The article examines how professionals in the European music industry address fairness in the context of music streaming services (MSS). Drawing on Discursive Institutionalism and framing analysis, it explores the main ideas through which industry stakeholders interpret and justify fairness. Based on 22 semi-structured interviews and an online survey, the analysis identifies three interrelated narratives: fairness as redistribution of value, fairness as balance of power and fairness as equality of opportunity. These narratives illustrate how professionals mobilise fairness to interpret both the challenges introduced by MSS and the need to renegotiate long-standing arrangements within the sector. The findings provide an empirical contribution to debates on fairness by capturing the bottom-up ideas of industry actors, showing that concerns about remuneration, transparency and diversity transcend purely economic or technical dimensions. The article argues that understanding these ideational dynamics is essential for informing future discussions on cultural policy and platform governance in the creative industries.
AguiarLWaldfogelJ (2018) Platforms, Promotion, and Product Discovery: Evidence From Spotify Playlists. National Bureau of Economic Research.
2.
AntalDFletcherAOrmosiPL (2021) Music Streaming: Is It a Level Playing Field?Competition Policy International.
3.
AraujoTHelbergerNKruikemeierS, et al. (2020) In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society35(3): 611–623.
4.
ArditiD (2014) iTake-Over: The Recording Industry in the Digital Era. Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
BélandDCoxRH (2016) Ideas as coalition magnets: Coalition building, policy entrepreneurs, and power relations. Journal of European Public Policy23(3): 428–445.
6.
BreretonJDaffernHYoungK, et al. (2020) Addressing gender equality in music production: Current challenges, opportunities for change, and recommendations. In: Hepworth‑SawyerRKingLMarringtonM (eds.) Gender in Music Production. Focal Press, pp. 219–250.
7.
BuschCTwigg-FlesnerC (2024) A Roadmap for Regulating Subscriptions in the Digital Fairness Act. SSRN.
8.
CampbellJL (2002) Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology28: 21–38.
9.
CapatiA (2025) The discursive framing of European integration in EU-wide media: Actors, narratives and policies following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Comparative European Politics23(2): 271–299.
10.
CarstensenMBSchmidtVA (2016) Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy23(3): 318–337.
11.
CarterE (2024) Poverty among riches: understanding the contracted economy for recorded music and its impact on market actors. Journal of Cultural Economy17(3): 345–359.
12.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications.
13.
CrémerJCrawfordGSDinielliD, et al. (2023) Fairness and contestability in the digital markets act. Yale Journal on Regulation40(3): 973.
14.
DinnissenKBauerC (2022) Fairness in music recommender systems: A stakeholder-centered mini review. Frontiers in Big Data5: 913608.
15.
DinnissenKBauerC (2023) Amplifying artists’ voices: Item provider perspectives on influence and fairness of music streaming platforms. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization, Limassol, Cyprus, 18June2023, pp.238–249. ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3565472.3592960 (accessed 3 December 2024).
16.
DinnissenKSaccardiIVredenborgM, et al. (2023) Looking at the FAccTs: Exploring music industry professionals’ perspectives on music streaming services and recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of the ACM Greek SIGCHI Chapter, Athens, Greece, 27 September 2023, pp.1–5. ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3609987.3610011 (accessed 3 December 2024).
17.
DodgeJMetzeT (2024) Approaches to policy framing: Deepening a conversation across perspectives. Policy Sciences57(2): 221–256.
18.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
19.
European Commission (2020) Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a European Music Observatory: Final Report. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/9691 (accessed 21 October 2025).
20.
FernandesMR (2023) The end of an era? The decrease of the EU influence in Ibero-American digital media policy discourses. International Journal of Cultural Policy29(7): 876–893.
21.
FernandesMRAlbornozLA (2023) Netflix as a policy actor: Shaping policy debate in Latin America. Journal of Digital Media & Policy14(2): 249–268.
22.
FerraroASerraXBauerC (2021) What is fair? Exploring the artists’ perspective on the fairness of music streaming platforms. arXiv:2106.02415. arXiv. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02415 (accessed 31 August 2023).
23.
FischerF (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford University Press.
24.
