Maybe they should pay their artists more, instead of their employees.
I think royalties of 1 to 3 cents per stream are completely reasonable. Subcent royalties are just platforms taking advantage of the content creators.
Which is why most artists see all the streaming platforms as merely a way to advertise for live shows and merch. That's the only way to really make money without hitting Taylor Swift levels of streams.
Spotify could almost certainly be charging more, but it’s already incentivised to maximise revenue, and it has competitors, so it seems like it’s probably found the market value of a play?
Regardless, Spotify is free to pay whatever they think is fair and artists are free to accept or reject that compensation as they will. But if you're an artist, Spotify (and the other streaming platforms, which mostly pay even less) are not going to be something that you can ever expect to be an income source.
That's about 80 minutes of music per day, down to 50 minutes or less if you're sharing the subscription.
As I said in the comment above, artists are free to NOT put their music on Spotify if they don't think it's a good deal, but regardless streaming services are only commercials for artists. Spotify is far from the worst offender. :-)
It appears the major labels sold their catalogues for a pittance and streaming platforms are 'making hay'. We could have been streaming The Beatles on an app called EMIMusic had they not been so slow on the uptake of the internet.
As soon as all music is finally only made by people who have no monetary concerns, the end of revolutions will also be nigh.