Spotify has long revolutionized how we listen to music. Yet, beneath its glossy playlists and personalized recommendations, a controversy has come to light. Reports reveal Spotify’s use of so-called “ghost artists” under the internal program named “Perfect Fit Content” (PFC), sparking heated debates. These ghost artists are pseudonymous musicians who produce stock-like tracks placed in popular playlists. Let’s unpack how this impacts artists, listeners, and the music industry as a whole.
Who Are Spotify’s Ghost Artists?
Ghost artists aren’t typical musicians with a fan base or public presence. Instead, they’re tied to production companies, creating low-cost background music. These tracks frequently dominate playlists like “Ambient Relaxation” or “Cocktail Jazz.” According to Harper’s Magazine, some companies employed by Spotify have staggering outputs—one with 20 songwriters behind over 500 artist profiles. Often, these profiles are incomplete or fabricated entirely to mask their purpose.
The PFC program allows Spotify to fill playlists with tracks that cost pennies to stream compared to paying royalties to independent or label artists. Some ghost artists’ tracks garner millions of streams without paying the usual royalties owed to external musicians.
“Perfect Fit Content” and Its Rising Presence
Reports date Spotify’s internal PFC experiment back to 2017. Initially pitched as harmless additions to playlists, it eventually became a cost-effective strategy to boost company profits. Instead of paying royalties for big-name or indie tracks, PFC music ensures Spotify cuts costs while streams keep pouring in. With playlist editors receiving encouragement to prioritize these tracks, their presence grew.
Playlists like “Deep Focus” and “Lo-Fi Beats” now boast high percentages of PFC tracks. Data shared by Spotify shows these tracks dominate playlists designed for relaxing, studying, or sleeping, where listeners may not pay close attention to the music itself.
Former Spotify employees expressed concern about this approach, noting it undermines the authenticity of music curation. However, resistance to the PFC model led to changes within Spotify’s staff. Playlist editors wary of the program were replaced with those more accepting of this new direction.
Impacts on Independent and Mainstream Musicians
The rise of ghost content poses significant challenges for musicians. For independent artists, playlists designed to boost visibility and revenue are increasingly crowded with ghost tracks. This limits opportunities for smaller artists to gain traction on the platform.
For instance, a jazz trumpeter with 25 million streams in a decade made around $59,500 before deductions—a stark contrast to the potential profits Spotify makes from the same streams. Meanwhile, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek reportedly pocketed $345 million from selling stock in 2023. This imbalance underscores the challenges musicians face in a streaming-centric industry.
Ghost content also devalues the listener-artist connection. Background tracks, often made anonymously and en masse, aren’t crafted with the same artistic intent. A former PFC contributor likened the process to creating “milquetoast” music—simple, emotionless tracks designed to appeal broadly without making an impact.
How PFC Stacks Up Against Traditional Royalty Systems
Unlike songs tied to performance royalties, PFC tracks are typically one-time purchases from production companies. Musicians often sign contracts surrendering any rights to royalties or ownership. While this might seem like easy income, it’s usually minimal compared to the long-term revenue artists could earn.
For production companies, however, such deals are lucrative. Companies like Epidemic Sound, a key PFC partner, have seen massive success. Epidemic’s simple licensing model and partnerships with platforms like Spotify highlight how stock music production has flourished in the digital age.
But this simplicity comes at a cost. Veteran songwriters warn that the industry’s push for “streamlined” music rights erodes hard-won protections for artists, creating a “race to the bottom.”
What This Means for Listeners
The hidden nature of ghost artists raises ethical questions. Spotify portrays itself as a discovery platform, but PFC content undermines that promise. If listeners unknowingly stream stock tracks crafted for profit over artistry, are they really engaging with music the way they expect to?
With streaming services leaning on generative-AI technology to potentially produce even cheaper content, the gap between listener and artist might widen further. Some worry this shift normalizes low-cost production and lowers cultural appreciation for music, turning it into mere ambiance.
Moving Forward
The controversy surrounding ghost artists is far from over. Investigations into Spotify’s practices continue to shed light on how the platform prioritizes profitability over artistry. For listeners, the choice is clear—support musicians who create meaningful work or continue funding a system that values generic playlist fodder.
If you’re curious to learn more about the dynamics between corporations and artistry, Harper’s Magazine’s investigation offers deeper insights into the inner workings of Spotify’s PFC model and its consequences.
Streaming has undoubtedly changed the music industry. But how we address issues like ghost content will shape whether this change supports musicians or simply silences their voices in favor of profits.
In other news, Drake Accuses Spotify and UMG of Rigging Kendrick Lamar Diss Track