FlewTGillettR (2021) Platform policy: Evaluating different responses to the challenges of platform power. Journal of Digital Media & Policy12(2): 231–246.
25.
GallieWB (1955) Essentially contested concepts. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, pp.167–198. Aristotelian Society, Wiley. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544562 (accessed 21 October 2025).
26.
GanterSALöblichM (2021) Discursive media institutionalism: Assessing Vivien A. Schmidt’s framework and its value for media and communication studies. International Journal of Communication15: 2281–2300.
27.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press.
28.
GrönvallJKarppinenK (2025) Framing Nordic public service media: Comparing policy discourses in Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. European Journal of Communication40(3): 233–248.
29.
HajerM (1997) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford Academic Press.
30.
HallPA (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics25(3): 275.
31.
HenryAWiratamaVAfilipoaieA, et al. (2024) Impacts of AI on music consumption and fairness. Emerging Media2(3): 382–396.
32.
HesmondhalghD (2021) Is music streaming bad for musicians? Problems of evidence and argument. New Media & Society23(12): 3593–3615.
33.
HesmondhalghD (2022) Streaming’s effects on music culture: Old anxieties and new simplifications. Cultural Sociology16(1): 3–24.
34.
HoganPC (2024) Fairness, hierarchy, and moral rationalization, or what’s wrong with paradise lost?Emotion Review16(2): 127–136.
35.
MazziottiG (2020) What is the future of creators’ rights in an increasingly platform-dominated economy?. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law51(9): 1027–1032.
36.
MazziottiGRanaivosonH (2024) Can online music platforms Be fair? An interdisciplinary research manifesto. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law55(2): 249–279.
37.
MorrisJW (2020) Music platforms and the optimization of culture. Social Media + Society6(3): 1–10.
38.
NicholsonR (2019) Saviours or burdens? The effects of streaming services on the music industry. Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management15: 1–15.
39.
NieborgDBPoellT (2018) The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society20(11): 4275–4292.
40.
OlsenRKTenenboimOHessK, et al. (2025) Platform paradoxes and public service media legitimacy: A cross-national study. Information Communication & Society28(10): 1818–1835.
41.
PreyR (2020) Locating power in platformization: Music streaming playlists and curatorial power. Social Media + Society6(2): 1–11.
42.
PuppisM (2019) Analyzing talk and text I: Qualitative content analysis. In: VanHPuppisMDondersK, et al (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.367–384.
RufBDetynieckiM (2021) Towards the Right Kind of Fairness in AI [Preprint]. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08453 (accessed 11 February 2026).
45.
SchmidtVA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science11: 303–326.
46.
SchmidtVA (2010) Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism. European Political Science Review2(1): 1–25.
47.
SchmidtVA (2017) Theorizing ideas and discourse in political science: Intersubjectivity, neo-institutionalisms, and the power of ideas. Critical Review29(2): 248–263.
48.
SchmidtVARadaelliCM (2004) Policy change and discourse in Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics27(2): 183–210.
49.
SnowDBenfordR (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In: MorrisAMuellerCM (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Yale University Press, pp. 133–155.
50.
TombalT (2022) The rationale for compulsory B2B data sharing and its underlying balancing exercises. Revue du Droit des Technologies de l’information84: 5–26.
van DijkTA (2023) Analyzing frame analysis: A critical review of framing studies in social movement research. Discourse Studies25(2): 153–178.
53.
VlassisA (2022) Cooperation among intergovernmental organizations in global cultural governance: towards an actor-centered constructivist approach. International Journal of Cultural Policy28(6): 755–770.
54.
VlassisA (2023) Platform governance and the politics of media regulation: the review of the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Journal of Digital Media & Policy14(1): 29–46.
55.
VlassisAMazziottiGPsychogiopoulouE, et al. (2024) Fairness in the EU music ecosystem policy: Heading towards a multifaceted approach. Fair MusE Policy Brief: 1–3.
56.
VlassisARiouxMTchéhoualiD (2020) La culture à l’ére du numérique : Plateformes, normes et politiques. Presses Universitaires de Liège.
57.
WangYHorvátE-Á (2019) Gender differences in the global music industry: Evidence from MusicBrainz and The Echo Nest. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media13: 517–526.
