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

[MentalFloss]

You completely discount the millions of dollars Apple invested in the worlds largest music infrastructure and distribution service and chalk it up to "a few million dollars" that if they lost wouldn't even impact their bottom line. They spent decades and probably billions establishing their market position to even be ABLE to be in the position to offer this type of service. You act like its a crime they are making a higher percentage than the artists??

I wonder how you get that out of my post.

Once again, the only thing I am complaining about is that everyone is quick to ask the artists to provide their "product" for free for three months. Nobody at Apple would get the idea to ask Apple employees to do the same. I did not say anything about percentages. Whether or not the percentages are fair is a completely different question. You read something in my post that I never said. In fact, I would not be surprised if you had intended to respond to another post and clicked the "reply" button on mine by mistake. Otherwise, I am just confused.

Maybe artists should go back to begging people at malls to check out their new mix tapes for $6. Like Taylor swift is this little girl burning CD's in her basement and writing its title with a sharpie on it. Remember, poor "Taylor Swift Inc." sitting at a net worth of over 200 million is NOT an individual, but a corporation so she can AFFORD to lose a few tens of millions and it not even effect her bottom line (extreme sarcasm).

Yes, Taylor Swift can afford it. I think she pretty much stated that. So what's your point?

 

[rk25123]

A type of bird.

Thanks, found it!

http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/s...ceb28762ad51b3559839f381b524287bdac4_full.jpg

 

[pragmatous]

The only comments in this thread should be "yay! musicians are getting paid for their work!". Anything else is stupid.

Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Internet Software and Services, posted on Twitter tonight in response to concerns that Apple would not be paying artists during the three month free trial of Apple Music. Cue wrote that Apple will now be paying artists during the initial free trial of Apple Music, in a reversal from their previous policy.

​

The most vocal criticism came earlier today from Taylor Swift, who argued that many indie artists would suffer under the plan. Cue responded specifically to Swift on Twitter and, according to

​

Apple Music will launch on June 30 as part of an upcoming iOS 8.4 update. After the service's free three-month trial it will cost $9.99 per month for individuals and $14.99 a month for families up to 6.

Update 4:30 AM PT: Cue confirmed to Re/code's Peter Kafka that Apple Music will pay rights holders an undisclosed amount on a per-streaming basis during the free trial period. Swift tweeted that she is "elated and relieved" about the change of course, although Cue told multiple publications that she has not yet agreed to stream top-selling album "1989" through Apple Music.

​

Cue also told BuzzFeed News reporter John Paczkowski that "Taylor Swift's tweet today solidified the issue for us" and "we decided to make a change." Paczkowski says that all artists will be paid during the free trial period, although deals with publishers already on board with Apple Music stand. Cue personally called Swift to inform her of the decision and said "she was thrilled to hear from us."

Article Link: Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial

 

[Mackinjosh]

They're idiots when they do that too. Speaking of crying, posted any videos on Youtube lately? Should I be leaving Taylor alone?

I'll post them right after I'm done watching your "Wahhhhh Leave Apple alone. So mean!!!" videos.

 

[BigInDallas]

Oh. So what you really mean is that you don't like autotune.

So unless every pop song uses autotune, and no song in another genre like country would ever use autotune, its absurd to say you don't like any pop music, at all, because of autotune.

Whatever makes you happy. Pop music is horrible today.

 

[MentalFloss]

What amazes me the most about this thread: A person appears to have "won" against a corporation - and there's a lot of people here who develop more sympathy for the corporation than for the person.

Let that sink in for a moment. Capitalism has truly won if people prefer corporations over humans. Not that this is the first time that I see something like that happening, but this whole thread is just full of love for an organizations that has only one single purpose (making money for the shareholders) and that will practically do anything allowed by law to fulfil that purpose without any sense of morality, emotion or benevolence. Yet people are willing to actually develop positive emotions towards this organization. Amazing. Bizarre. Absurd.

 

[johngordon]

This horse has been beat to death. This is Apple's service that Apple wants to launch. This was not a partnership engagement between Apple and all these artists. There was no equal say here.

If it was any other wholesaler-scenario, the wholesaler would buy the product from the creators/suppliers and then give it away if the wholesaler wanted a free trial offer. Apple wanted the business benefit of the give away for 3 months without having to pay the wholesaler bill to the creators of the product. "But Apple won't make nothing during the free trial either". True, but Apple's goal is to create a long-term new profit stream by leveraging a free trial offer to somewhat addict a segment to the service enough to motivate them to stay (a very, very common tactic often behind just about every free or heavily-discounted promotional trial offer).

What do you make at wherever you work? Imagine Apple deciding they want to give away your product for several months as part of getting an Apple service off the ground. Do you just roll over and run with that? If that's a free trial, it means zero initial revenue for anyone. And potentially lots of revenue for everyone after the trial? Do you do it? If so, good for you. I hope Apple decides it wants to bite into the industry in which you work so that you can experience the same scenario first hand.

I take your point.

But Apple, by creating a long term new profit stream, where they pay royalties over and above the existing industry standard, is in the artist's best interests as much as anyone.

That's why this has been such in interesting discussion - precisely because there is merit to both viewpoints.

If I was an unknown artist making virtually no money from existing streaming services, and Apple Music came alone putting a new streaming service right in front of nearly 1 billion existing iTunes account holders, and was offering a little more than the existing industry rate to make up for a free trial period to get as many of those 1 billion people on board as possible...

Would I be all over that? Absolutely.

