Spotify Finally Makes Real Money, and the Labels Take Most of It

---

Start with the genuine triumph, because it is real and the people who built it deserve credit. In the first
quarter of 2026, Spotify reported revenue of €4.53 billion, a record gross margin of 33.0%, operating income of
€715 million at a 15.8% operating margin — up 40% year over year — and free cash flow of €824 million, bringing
its trailing-twelve-month free cash flow to about €3.2 billion. Its monthly active users grew to 761 million and
its premium subscribers to 293 million. For a company that spent over a decade as the punchline to every joke
about businesses that grow forever and never earn anything, this is vindication. Spotify cracked the code:
through price increases, cost discipline, and a push into higher-margin formats, it turned a perennial money-loser
into a genuine cash machine.

So this essay does not argue that Spotify is a bad business or that its profitability is fake. It is a good
business and the profitability is real. The argument is narrower and structural: that there is a hard ceiling on
how good this business can become, the ceiling is set by someone other than Spotify, and the market's
celebration of the margin breakout has glossed over the fact that the most important number in Spotify's cost
structure is controlled not by Spotify but by its suppliers — the record labels who own the music and have spent
a century learning how to extract value from whoever distributes it.

The 70% that never moves

Here is the structural fact that governs everything. For its core music-streaming business, Spotify pays roughly
70-72% of music revenue back out to rights holders — the record labels and music publishers who own the
recordings and the songs. That is not a cost Spotify can engineer away with better software or more scale,
because it is not an efficiency problem; it is the price of the product. Spotify's entire business is
distributing music it does not own, and the owners of that music take roughly seven of every ten dollars it
collects for playing their songs.

This is why Spotify's gross margin on core music streaming is structurally thin — mid-single digits, by most
analyses — and why the company's celebrated overall gross margin of 33% is achieved not by improving the music
economics but by diluting them with higher-margin non-music revenue: advertising, and increasingly audiobooks
and podcasts. The music itself, the thing 293 million people pay every month to access, is a low-margin
pass-through business in which the labels capture most of the value. Spotify is, at its core, a toll-free
highway that pays the people who built the cars seventy cents of every dollar it collects from drivers.

The reason this matters so much is that it is not a problem Spotify can grow its way out of, because the royalty
percentage does not improve with scale. When Spotify signs up another ten million subscribers, it collects more
music revenue — and pays roughly 70% of that incremental revenue straight back to the labels. Unlike a software
company, where each additional customer is almost pure margin, each additional Spotify music subscriber arrives
with most of their value already promised to someone else. The business gets bigger; the core music margin does
not get fundamentally better. That is the ceiling, and it is built into the only product Spotify cannot do
without.

The suppliers hold the leverage, and the contracts are short

It would be one thing if the 70% were merely high but stable. The deeper vulnerability is that the labels hold
the negotiating leverage, and the contracts that set the terms are short. Spotify licenses music from the rights
holders — dominated by the three major label groups, Universal, Sony, and Warner, who together control the
overwhelming majority of the music people actually want to hear — under deals that typically run only one to
three years. When those deals come up for renewal, the labels are across the table from a company that cannot
operate without their catalog, and they negotiate accordingly.

Think about the power dynamic. Spotify can have the best product, the best recommendation algorithm, the most
users — but if Universal Music Group decides to pull its catalog, Spotify loses the Beatles, Taylor Swift, Drake,
and a vast share of the music its subscribers came for, and the product collapses overnight. The labels know
this. They own the one input Spotify cannot substitute, and they have a century of institutional experience
extracting value from every distribution technology that came before — radio, records, CDs, iTunes, and now
streaming. Spotify's royalty rate is not a fixed law of nature; it is the current outcome of a recurring
negotiation in which Spotify's counterparty owns the indispensable input and the contract resets every couple
of years. Any margin improvement Spotify wins by squeezing royalty costs is provisional, subject to being clawed
back at the next renewal when the labels decide they want a larger share of Spotify's newfound profits — and a
newly profitable Spotify is a more tempting target for exactly that.

