The choice between user-centric and pro-rata streaming distribution is the most important structural debate in contemporary streaming economics. The two models differ in how subscription revenue is allocated to artists, with very different implications for which artists benefit from the system. Most major streaming platforms in 2026 use the pro-rata model; the user-centric model has been advocated as fairer but has faced significant operational and political resistance. Understanding the difference, and the cases for and against each, is foundational to participating in the broader streaming reform conversation.
How pro-rata works
The pro-rata model is the standard structure used by Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, and most other major streaming platforms.
The mechanics:
- All paying subscribers’ subscription revenue is pooled into a single platform-wide royalty pool.
- The platform’s total stream count across all users is calculated.
- The royalty pool is divided across the total stream count to produce a per-stream royalty.
- Each rights-holder receives the per-stream royalty multiplied by their tracks’ play count.
For example: a platform has 10 million paying subscribers paying £10 per month, generating £100 million per month in subscription revenue. The platform retains 30 per cent (£30 million); £70 million flows to the royalty pool. The platform’s users collectively stream 70 billion tracks per month; the per-stream royalty is therefore £70 million / 70 billion = £0.001 per stream.
An artist whose tracks are streamed 1 million times in the month receives £1,000 of royalty income (£0.001 × 1 million).
The artist’s income depends on their share of total platform streams, not on which specific subscribers listened to them.
How user-centric works
The user-centric model would allocate each subscriber’s specific subscription to the artists that subscriber listened to.
The mechanics:
- Each subscriber’s monthly subscription is treated as a separate pool.
- That subscriber’s specific listening is calculated.
- The subscriber’s subscription is allocated proportionally to the artists they actually listened to.
For example: a subscriber pays £10 per month. The platform retains 30 per cent (£3); £7 flows to the royalty allocation. That subscriber listens entirely to one specific artist’s tracks during the month. Under user-centric, that artist receives the full £7 of the subscriber’s allocation.
Under the equivalent pro-rata calculation, that subscriber’s £7 would be pooled with all other subscribers and distributed across all platform listening; the artist would receive the per-stream rate × the subscriber’s specific stream count, which would typically be substantially less than £7 if the subscriber’s listening was modest in volume terms.
The key difference
The fundamental difference between the two models is what determines an artist’s income from a specific subscriber.
Under pro-rata: artist income depends on the artist’s share of total platform streams. A subscriber who listens only to that artist contributes their listening to the total stream count, which slightly increases the per-stream rate but doesn’t direct their subscription to the artist they listen to.
Under user-centric: artist income depends on the artist’s share of each individual subscriber’s listening. A subscriber who listens only to that artist contributes their full subscription to the artist; a subscriber who listens to many artists splits their subscription across them proportionally.
Who benefits from each model
The two models have different implications for different types of artists.
Pro-rata benefits high-volume artists. Artists whose tracks are streamed in very high volumes (mainstream pop, viral hits, large-catalogue heritage acts) benefit from the pro-rata pooling. Their income is amplified by the pooling effect; their listeners’ subscriptions help fund their high-volume streaming.
Pro-rata is harder on dedicated-fanbase artists. Artists with smaller but highly engaged fanbases (niche genres, indie artists with passionate followings, specialist musicians) face a structural disadvantage. Their fans pay subscriptions that mostly subsidise the high-volume artists they don’t listen to.
User-centric benefits dedicated-fanbase artists. The same niche or indie artist receives a larger share of their dedicated fans’ subscription revenue. The substantial proportion of streaming time that dedicated fans give to specific artists translates directly to income for those artists.
User-centric is harder on high-volume artists. Mainstream pop artists whose listeners often only stream them lightly (a hit song heard occasionally) receive less per listener under user-centric than under pro-rata. The cross-subsidy from light listeners to mainstream pop disappears.
The case for user-centric
The arguments in favour of user-centric:
One. It’s intuitively fairer. Subscribers pay for a service; their payment should go to the artists they actually use, not be redirected to artists they don’t listen to.
