The Industry Plant
and navigating the complex relationship between artists, their fans, and the industry
Truth be told, as a child I never dreamed of working in the music business. Certainly not like I dreamed of playing football for Newcastle United, or, for a short period after winning a box of Lego during a hospital visit, being an architect. I never dreamed of it, simply because to my naive, music obsessed teenage self, I hadn’t even considered it as a possibility.
Surely there was no way that these straight-from-the-heart songs that I spent evenings after school furiously accumulating on my iPod, flowing straight from my ears to my bloodstream, were anything other than the result of commercially untarnished passion, crafted by artists so utterly devoted to their art that they’d stand fiercely against any suggestion of strategy, marketing or dread I even think of it, creative interference in their work. Right?
As I somewhat accidentally tumbled into the clutches of the music business where I’ve found a home over the past decade, this veil of purity slipped. It’s a little regretful, and speaks to the way my brain works, that even with the music I most passionately adore, I now struggle to separate the industry from the music, and I’m not alone in that.
This peeling back of the fourth wall to present this once private and oft fractious relationship to the fan is more evident than ever; from Taylor Swift openly discussing her masterplan to reclaim her catalogue1, to Spotify choosing to display public stream counts on songs; fans are actively encouraged to peek behind the curtain. And fans have responded willingly, offering up entire social media accounts dedicated to the data behind the songs2, album titles leaking through eagle-eyed obsessives noticing publishing registrations, and even in extreme cases poring over court documents, flight records and studio bookings to second guess future collaborations.
Displaying this collision of the creative and commercial affair has become part of the performance, whether intentional or otherwise. Raye raged against the machine in order to sever ties with her label, before countering with one of the biggest (and best) singles of the year; Halsey bemoaned having to create TikTok’s in order to placate her virality-thirsty label3, whilst Megan Thee Stallion took to Instagram Live to call out her record label preventing her from releasing new music.4 Where once, the visibility of the funding label was banished to a logo on the sleeve of a vinyl, in the internet age, a label can now be the ever-visible hero, or the oppressive, restrictive villain of the piece; and the all encompassing cyberspace serves as an appropriate battleground.
Any label that prevails in harnessing the insatiable fan appetite for more, finds themselves with the most relentless and determined street team on their hands, whereas one that wrongs the artist and the audience, falls on the end of the most vociferous and damning criticism. Hell hath no fury like a fan scorned.
There is a general acceptance now even amongst the most enthusiastic of superfans, that from time to time, when your favourite artist sits down to write a song, it may be motivated by both their god-given creative intuition, and a desire to earn a bit of money from it. In fact, whisper it quietly, some fans even want their favourite artists to out stream, out sell and out earn their counterparts.
This acknowledgement of the artist and industry relationship is regarded as logical for the most successful of artists; it’s an expectation that there’s a wider team involved to deliver on the scale they do. For new artists however, come across as too polished, too strategic, or even in some cases, too successful too quickly, and you’ll be crowned with the dreaded ‘industry plant’ title. So just what does it mean?
industry plant
pejorative used to describe musicians who ostensibly become popular through their connections to the music industry yet present themselves as independent and self-made5
A quick Google brings up a whole raft of definitions; most commonly centred around the presentation of independence or lack of strategic direction, whilst in reality the artist is on the receiving end of significant backing from the music industry. Search just about any ‘artist name +industry plant’ and you’ll find a corner of the internet putting forth a case that their achievements have been far from organic; it’s a leading thread opener on r/popheads. In short, it refers to a level of preplanned deceit, orchestrated by an artist and their team.
Throw me to the wolves of the pop music gatekeepers, because I’m here to argue that there’s no such thing as an industry plant.
Where the internet has proved the great leveller in so far as giving all artists the means to releasing music, what it’s not changed as significantly is reducing the difficulty of the route to success. One of the biggest myths in the modern music industry is that the move towards digitisation over the past twenty years has simultaneously lead to an evening out of the playing field. The reality is that it has never been more difficult for new artists to cut through the noise; especially when that noise partially consists of other artists doing their utmost to be heard.
