Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo Credit: Natalya Letunova
According to a new study, Spotify’s controversial 1,000-stream threshold is negatively affecting nearly two-thirds of indie artists and labels – and particularly those with sizable catalogs – in Southeast Europe.
Update (12/17): A Spotify spokesperson reached out with a statement criticizing ANMIP-BG’s study and defending the 1,000-stream minimum. We’ve added the complete remarks to the piece’s end.
The Association of Independent Music Publishers and Producers Bulgaria (ANMIP-BG) recently provided a fresh look at the threshold’s label-level impact. By now, most are familiar with the much-criticized royalty requirement: A track won’t generate recorded compensation on Spotify unless it surpasses 1,000 annual plays.
Closer to the top of 2025, different analyses dove into the misguided minimum’s consequences, finding, among other things, that the vast majority of Spotify songs were failing to crack the 1,000-play mark. And at least in theory, one would therefore expect a hit for smaller labels.
(As explored by DMN Pro, plenty of obscure AI “artists,” paltry monthly listener totals aside, are somehow defying the odds and seeing all their new recordings sail just past the minimum – meaning that machine-made slop is simultaneously taking royalties, playlist spots, and listeners from real talent.)
Enter the aforementioned study, for which ANMIP-BG fielded responses from 71 labels and artists based out of Southeast Europe.
85% of these respondents confirmed suffering a revenue reduction due to Spotify’s 1,000-stream minimum – with 65% sustaining a “significant negative impact.”
“The threshold policy is particularly punishing for artists across different genres who may not hit 1,000 streams quickly but still contribute valuable music,” Serbia’s Take It or Leave It Records added with niche efforts in mind. “Spotify should introduce a more inclusive approach, like YouTube’s model.”
Meanwhile, the same category’s remaining 20% of respondents, most with catalogs containing between 50 and 100 works, acknowledged a “slight negative impact” from the threshold as well as the possibility of a bigger effect should the minimum rise.
“We see a decline in revenue, but it’s manageable,” weighed in MUZE Music co-founder Vasil Anastasov. “However, if this threshold were raised further, we would face severe challenges.”
Especially given the AI-audio explosion – and the adjacent points highlighted above – an upward adjustment seems far from impossible. Moreover, another 85% of respondents expressed “dissatisfaction” with the policy, including because of the potential for a higher Spotify stream minimum.
What, then, is the solution? According to 40% of respondents, simply lowering the threshold or reverting to the old system (i.e., actually paying for consumption, total streams aside) is the way to go. 35% would like “Spotify to leverage its algorithm to better support lesser-known artists, which could increase visibility and revenue.”
And the remaining 25%, for their part, believe that assigning “local Spotify curators” would help regional acts score valuable playlist spots, expand their reach, and counteract the minimum’s royalties fallout.
After this piece was published, a Spotify spokesperson reached out with the following statement:
“For many licensors with meaningful listening — including ones in Southeast Europe who are not represented in this limited survey — overall Spotify payouts increased under this policy, and they are finding success. In fact, the survey conducted is in sharp contrast with IFPI Europe’s latest figures (here). Central and South Eastern Europe were the fastest growing markets, with +26.9 revenue growth alone for Romania in 2024, and 29.7% revenue growth for streaming alone in that market.
This study appears to reflect relative figures from a small group of companies, and we’d be curious to understand the actual revenue amounts these respondents believe they’ve missed.
99.5% of all listening on Spotify is to tracks above the 1,000-stream threshold, and those tracks now earn more under this model. It does not appear that the survey accounts for this increase in payouts for eligible songs.
It’s important to note that the tracks affected by this policy previously generated only around $0.02 per month, and those payments rarely reached artists because they fell below distributor payout thresholds. The royalty pool Spotify pays out has not changed; the payments that would have otherwise been lost to artists’ distributors as uncollectable royalties are now directed to tracks with more than 1,000 annual streams, where artists should reliably receive them.
We remain committed to supporting artists and labels across all markets.”
