Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial

[GroundLoop]

Really? So let's assume you are earning X Dollars per month, and your employer asks you to take a pay cut for three months, and then you will get royalties which make up... about... X Dollars a month, you would do it?

Your calculation only sounds great, because you make "royalties for every person that uses it" sound great. It's not. Not for the majority of artists.

The fact is that the artists currently get royalties. Apple is asking them to accept less royalties for three months, and after that, they will go back to what they had before, plus a potentially minor increase. Really, you would accept that?

In some cases, yes. This is the basic thought process that goes into refinancing a house. You pay the bank a lump sum of cash upfront to get a lower interest rate on your mortgage. The lower rate, over time, will eventually allow you to recoup your original costs and then you reap the benefits of the lower rate from then on. Albeit, the refinancing analogy has a lot less risk in it as you know that you will reap a benefit in the future as long as you stay in your house long enough. The artist, does not know whether or not people will listen to their music more or less due to the "upfront, lump-sum payment" of royalty-free music for three months. I think most artists would think the risk is far too great.

 

[Arndroid]

So far she hasn't mentioned this on her Twitter page. Wonder why? Hmmm.

Because it probably gets announced on the 29th.

This has already generated a ton of publicity for Apple music. If she is going to put her most recent album on there it makes no sense to do it until next week.

 

[Nuvi]

You can say what you want, but ...Taylor Swift made this happen.

I've been working professionally in the music biz for twenty years. It's good to see someone who has it all take a stand for those of us with less fame and fortune.

Today's a good day !!!

Taylor Swift taking a stand for her self. When Swift gets few millions the small indy artist gets few hundred bucks. In the end consumers end up paying it all so I wouldn't call this a good day for anyone else except Taylor Swift's of music industry.

 

[numlock]

Hang on. If it was obvious to everyone (your words) how do you explain Apple's initial decision not to pay?

Are you saying Apple deliberately gave itself a black eye?


Indeed it does. Or laziness? Or arrogance?

Or maybe Apple's taking bad advice now? I do sometimes wonder how well-aligned the recent new hires (aka "seasoned industry veterans") are with Apple's traditional brand values.

come on this is splitting hairs a bit. but you cant have it both ways if you think they had a contingency plan then there must have been some knowledge that they would face the backlash.

could be any of those. eddy cue for me reeks of arrogance, complacency and smugness but its probably very hard to be grounded when you have been this successful but in this case i find it inexcusable. it is only half a year ago when swift went after spotify very publicly.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Do people really like Taylor Swift that much? It seems a lot of people on here are swinging from her nuts.

I doubt that this is about liking or not liking Taylor Swift. She's just a famous, popular messenger who spoke up. Because of her fame, she brought much more attention to the issue, opening the door for others like her to potentially rally on this topic right as it's about to launch.

Love her or hate her, the message was key. What she highlighted was the concept of a great big powerful corporation behaving badly. Had this been Samsung or Google or Microsoft rolling out a streaming music service and shifting the trial period cost to the backs of the artists, I'm certain our collective view of the situation would have been dramatically different. If true, what many of us were writing is not what we actually thought or believed but simply towing the company line.

This weekend, towing the company line had about 85% of us railing hard against the artists in favor of Apple's "pre-reversal" stance. Then, Apple reverses and it seems that a growing majority of us are praising Apple doing the right thing. In other words, Apple was very right yesterday for trying to do the wrong thing and Apple is very right today for doing the right thing. There's one consistency there that seems to be the universal rule.

Some of us have made this an Apple vs. Taylor Swift battle so she has to be wrong. But the more objective players barely saw Swift and instead saw it as Apple vs. Apple, (bean counters vs. PR/image). One of those Apple's happened to win with the reversal and that's actually a good thing for both Apples, as spending a little money on PR and image can yield better ROIs over the long term than penny-pinching while sacrificing public good will. The money spent to improve Chinese labor conditions and/or to pursue a much more greener Apple wasn't forced upon Apple (either), nor great for maximizing profits in the immediate term... but Apple spent that money anyway to improve their image. Especially when the light is shining most brightly upon a company, investing in PR trumps pocketing every possible nickel.

Give this a few days and those who were most vocal on the pre-reverse stance will have fully flip flopped to Apple's post-reverse stance. Apparently Apple is always right, so "we" can't cling to Apple being wrong to reverse for very long without breaking the universal rule.

 

[BigInDallas]

By offering them the highest royalty in the industry, that kind of rip off?

No by stiffing them for 3 months. Apple backed down quick when confronted with TS and her mighty sword

 

[johngordon]

Fine it's a good pop album. Pop sucks

What - all of it?

A good song is a good song is a good song - doesn't matter what the genre.

 

[BigInDallas]

What - all of it?

A good song is a good song is a good song - doesn't matter what the genre.

Yep all of it. Can't hunk of one current pop song that is good. I'll stick with the Dead allman brothers phish. Etc. real music.