Two. It supports artistic diversity. Niche genres, specialist scenes, and indie artists benefit from a system that rewards engagement with specific fanbases. The current pro-rata system structurally favours commercial pop at the expense of musical diversity.
Three. It addresses some streaming fraud incentives. Under pro-rata, fake streams (from bots and click farms) dilute the royalty pool for everyone. Under user-centric, fake streams from a specific subscriber only affect that subscriber’s allocation, limiting the systemic damage.
Four. It strengthens artist-fan relationships. Artists have direct economic incentive to build dedicated fanbases rather than chase mass-market exposure. The economic structure aligns with artistic engagement rather than algorithmic visibility.
Five. It’s been adopted in some markets and platforms with positive results. Deezer’s user-centric option, launched in 2023, has demonstrated operational viability.
The case against user-centric
The arguments against:
One. Operational complexity. Switching from pro-rata to user-centric requires substantial platform changes, affecting all licensing agreements, royalty calculations, and reporting systems.
Two. Major-label opposition. The major labels, whose catalogues are heavily weighted toward mainstream pop, have generally opposed user-centric because their revenue would likely decrease under the new model. Their substantial industry leverage has been used against user-centric adoption.
Three. Streaming fraud risks shift but don’t disappear. Under user-centric, streaming fraud schemes can target specific high-yield user accounts to extract maximum value. The fraud problem changes shape rather than disappearing.
Four. Power-listening edge cases. A subscriber who streams continuously for 24 hours per day could generate disproportionately high allocations under user-centric, distorting the model. Various capping mechanisms are needed.
Five. Limited demonstrable benefit at scale. The Deezer experience and various analytical exercises suggest user-centric would shift income meaningfully but not transformationally for most artists. The improvement might not justify the operational disruption.
The hybrid approaches
Several hybrid approaches have been proposed or implemented.
Partial user-centric. A portion of the royalty pool is distributed user-centric while the remainder is distributed pro-rata. Spotify and others have implemented variants of this in specific contexts.
Genre-specific weighting. The royalty pool calculation includes weighting factors that adjust for genre, audience type, or other features intended to mitigate the structural biases of pure pro-rata.
Listener-engagement bonuses. Specific bonus payments to artists whose listeners demonstrate high engagement (high stream counts per subscriber, high return-listening rates).
User-centric within tiers. The royalty pool is split across user tiers (premium subscribers, family plan members, free-tier ad-supported users) with different allocation rules within each tier.
The hybrid approaches reflect the genuine difficulty of choosing between pure pro-rata and pure user-centric. Each pole has clear advantages and clear disadvantages; the hybrid approaches try to capture the benefits of both while limiting the drawbacks.
Where the conversation stands
In 2026, the user-centric vs pro-rata debate is mature but unresolved.
- Most major platforms still use pro-rata.
- Deezer has demonstrated user-centric operational viability at scale.
- Various platforms have implemented partial or hybrid user-centric features.
- The UK government has expressed support for user-centric in principle.
- Major labels remain generally opposed to full user-centric adoption.
- Independent label and artist organisations remain generally supportive of user-centric.
- The conversation continues without clear resolution.
The likely path forward involves continued hybrid experimentation, with platforms making partial user-centric adjustments rather than wholesale switches. The full transition to user-centric, if it happens, would likely require either coordinated industry action (unlikely given major-label opposition) or regulatory intervention (which the UK government has indicated it would prefer to avoid).
The principle
The user-centric vs pro-rata debate is the structural foundation of contemporary streaming reform conversations. The two models distribute the same total royalty pool in different ways, with different winners and losers. Neither model is intrinsically “right”; both have legitimate cases. The choice between them reflects values about how the streaming economy should work and whose interests should be prioritised.
For working artists, the practical implication is to engage with the conversation, understand the implications for your own career stage and audience type, and contribute to the policy debate through advocacy organisations. The reforms that succeed will be those that combine clear value for artists with operational viability for platforms and economic sustainability for the broader ecosystem.
Add Music.co.uk as a preferred source on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search.