8 ms·

You can’t look at Spotify in isolation – even though Taylor can pull her music off Spotify, her songs are all over services and sites like YouTube and Soundclou

You can’t look at Spotify in isolation – even though Taylor can pull her music off Spotify, her songs are all over services and sites like YouTube and Soundcloud, where people can listen all they want for free. To say nothing of the fans who will just turn back to pirate services [...]. And sure enough, if you looked at the top spot on The Pirate Bay last week, there was [Taylor's latest album] '1989'... This is the money quote. I'm one of them, a paying Spotify subscriber who downloaded Taylor's 1989 album off PB. Also, I think artists confuse money extracted 'per pay' with money extracted 'per customer'. They should focus on the latter. If my choices as a consumer are these two: 1. Buy 10 plastic disks with music etched into them (CDs) per year, for $120 or 2. Pay $120 to artists and listen to all music. These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away), but I get more value out of the second option (2). And the difference is huge! In fact, when I only had the first option (1) I rarely took it, i.e. I didn't buy many CDs (before piracy/internet). So, the artists didn't extract much earnings out of me. Then comes Spotify (and friends), and suddenly there is an outcome where I'll part with $120 per year and artists earn money from me that they didn't before. They should embrace that, not focus on money per 'played song', rather on 'money earned per consumer/year'.

maxerickson 12y ago
If you are going to argue in favor of Spotify, for a major breakout pop star like Taylor Swift, you probably need to focus on total revenue per year, a trickle of streaming royalties is going to be a lot less per consumer than she gets touring.
- sandstrom 12y ago
  I was thinking mostly on artists in general, though Taylor sparked this discussion (the news article, etc). I agree totally with your point, the economics for her (and other mega-stars) are likely different from the median artist. The labels also play a part in this, they take most of the CD/online/radio revenues, where as artists keep most of their tour earnings (this is what I've heard). In such a model it may make perfect sense to restrict streaming, since it may tilt more people towards paying for a concert. This may very well be 'revenue maximizing' for her, but I think for artists as a group they will may make more by extracting a reasonable sum from large swathes of people by providing a good chunk of value (e.g. Spotify/Pandora), then trying to drive up CD sales.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I think many artists with less exposure make an even larger portion of their income from appearances (vs licensing). An absurd example: a piano man.
- delinka 12y ago
  "...a trickle of [...] royalties is going to be a lot less per consumer than she gets touring." This, artists have said for decades, has always been the case. They have to tour to make any money. The royalties (from radio play, from media sales) are a pittance.
chez17 12y ago
You're "money" quote is provably wrong though. Her music isn't all over Youtube and other services. In fact, you proved this by having to go to the Pirate Bay to download it. They've done a great job at stopping it being available for free anywhere legally. Seriously, try to find any song from 1989 on Youtube that doesn't have a music video released. You can't. >Then comes Spotify (and friends), and suddenly there is an outcome where I'll part with $120 per year and artists earn money from me that they didn't before. They should embrace that, not focus on money per 'played song', rather on 'money earned per consumer/year'. Honestly, why should she? She just sold 1.3 million albums in a week. Talking in absolutes about this is silly. Just like when Radiohead released a pay what you want album, different methods will work for different artists. I commend Taylor for not doing what everyone else does just because. It took balls to go against the grain and she came out on top. Good for her. She's not advocating to make Spotify illegal or anything which would be where she loses me. Spotify is great for some things and great for some artists some of the time.
- sandstrom 12y ago
  Interesting, then this is at least coordinated on their part. I don't think I understand, wouldn't downloading it on TPB validate Spotify's statement? Well, as others have pointed out her revenue maximizing probably includes more than streaming and CDs: tours, merchandise, sponsoring etc. play a big part too. Maybe even the headings/PR from 'turning Spotify down' will generate enough extra attention to offset the loss of some poor people (me) turning to TBP, despite the album being top tanked on TBP. My main point is that artists as a group should look focus on how they can increase their total earnings, not on how to maximize CD sales.
- jusben1369 12y ago
  "It took balls" - might be time to reassess the expressions we use to indicate bravery. I agree with you. Her album is the biggest album in potentially 10 years (The last album to sell this many in the first week was 10 years ago when overall sales were double) So it's going to be on the top of everything including PB. I think all of us would find it objectionable if we were told "You have to change the way you do business otherwise we're going to set up an illegal operation and kneecap you anyways" It may happen and it may be reality but that doesn't mean it's even close to being a justification for why an artist should change their approach.
Touche 12y ago
She's making the bet that by removing it from Spotify more people will choose another legal way to purchase it than will choose piracy.
hamburglar 12y ago
> These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away) This is not "earning streams for artists," then, if you're willing to handwave away the huge amounts the record labels siphon away. It's "earnings streams for the recording industry." The nature of the spotify licensing deals, and the reason so many artists other than Taylor Swift are rebelling, is that spotify makes a bunch of money, the record labels make a bunch of money, and artists make a pittance but have no part in negotiating that deal. Not to say record labels provide no other benefits (promotion, production, logistics), but more and more, the best choice for artists is becoming to simply not participate in this system. For many, it's better to try to locate some middle ground where you can make a living with moderate success by selling directly to your fans than it is to buy the pop music lottery ticket and get either superstardom or (much much more likely) nothing.
jly 12y ago
> These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away), but I get more value out of the second option (2). And the difference is huge! You get more value out of option #2, but I doubt the artists do. This attitude is what I believe is really wrong with these streaming services: the value of the product being created is being significantly devalued. If you can't get it as part of the $10 / month you've decided you're willing to spend for access to 'all music', then you're just going to rip it off. Because Spotify does such a good job providing so much good music for so little money to individual listeners, they now balk at the idea of paying a real fair value for this work. As an artist, she has every right to decide how much her music is worth and choose how she wants it distributed and paid for. I think these kinds of things are important once in a while to establish what the appropriate pricing levels and artist compensation should be.