 

[MentalFloss]

Taylor Swift taking a stand for her self. When Swift gets few millions the small indy artist gets few hundred bucks.

Even if Taylor Swift only cared about herself and lied about caring about small artists - the small artists still profit from this, so what does it matter?

In the end consumers end up paying it all so I wouldn't call this a good day for anyone else except Taylor Swift's of music industry.

Yes, it's sooooo terrible that the consumers have to pay for music they listen to! What a terrible day in the history of the music business. People paying for music! Oh the Humanity!

 

[johngordon]

Love her or hate her, the message was key. What she highlighted was the concept of a great big powerful corporation behaving badly. Had this been Samsung or Google or Microsoft rolling out a streaming music and shifting the cost to the backs of the artists, I'm certain our collective view of the situation would have been dramatically different. If true, what many of us were writing is not what we actually thought or believed but simply towing the company line.

How were they shifting the cost to the artists? Its a free trial, which means zero initial revenue for anyone. And potentially lots of revenue for everyone after the trial.

 

[John.B]

Just wanted to give Apple a shoutout this morning for their promotion from David to Goliath.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Pointless and stupid, and they didn't even get streaming rights to 1989. I could understand if they got 1989 in exchange for it (huge win) but they got nothing in return.

 

[hfuhruhurr]

Last night this article had over 800 comments. Today is has less than 700. Waddup wit dat?l I wanted to see an article break 1,000.

 

[johngordon]

Yep all of it. Can't hunk of one current pop song that is good. I'll stick with the Dead allman brothers phish. Etc. real music.

Sorry, but its utterly absurd to say that an entire genre of music is bad.

Maybe you just mean that you don't like it, but that's not the same.

I don't like jazz music, but I would never say that all jazz music is bad - I'm sure a lot of it is very good, even if I don't like it.

 

[OllyW]

Last night this article had over 800 comments. Today is has less than 700. Waddup wit dat?l I wanted to see an article break 1,000.

Last night you were reading this thread.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

LMAO at Taylor, its obvious she is only in this for the money, as dissing one music streaming service and supporting another that pays better is just transparent.

Why is Apple in this?

 

[flowsy]

By offering them the highest royalty in the industry, that kind of rip off?

" Let’s do some quick math. You would have gotten 70 percent for three months, so to make it up you’ll need 3 percent for… oh, this is easy… 70 months. As long as everyone signs up after their free trial and keeps using Apple Music for at least 70 months, it works out. Unless they’re in the U.S., in which case they’ll need to remain a customer for a little over eleven and a half years. "

 

[GizmoDVD]

You know what's the definition of pathetic? Not paying for what you listen to.

Get out. You don't belong in this discussion about making sure artists and content creators get paid for their work.

Thank you Taylor and Apple. Today is a huge day and changes everything for the future of music.

Changes everything for music because they will get paid pennies for a 3 month period. Changes everything. Wow.

 

[hfuhruhurr]

Last night this article had over 800 comments. Today is has less than 700. Waddup wit dat?l I wanted to see an article break 1,000.

Perhaps I am confusing this one with the original TSwift one, which has indeed broken 1,000. Well done, message boarders!

Anyone know the record?

 

[johngordon]

The authentic Taylor Swift died ~2008-2009.

What is this nonsense? She hasn't become any less authentic, just because you don't happen to like pop music as much as you might like country music.

Country music isn't somehow more worthy, or more authentic, than any other genre of music.

Only a complete snob would think that.

 

[johngordon]

Really? So let's assume you are earning X Dollars per month, and your employer asks you to take a pay cut for three months, and then you will get royalties which make up... about... X Dollars a month, you would do it?

Your calculation only sounds great, because you make "royalties for every person that uses it" sound great. It's not. Not for the majority of artists.

The fact is that the artists currently get royalties. Apple is asking them to accept less royalties for three months, and after that, they will go back to what they had before, plus a potentially minor increase. Really, you would accept that?

If it meant I would likely earn more money in the long run, then absolutely yes.

 

[BigInDallas]

Sorry, but its utterly absurd to say that an entire genre of music is bad.

Maybe you just mean that you don't like it, but that's not the same.

I don't like jazz music, but I would never say that all jazz music is bad - I'm sure a lot of it is very good, even if I don't like it.

Pop music sucks imo. I hate it. Auto tune can make a dog sound great.

 

[OllyW]

Anyone know the record?

This one is currently at 20K but there may be others with more posts.

 

[opfreak]

Do people really like Taylor Swift that much? It seems a lot of people on here are swinging from her nuts.

Do people like apple that much, that they let apple do whatever they want?

 

[HenryDJP]

apple hell rich - no problem with that -
9.99 per month after a year they will raise up to 19.99 per month and get back all money they pay - that how they do all times - hahahhaha

I've said the same thing but these naysayers disagree. Apple is not a generous company and if they have to pay, we as consumers will have to pay. They will recoup those funds by either raising prices on Music subscriptions, possibly remove the 3 month free trial after time passes or raising the cost on Macs, iPhones or TV.