Here’s why certain artists keep taking over your playlists (hint: It’s not personalization)
The music industry’s oldest pay-for-play scheme has allegedly gone digital.
Suspicion is growing that Payola, the infamous pay-for-play scheme from back in the day, has found its way back into the industry. Only this time, it’s hiding behind streaming algorithms and data-driven playlists rather than radio DJ booths.
This new version, nicknamed “Payola 2.0,” may be changing the way we hear music, and not in a good way.
What Is Payola 2.0 and How Does It Work?
Before this streaming age, payola means record labels would slip cash to radio DJs for airplay. Well, Payola 2.0 follows the same principle but with a digital twist.
While the direct bribes are gone, the strategy has evolved into something more subtle but no less shady.
The modern version centers around streaming platforms like Spotify, where the power has shifted from DJs to algorithms.
The main tool in this new approach is called Discovery Mode, which works like this: artists and labels can choose to take a cut in royalties in exchange for more visibility in the algorithm.
It’s a trade-off that essentially means paying for exposure through reduced earnings rather than direct cash payments.
But this system has another layer too. Beyond Discovery Mode, there are sponsored songs and native advertisements (A.K.A. tracks that appear in playlists as if they were naturally selected, when in fact their placement was purchased). These promotional tracks blend seamlessly into playlists, often without any indication that they’re paid placements.
The end result? A modern version of payola that’s harder to spot but just as effective at influencing what music reaches your ears.
Payola 2.0 in Action
The signs of Payola 2.0 are tough to miss, but plenty of listeners aren’t buying the idea that streaming algorithms are purely about “personalization.”
Their skepticism isn’t unfounded, though.
For one, patterns suggest the system seems rigged in favor of a select few megastars, regardless of listener preferences.
On Spotify, autoplay and Smart Shuffle often steer listeners back to tracks by artists like Taylor Swift, Drake, or other pop stars, even when they don’t remotely match their listening habits.
Take Sabrina Carpenter, for example. Users have had it with her songs like Espresso and Please Please Please popping up over and over, even on playlists that don’t seem like her natural territory.
Similarly, Taylor Swift’s songs have mysteriously appeared in playback histories for people who swear they’ve never hit play on her music. Creepy, right?
Former Spotify “data alchemist” Glenn McDonald explains this phenomenon:
“Almost all personalization is an attempt to guess at unexpressed aspects of your taste by comparing the expressed aspects of your taste to the expressed tastes of other people.”
“If ‘true’ personalization would come from really getting to know you and your background and your emotional needs and the exact shapes of your ears, then hardly any ‘personalization’ in music-streaming, or indeed in most tech, really counts. It would be more accurate to call it ‘targeting.’” he adds.
However, the issue extends beyond unexpected playlist appearances.
Drake recently called out Universal Music Group (UMG) and Spotify for allegedly rigging the system to boost Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.”
According to him, the track’s impressive 900 million streams weren’t purely organic. Instead, it’s the result of bot-generated plays and strategic playlist placement. This, he says, pushed his own music down the rankings.
All this points to a bigger issue: critics believe Carpenter’s label (UMG) could be using its influence to make sure her music gets a disproportionate share of the spotlight.
As Spotify’s largest label partner, UMG reportedly holds significant sway over playlist curation. So, it can regularly secure prominent positions for its artists like Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar, and Sabrina Carpenter.
When they do appear constantly on users’ platform-generated playlists, their plays will naturally blow up. This, in turn, feeds their fame, makes more people notice them, and justifies their placements.
A Profitable Gray Area
Unlike traditional payola that clearly violated federal broadcasting laws, today’s streaming practices exist in a murky legal space.
As mentioned, algorithms and curated playlists are locked behind a wall of secrecy. So, it’s difficult to tell where fair promotion ends and shady favoritism begins.
Promoted tracks often lack clear labels, so when a new song pops up, listeners assume it’s a natural recommendation.
This opacity benefits both streaming platforms and major labels.
Spotify profits by keeping users hooked on curated playlists, driving subscriptions and revenue. Meanwhile, major labels secure premium positioning for their artists, ensuring their songs dominate popular playlists and rake in streams.
This kind of setup works beautifully, at least for major labels and streaming platforms. Everyone else is left scrambling for scraps.
Independent artists, for example, are fighting an uphill battle.
The algorithms’ preference for familiar content makes breaking into significant playlists extraordinarily difficult. Combine this with Discovery Mode, and they’ll basically be in a no-win situation. They can either agree to lower royalties for a shot at exposure or risk fading into obscurity.
And since streaming royalties aren’t really much, opting to lower them further basically means they’ll get squat.
In short, participation feels less like an opportunity and more like a necessary evil.
Even listeners feel the pinch.
Playlists often repeat the same handful of hits, making it harder to discover fresh or diverse music. Add rising subscription fees to the mix, and you’ve got users paying more for what feels like less variety.
That nagging feeling that your playlists seem suspiciously repetitive? It’s likely not just your imagination. It’s the visible result of this profitable gray area in action.
Can Payola 2.0 Be Reformed?
Payola 2.0 may thrive in the shadows, but it’s not invincible. There’s plenty of room for change if streaming platforms, lawmakers, and the music industry are willing to step up.
The first order of business? Transparency.
Platforms like Spotify need to clearly label promoted tracks as “Sponsored,” just like Instagram or Google does with ads.
Right now, listeners often think they’ve stumbled upon a hidden gem when, in reality, the algorithm has already decided what they’ll hear. A little honesty about what’s paid and what’s not could build some much-needed trust and help people feel like they’re in control of their listening experience.
Another fix is cracking open the black box of algorithms.
Why do certain songs appear on your playlists? Is it because they align with your taste, or because someone with deep pockets made it happen? Listeners deserve answers.
Some clarity here wouldn’t just hold platforms accountable. It might also help people appreciate the genuine value of real recommendations.
Of course, laws need an update, too.
Anti-payola regulations were written in the heyday of radio DJs spinning vinyl, and they’re not equipped to handle the complexities of streaming.
The American Music Fairness Act (AMFA) is a step in the right direction, tackling outdated royalty rules and requiring terrestrial radio stations to pay artists. It’s a start, but it’s not enough.
One scholar suggests giving the U.S. Copyright Office more teeth, empowering it to crack down on fraud and regulate payola practices in the streaming world.
And here’s an interesting twist: some experts propose a lottery system where artists can pay small fees for fair promotion. It’s creative and might actually help level the playing field.
But reform isn’t just about the legal stuff. The music industry itself needs to rethink how it handles discovery.
Right now, platforms seem stuck in a loop, endlessly promoting the same chart-toppers. Playlists start to feel predictable, more about sustaining the biggest names than introducing listeners to something fresh. There’s a real opportunity for platforms to promote diverse voices and give independent musicians a fair shot. The question is whether they’ll take it.
McDonald puts it perfectly: “If somebody operating algorithms at you won’t tell you how they work, it’s probably safe to assume that those algorithms are not designed to serve your interests,” he says.
“Emerging artists need community-building. Music listeners need tools that amplify their curiosity and invite them to explore. Passive personalization isn’t great for either of those.”
Fixing Payola 2.0 isn’t just about technical tweaks or rule changes; it’s about protecting the creative core of the music industry. When profit margins dictate what gets heard, everyone loses.
So, if there’s ever a time to get it right, it’s now.