Spotify has a few problems, each dumber than the last. First, instead of divvying up a user's subscription fee between the artists they listen to, all income goes in a Scrooge McDuckian pile that's distributed to every artist based on their play numbers. You don't need fans, you need listeners, and that's a subtle but important difference. It's more profitable to release a pair of three-minute songs than one six minute track, even if the longer one is better. Or you can just scam the system with bots and blank tracks. Music is being added to Spotify much, much faster than users are, and if artists can't keep up, they'll drown.
The irony is that artists now have to be "Spotify-friendly" in the same way they once had to be radio-friendly. Appearing on one of Spotify's influential playlists is crucial in scoring listens, especially because the success of one artist is now bad for everyone else. Say that your Limp Bizkit ukulele cover band has 10,000 listens, but then Lady Gaga drops a new single. Spotify's total listens skyrocket, making the platform as a whole more successful ... while shrinking your slice of the pie. You're also competing against music designed to be looped endlessly, like background music for department stores. Physical media wasn't perfect, but at least rock bands didn't lose revenue when Elevator Music Volume 17: Flautist Follies came out.
Spotify is trying to address the tremendous income inequality they've created ... by allowing artists to get paid even less. Musicians can opt to take a pay cut to boost their tracks in Spotify's recommendation algorithms, in the hopes that sacrificing money for attention will eventually lead to more of both. The giant labels who already dominate the platform can afford to take that gamble, while everyone else just keeps getting screwed.