Everyone being able to release music, sadly doesn’t mean that everyone will create music that will be listened to.6
And thus, enter the music business. Not, as some impulsive Twitter-fingers would lead you to believe, comprised of boardrooms full of austere men in suits, instead, largely formed of underpaid, overworked creatives, driven by their desire to do the best by artists they love. Are there fundamental flaws to the model the industry sits upon? Absolutely. Are there bad actors acting purely out of self-interest with heinous intentions? Without a doubt. But anyway, I digress, I’m not here to defend the industry at large, nor would I be prepared to.
Each year anywhere between 500 and 1000 artists sign deals with one of the three major record labels7, and when you throw the larger independents into the equation, you’re looking at adding an extra zero to that figure. As of October ‘22, there are more than 100,000 songs hitting streaming services every day8 - a simply unsustainable and unhealthy amount; and they cannot all be born equal. Identical chances of success across the millions of songs released every year is frankly an utter pipedream, as naive as my teenage delusions of playing in the famous black and white stripes.
As streaming services provide us with all of the music, all of the time whilst catering more specifically to individual tastes, fewer and fewer artists are ‘breaking’ through and reaching mainstream awareness.9 It’s partially this shattering of the communal cultural sphere that leads to the finger-pointing and ‘plant’ accusing. When an artist seemingly materialises from nowhere, exploding into public view, it stands starkly against the personal orientation of our usual consumption practices. With algorithms set to feed us more of what we already love and are mostly already comfortable with, being on the receiving end of something entirely new but ostensibly widely established is a foreign concept.
My feed, is different to yours, is different to your playlists, is different to your TikTok FYP page, and so on and so forth. When an artist achieves that broader level of awareness, elevated amongst their peers, it’s less a case of being sown there by malevolent forces within the business, and more an indiction of an entire team doing their respective jobs brilliantly. If the music industry had the devious ability to snap its collective fingers and magic an artist direct into the consciousness of the general public, do you not think it would seek to do it on a more regular basis?
Once upon a time an artist could emerge from near-enough complete obscurity, racing up the charts without the batting of an eyelash (see Arctic Monkeys debut single proper)10. Now, a placement on New Music Friday, or an opening slot on a popular festival is enough to set the keyboard warriors all a frenzy. A conspiracy to pull the wool over the eyes of unassuming fans, or perhaps just a slick campaign, executed to perfection by a band at the peak of their powers, and a team with an intimate understanding of their individual roles.
Any artist that signs with a major or a large indie, and puts the wheels in motion for what I often refer to as ‘the speed run to scale’, does so in the knowledge that:
Success is still far from guaranteed; there are no shortage of brilliant artists chewed up and spat out by the cogs of industry
In widening their team and splitting the pie, they’re diluting future earnings, whilst broadening their chance of overall prosperity
Therefore, for those that are fortunate enough to reach the promised land of success, it’s perhaps less so that they’ve been planted there by nefarious forces, intent on sucking the soul out of all creative industries, and rather that their rise to the top has been accelerated through commercial decisions they’ve participated in along the way, aided by healthy doses of luck and creative excellence. It’s common sense that an artist splitting the proverbial financial pie in exchange for engaging the services of talented, creative and connected individuals, is likely to be on the receiving end of more opportunities. At the risk of positioning myself as a heartless capitalist, building creative collaboration around an artist in order to assist them in achieving their goals, is hardly an act to be criticised.
A biased model that favours those with resources, connections and priviledge ahead of those without? Absolutely. Visibility is expensive and discriminatory, whilst anything that raises the barriers of accessibility is inherently unfair. Allowing those in positions of power whom have grown with predetermined prejudices to call the shots is an undeniably flawed system. I’d hasten to add however that the metrics many use to describe those meeting the criteria of ‘plant’, are metrics that were almost universally built for and by the traditional industry. Is it any wonder those already within that orbit achieve these industry-created accolades?
Staying independent and largely free from the constraints of the industry is now a choice widely available to artists, and a noble one at that. As is signing to a label, recruiting a team and building a strategy to enhance the likelihood of the music reaching as many ears as possible. Thankfully, in the modern music business there is no one way to skin a cat, and the tools, advice and teams available to artists of all levels and persuasions are slicker and more accessible than ever. We’re beginning to see these ripples spread across the surface of the business - Coachella ‘24 is set to welcome more independent artists than ever before11, independently released albums are regularly hitting the charts, whilst distributors like AWAL, Believe, TuneCore and DistroKid are going from strength to strength.