The margin gains are borrowed, not earned

Look closely at where Spotify's celebrated margin expansion actually comes from, because it is not from winning
the structural battle with the labels — it is from two levers that are real but finite. The first is price
increases: Spotify has raised subscription prices, and management expects price increases to continue
outpacing content-cost growth in 2026, which expands the margin. This works because Spotify has genuine pricing
power — subscribers have largely accepted higher prices rather than cancel. But price increases have a ceiling,
because every increase tests the line at which subscribers leave or trade down, and you cannot raise prices
forever. It is a lever with a finite number of remaining pulls.

The second lever is the mix shift into non-music: advertising, and especially audiobooks and podcasts, which
carry higher margins than music because Spotify does not pay the labels' 70% royalty on them. This is genuinely
Spotify's most promising path to better economics, and management is right to pursue it hard. But it is also a
tacit admission of the core problem: the only way for Spotify to meaningfully improve its margins is to do less
of the music streaming that is its entire identity and more of everything else. The bull case for Spotify's
margins is, at bottom, a bet that it can become less of a music company — that audiobooks and ads and podcasts
grow fast enough to drag the blended margin up despite the music business's structural ceiling. That may work,
but notice what it concedes: the music business, the thing Spotify is, cannot be made into a high-margin
business, so the margin story depends on Spotify successfully becoming something adjacent to what it is.

Priced like a platform, structured like a distributor

The valuation is where the structural ceiling collides with investor enthusiasm. After the profitability
breakout, the market has re-rated Spotify to a rich multiple — the kind of valuation, on earnings and cash flow,
that the market reserves for high-margin technology platforms with expanding economics and pricing power they
fully control. And in some respects Spotify earns the comparison: it has a beloved product, a powerful
recommendation engine, enormous scale, and real network and data advantages. But a high-margin technology
platform and a low-margin content distributor are different species with different ceilings, and Spotify, for all
its technological sophistication, is structurally the latter wearing the costume of the former.

The distinction matters enormously for what multiple is justified. A true platform — think of an operating
system or a payment network — keeps most of the value it creates, because it owns the indispensable layer.
Spotify creates enormous value, but it keeps a minority of it, because the indispensable layer is the music, and
the music belongs to the labels. When the market pays a platform multiple for a business whose core product is a
70%-royalty pass-through on someone else's content, it is paying for an escape from the royalty ceiling that the
business has not achieved and that its supplier relationships are structured to prevent. The margin can keep
grinding higher for a while on price increases and mix — but the multiple assumes that grind continues toward
genuine platform economics, and the 70% line is the wall that grind eventually hits. The risk is not that Spotify
stumbles operationally; it is that the market has priced a company that distributes music as though it were a
company that owns the rails, when the people who own the music have spent a century making sure the distributor
never becomes the platform.

The competitors who can lose money on music

There is a final structural disadvantage that the pure-play nature of Spotify makes acute, and it sharpens every
risk above: Spotify's largest competitors do not need music streaming to be profitable, and Spotify does. Apple
Music, Amazon Music, and YouTube Music are all owned by trillion-dollar conglomerates for whom music streaming is
a feature — a loss-leader that sells iPhones, drives Prime memberships, or feeds an advertising machine — rather
than a business that must stand on its own. Apple can pay the labels their 70% and lose money on Apple Music
forever, because Apple Music exists to make the iPhone stickier, not to earn a profit.

Spotify enjoys no such luxury. It is a pure-play music-streaming company; for Spotify, the music business must
make money, because it has no iPhone, no Prime, no search-ad empire to subsidize it. This means Spotify competes
against rivals who are happy to compete away the very margins Spotify depends on, and who can match or undercut
its pricing without caring whether the music business itself ever earns a cent. It is a brutal position: Spotify
must extract a profit from a low-margin, supplier-dominated business while competing against giants who are
content to run the same business at a loss for strategic reasons. That Spotify has nonetheless reached
profitability is a genuine testament to its execution and scale — but it does not change the structural reality
that it is the only major player in its category that has to win the margin war, against opponents who do not
have to win it at all and can therefore afford to keep it from winning. The labels squeeze from above; the
loss-leading conglomerates press from the side; and Spotify must thread profitability through the gap between
them, forever.

