In November 2020, Spotify announced that they would be trialling a promotional tool for artists on their platform. This trial involved giving artists the ability to nominate "priority" songs out of their catalogue, information that Spotify would then add to their recommendation algorithm that determines what music gets played. In return, Spotify announced that artists using this feature would be paid a "promotional recording royalty rate", i.e. a lower per song payment rate.

The so-called "pay-to-play" experiment has been strongly criticised by groups representing the interests and rights of musicians, who have already accused Spotify ofexploiting musiciansdue to their very low per song payment rate.

READ THIS ARTICLE: https://theconversation.com/stream-weavers-the-musicians-dilemma-in-spotifys-pay-to-play-plan-151479

Respond to the below statement using the above information and the article. (i.e. do you agree or disagree? Why?). Be sure to support the contents of this post with your knowledge of economics.

Musicians who put their music on Spotify, are now experiencing the "run-to-play" experiment, which musicians must accept a lower payment or "promotional recording royalty rate", on any song streamed. Having considered the numerous musicians that will struggle with the lower song payments, this will make no difference to the super streamers with the given algorithms. With the game theory solution to the social dilemma, the solution here would be to accept the lower song payments with no other choice. The reason as to why this solution is acceptable, is the given influential factor that Spotify has. As mentioned in the article, there are millions of listeners hearing new songs per minute. With this ratio in place, yes payments will be lowered for musicians, although their songs will be heard worldwide, giving struggling musicians a chance to increase the number of streams in compensation.

PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE ANSWER DOES NOT EXCEED 150 WORDS