It would also be incongruous of me not to mention where the majority of the ‘industry plant’ accusations originate from, and who they’re predominantly targeted towards. I’ve intentionally refrained from employing distinct examples of artists that regularly receive this unfavourable branding, however it doesn’t take much digging to discover that the majority of the artists that face the brunt of this skepticism are women. Meanwhile, the voices screaming ‘plant’ the loudest and most combatively, tend to be… yep, you guessed it.
The music industry undoubtedly has systemic issues that it’s far too hesitant to tackle, and in the most part disinterested in solving.12 Diversity, racism, classism, access to equal opportunities, nepotism run rife, and even concerns as severe as abuse and manipulation are brushed under the carpet in order to maintain the status quo. However, men belittling the achievements of women, under the purported notion of making the music industry a fairer place, is not the one. Downplaying the triumphs of those who have more than likely faced a litany of their own prejudices and discriminations is a starkly unhelpful and misogynistic move.
I appreciate that the aforementioned contentions are bitterly intertwined within themselves, and righting one requires tackling all at the same time, however I’d suggest the ire towards ‘industry plants’ is sorely misplaced. Just glance at any UK festival bill and spot the swathe of all-male groups, the majority of whom, to put it kindly, have spent the past two decades just about treading water where cultural relevancy is concerned.
Any swift ascent by a non-male artist to the upper echelons of festival line-ups and the business in general is subsequently viewed with caution and simmering jealously by men, insistent in their belief that there must be reasons other than talent that placed them there. More often than not a deflection tactic, to distract from actual issues at play; it’s easier to dismiss these acts as ‘industry plant’ rubbish, rather than face head-on that the presence of women in historically male dominated spaces highlights a striking inequality.
It’s difficult enough as it is to leave a lasting impression on our digitally dopamine-fried brains, without facing undue criticism for overachieving. Uplifting the successes of new artists is absolutely in all of our interests, and especially when their stories, demographics and backgrounds go against the conventional norm of the past seventy years of recorded music.
A healthy and constructive music industry is one that serves artists and fans of all distinctions, whilst opening diverse pathways that allow creatives to achieve success on the terms they deem appropriate. Let’s remove this awkward, discourteous terminology, and allow new artists to wholeheartedly celebrate their accomplishments.
Taylor Swift Official Tumblr https://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/185958366550/for-years-i-asked-pleaded-for-a-chance-to-own-my
Twitter / X, https://twitter.com/LanaDelReyData
Halsey is the latest artist complaining about the music industry’s reliance on TikTok, Time, 23 May 2022 https://time.com/6180377/halsey-tiktok-label/
Megan Thee Stallion vents about record label drama: ‘It’s a greedy game', Billboard, 1 March 2020 https://www.billboard.com/pro/megan-thee-stallion-record-contract-conflict-1501-entertainment/
The Definition of An Industry Plant, SwitchUPCB, 23 October 2023 https://switchupcb.com/blog/the-definition-of-an-industry-plant/
158 million tracks had 1000 plays or fewer on music streaming services last year. 45million had no plays at all, Music Business Worldwide, 10 January 2024 https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/152-million-tracks-1000-plays-on-streaming-services/
More signings fail to produce more stars, Billboard, 2 March 2023 https://www.billboard.com/pro/more-artist-signings-record-labels-doesnt-mean-more-stars/
It’s happened: 100000 tracks are now being uploaded to streaming services like Spotify each day, Music Business Worldwide, 6 October 2022 https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/its-happened-100000-tracks-are-now-being-uploaded/
Why aren’t more popstars being born?, Billboard, 23 August 2023 https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/new-pop-stars-rare-why-music-fans-ideas-1235398872/
How Arctic Monkeys’ debut single changed the music industry and ‘killed the NME’, The Guardian, 22 October 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/oct/22/arctic-monkeys-debut-single-i-bet-you-look-good-dancefloor
Mark Williamson (CEO Rostr), Twitter https://twitter.com/markwilliams0n/status/1748423128756453642
WEC Committee MPs’ Report: Women pursuing careers in music face endemic misogyny and discrimination, Music Week, 30 January 2024 https://www.musicweek.com/talent/read/wec-committee-mps-report-women-pursuing-careers-in-music-face-endemic-misogyny-and-discrimination/089180