maxerickson 12y ago

If you are going to argue in favor of Spotify, for a major breakout pop star like Taylor Swift, you probably need to focus on total revenue per year, a trickle of streaming royalties is going to be a lot less per consumer than she gets touring.

sandstrom 12y ago
I was thinking mostly on artists in general, though Taylor sparked this discussion (the news article, etc). I agree totally with your point, the economics for her (and other mega-stars) are likely different from the median artist. The labels also play a part in this, they take most of the CD/online/radio revenues, where as artists keep most of their tour earnings (this is what I've heard). In such a model it may make perfect sense to restrict streaming, since it may tilt more people towards paying for a concert. This may very well be 'revenue maximizing' for her, but I think for artists as a group they will may make more by extracting a reasonable sum from large swathes of people by providing a good chunk of value (e.g. Spotify/Pandora), then trying to drive up CD sales.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I think many artists with less exposure make an even larger portion of their income from appearances (vs licensing). An absurd example: a piano man.
delinka 12y ago
"...a trickle of [...] royalties is going to be a lot less per consumer than she gets touring." This, artists have said for decades, has always been the case. They have to tour to make any money. The royalties (from radio play, from media sales) are a pittance.

chez17 12y ago

You're "money" quote is provably wrong though. Her music isn't all over Youtube and other services. In fact, you proved this by having to go to the Pirate Bay to download it. They've done a great job at stopping it being available for free anywhere legally. Seriously, try to find any song from 1989 on Youtube that doesn't have a music video released. You can't. >Then comes Spotify (and friends), and suddenly there is an outcome where I'll part with $120 per year and artists earn money from me that they didn't before. They should embrace that, not focus on money per 'played song', rather on 'money earned per consumer/year'. Honestly, why should she? She just sold 1.3 million albums in a week. Talking in absolutes about this is silly. Just like when Radiohead released a pay what you want album, different methods will work for different artists. I commend Taylor for not doing what everyone else does just because. It took balls to go against the grain and she came out on top. Good for her. She's not advocating to make Spotify illegal or anything which would be where she loses me. Spotify is great for some things and great for some artists some of the time.

sandstrom 12y ago
Interesting, then this is at least coordinated on their part. I don't think I understand, wouldn't downloading it on TPB validate Spotify's statement? Well, as others have pointed out her revenue maximizing probably includes more than streaming and CDs: tours, merchandise, sponsoring etc. play a big part too. Maybe even the headings/PR from 'turning Spotify down' will generate enough extra attention to offset the loss of some poor people (me) turning to TBP, despite the album being top tanked on TBP. My main point is that artists as a group should look focus on how they can increase their total earnings, not on how to maximize CD sales.
jusben1369 12y ago
"It took balls" - might be time to reassess the expressions we use to indicate bravery. I agree with you. Her album is the biggest album in potentially 10 years (The last album to sell this many in the first week was 10 years ago when overall sales were double) So it's going to be on the top of everything including PB. I think all of us would find it objectionable if we were told "You have to change the way you do business otherwise we're going to set up an illegal operation and kneecap you anyways" It may happen and it may be reality but that doesn't mean it's even close to being a justification for why an artist should change their approach.

Touche 12y ago

She's making the bet that by removing it from Spotify more people will choose another legal way to purchase it than will choose piracy.

hamburglar 12y ago

> These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away) This is not "earning streams for artists," then, if you're willing to handwave away the huge amounts the record labels siphon away. It's "earnings streams for the recording industry." The nature of the spotify licensing deals, and the reason so many artists other than Taylor Swift are rebelling, is that spotify makes a bunch of money, the record labels make a bunch of money, and artists make a pittance but have no part in negotiating that deal. Not to say record labels provide no other benefits (promotion, production, logistics), but more and more, the best choice for artists is becoming to simply not participate in this system. For many, it's better to try to locate some middle ground where you can make a living with moderate success by selling directly to your fans than it is to buy the pop music lottery ticket and get either superstardom or (much much more likely) nothing.

jly 12y ago

> These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away), but I get more value out of the second option (2). And the difference is huge! You get more value out of option #2, but I doubt the artists do. This attitude is what I believe is really wrong with these streaming services: the value of the product being created is being significantly devalued. If you can't get it as part of the $10 / month you've decided you're willing to spend for access to 'all music', then you're just going to rip it off. Because Spotify does such a good job providing so much good music for so little money to individual listeners, they now balk at the idea of paying a real fair value for this work. As an artist, she has every right to decide how much her music is worth and choose how she wants it distributed and paid for. I think these kinds of things are important once in a while to establish what the appropriate pricing levels and artist compensation should be.