind-the-scenes deals. Still, it’s hard not to ask: As label-platform partnerships grow even closer, how can a label truly stay neutral when it’s promoting artists who are essentially competing against each other?

Similar Cases of Streaming Manipulation and Its Implications

Drake’s accusations are just the latest in a long history of streaming controversies—and surprise, surprise, Spotify often finds itself in the spotlight. Here are some notable examples:

  • The “Fake Artists” Controversy (2016–2017):Spotify faced claims it was stacking playlists with tracks by fake artists to dodge paying higher royalties. Imagine discovering your favorite “artist” doesn’t actually exist. Spotify denied it, but the controversy stuck.
  • French Montana (2021):The rapper was accused of using bots to inflate streams for Writing on the Wall. The track’s visibility soared—until Spotify caught on and cleaned house.
  • Danish Streaming Fraud (2024): A Danish man earned himself an 18-month prison sentence after creating fake accounts to rack up $290,000 in royalties.
  • North Carolina AI Music Fraud (2024): A musician reportedly uploaded thousands of AI-generated songs, then used bots to stream them, bagging over $10 million in fraudulent royalties.
Spotify’s Discovery Modehasn’t helped its reputation either. This feature allows artists and labels to accept reduced royalties in exchange for more exposure. Critics, like Rolling Stone, have called it “legalized payola,” saying it gives major labels yet another way to dominate the platform.

For independent artists, these practices make an already tough industry even tougher. Corporate-backed campaigns and label deals crowd out smaller acts, leaving them little space to grow. The result?

  • Fewer opportunities
  • for independent or emerging artists.
  • Inflated metrics that mislead listeners about what’s genuinely popular.
  • A lack of transparencyaround how playlists and algorithms actually work.
Source: https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/11/inside-drake-spotify-payola-drama/
 
This is not a positive development for the music industry. If streaming platforms and labels are using their influence to favour some artistes over others, creative and passionate musicians would be stifled. Drake's success in his case against Spotify and UMG would transform and restore confidence in the music industry.
 
It seems like this is going to be an uphill battle. Because if UMG didn't do it, could a private contractor have?

It's much harder to track legitimate streams with as many botnet/works that exist than it is a physical sale.
 
There is huge complexity in tracking legitimate streams and it makes it even a more daunting task. With the rise of botnets and streaming manipulation, it has been more challenging to distinguish real listeners from the fake ones.
 
There is a problem with fake streams in the music streaming industry. Artists can use bots to make other people think that they have more listeners than they actually do. This is quite biased to artists who in any case have a following.
 
Back
Top