What the bulls genuinely get right

In fairness, the bull case is real and the profitability inflection is a genuine achievement, not an illusion.
Several points deserve real weight. First, Spotify's scale has genuinely shifted the negotiating balance: with
761 million users, Spotify is now the single most important distribution channel for recorded music on Earth, and
the labels need Spotify nearly as much as Spotify needs them — a label that pulled its catalog would forfeit
enormous revenue and hand its artists to competitors. The leverage is no longer entirely one-sided, and Spotify's
scale gives it real bargaining power it lacked a decade ago. Second, the pricing power is genuine and proven —
subscribers absorb increases, which is the mark of a product people truly value. Third, the non-music
opportunity is real and large: audiobooks in particular represent a genuinely higher-margin business where
Spotify can build a strong position, and the format diversification is sound strategy. Fourth, the free cash
flow is no longer in question — €3.2 billion over the trailing year is real money, and it makes Spotify a
fundamentally more durable enterprise than the cash-burning version of the 2010s. This is, unambiguously, a
better business than it has ever been.

The honest synthesis is that Spotify has gone from a structurally unprofitable business to a structurally
low-margin but now profitable one — a real and valuable transition — and the question is whether the market,
in its enthusiasm for the margin breakout, has priced in continued margin expansion that the labels' structural
leverage will ultimately cap. Spotify can keep growing, keep generating cash, and keep being a wonderful product.
What it probably cannot do is escape the gravity of paying most of its music revenue to suppliers who own the
music and renegotiate every couple of years — and a valuation that assumes it will escape that gravity is pricing
a structural victory Spotify has never, in its history, durably won.

The audiobook royalty fight is a preview

There is a small but telling development that previews how the structural dynamic plays out, and it is worth
flagging because it shows the pattern repeating in Spotify's supposed escape route. As Spotify has pushed into
audiobooks — the higher-margin format meant to lift its blended economics — it has bundled audiobook access into
its premium music subscription, and that bundling has triggered a royalty dispute. Spotify faces a potential
liability of roughly €410 million tied to claims by the Mechanical Licensing Collective over how audiobook
bundling affects the royalties owed on the music in those bundles.

The specifics are technical, but the lesson is not: the moment Spotify tries to use bundling to improve its
economics, the rights holders and their collecting bodies move to capture a share of the benefit, just as the
labels do at every music-license renewal. Spotify's escape route — non-music, bundling, format diversification —
is not a clean exit from the royalty regime; it is a new front in the same war, where the owners of content and
their representatives contest every margin gain Spotify tries to keep. The €410 million is small relative to
Spotify's cash flow, but it is a perfect miniature of the company's permanent condition: every time it finds a
way to make more money, the people who own the underlying rights show up to claim their share, and the contracts
and the law are written to let them.

The kicker

Spotify's story is genuinely one of perseverance rewarded: a company that endured fifteen years of doubt and
finally proved it could make money built one of the great consumer products of the streaming age. The
profitability is real, the cash flow is real, and the bears who said it would never earn a profit were wrong. But
proving you can make money and being able to make a lot of it are different achievements, and Spotify's ceiling
is held down by the oldest power in the music business: the people who own the songs. Spotify rents its entire
product, on short contracts, from a handful of suppliers who take most of the revenue and reset the terms every
couple of years, and its celebrated margin expansion comes not from changing that arrangement but from raising
prices and selling things that aren't music. It is a wonderful distributor of a product it will never own, in an
industry where, for a hundred years, the owners of the music have always — eventually — taken their cut. The
market is pricing Spotify as a company that finally escaped that history. The royalty line says it merely learned
to live within it. There is a version of the future where audiobooks, advertising, and podcasts grow large enough
to genuinely re-shape Spotify's economics, and the labels' seventy percent becomes a smaller share of a more
diversified whole — and if that arrives, the platform multiple will look prescient. But that is a bet on Spotify
becoming substantially less of a music company, executed against suppliers who contest every margin gain and
competitors who can lose money on music indefinitely, and it is a very different bet than the one the triumphant
profitability headlines invite. The headlines say Spotify won. The structure says Spotify is, at last, allowed to
keep a little of what it earns — which is not the same thing.

Spotify spent fifteen years proving it could make a profit, and the quarter it finally did, seventy cents of every music dollar still walked out the door to the people who own the songs. The product is Spotify's. The music never was — and in the music business, the one who owns the music has always, in the end, owned the economics too.