Why - what would you do? Stand up for your right to earn mere pennies for three months, at the cost of a long term revenue stream marginally above the industry standard for all time after those three months? If so, good for you, but you'd be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Having said all that, I do think its great that smaller, unknown artists will get those pennies on a point of principle. I just think all the talk of them losing remotely signifiant proportions of their income is baloney.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

What amazes me the most about this thread: A person appears to have "won" against a corporation - and there's a lot of people here who develop more sympathy for the corporation than for the person.

Let that sink in for a moment. Capitalism has truly won if people prefer corporations over humans. Not that this is the first time that I see something like that happening, but this whole thread is just full of love for an organizations that has only one single purpose (making money for the shareholders) and that will practically do anything allowed by law to fulfil that purpose without any sense of morality, emotion or benevolence. Yet people are willing to actually develop positive emotions towards this organization. Amazing. Bizarre. Absurd.

Huh?

This argument is about corporations vs. corporations not corporations vs. people.
What is absurd is that you have humanized corporations as people which apparently garnered your sympathy.

 

[Nuvi]

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!

You need a mental floss buddy... It's about paying for something that should be free aka the free trial. The "costs of free" just went up and the future paying Apple Music subscribers are covering it. Then again, there are always the torrents, maybe Taylor Swift's of this world would rather prefer consumers using them than seeing successful aka profitable streaming services.

 

[crsh1976]

Cool, good move, but this was obviously planned - and that's fine, Apple is a master at PR stunts.

 

[Crzyrio]

Yes, as someone calculated above, the artists would break even after 70 months, and then they would start benefitting. If the service takes off.

Yes, that it exactly what musicians do. They spend a lot of time putting together a marketable product, with no income...

...and then Apple comes and asks them to provide that product for free for three months. That's where the analogy breaks down.

Like people here have said, if you have the bad luck of actually releasing your new album during the free trial period, then it could actually be the most-listened-to albume in Apple Music for three months - you would not make a single Cent. Then the three months are over and another album takes up the top spot. Well, tough luck! But at least you invested into a great service that is now really benefitting some other artist.

But that would only happen if they released their new album specifically this month.

In all industry's, products have a trial period in hope that the customer will want to continue to use it

After the inital launch if they release their album, they will be compensated by all the people listening to it who have already signed up. So while you will still lose money from the few who signed up at the time of release you will still receive payment from the existing customers.

 

[VenusianSky]

What amazes me the most about this thread: A person appears to have "won" against a corporation - and there's a lot of people here who develop more sympathy for the corporation than for the person.

Let that sink in for a moment. Capitalism has truly won if people prefer corporations over humans.

I wouldn't associate capitalism with cult-like behavior. Most companies don't have a following like Apple.

 

[roland.g]

Which makes Taylor speaking out even more impressive.

From what I hear she is a really cool artist. A little kooky with the whole wrapping gifts and sending/delivering them to fans. But it does seem like she is very personable. I just have no interest in her actual music. So her withholding her music from iTunes, Spotify, or Apple Music falls into the...

 

[Wiredog]

Great that she stood up for musicians, but her Concert Photo Credential Form still demands free use of photos "in perpetuity." To paraphrase her letter, forever is a long time to go without being paid for your work.

 

[johngordon]

The only comments in this thread should be "yay! musicians are getting paid for their work!". Anything else is stupid.

Yay! Struggling unknown artists will be paid 10cents extra for their work.

I liked the post earlier about how Apple should revert back to the industry standard 70% though.

Then it would have been:

Yay! Struggling unknown artists will be paid 10 cents extra for their work during these three months, but be paid slightly rest for the rest of their careers.

 

[skinned66]

I'll post them right after I'm done watching your "Wahhhhh Leave Apple alone. So mean!!!" videos.

Gee, where have I seen that before? "I know you are, but what am I?" probably would have been a better choice for you.

In any case thank you for the silliness. No hard feelings.

 

[RebornProphet]

She doesn't have a new album coming.

So I guess there goes the conspiracy theory.

Sorry, I don't keep up to date with Teeny Bopper music, I'm more a metal guy myself and can be found listening to Slipknot rather than songs about being annoyed at boys for being dumped.

Let's reword it, she a "current album" out and has a tour in progress for it.

It's not so much a conspiracy theory as being able to see through some corporate back slapping for mutual gain.

 

[pat500000]

Apple does the right thing.

you would think they do the right thing..they had no choice.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Cool, good move, but this was obviously planned - and that's fine, Apple is a master at PR stunts.

Good PR wouldn't have created this issue. It essentially paints Apple as a corporate greedy company. That's not the PR that a company like Apple wants.

 

[johngordon]

Yes, as someone calculated above, the artists would break even after 70 months, and then they would start benefitting. If the service takes off.

Yes, that it exactly what musicians do. They spend a lot of time putting together a marketable product, with no income...

...and then Apple comes and asks them to provide that product for free for three months. That's where the analogy breaks down.

Like people here have said, if you have the bad luck of actually releasing your new album during the free trial period, then it could actually be the most-listened-to albume in Apple Music for three months - you would not make a single Cent. Then the three months are over and another album takes up the top spot. Well, tough luck! But at least you invested into a great service that is now really benefitting some other artist.

I really don't think this argument stacks up once you plug in some numbers though.

If an artist releases a new album, and it becomes the most listened to album in Apple Music for three months, the probability is that it will also be a big selling album.

And those album sales will likely make up 99% of the artists revenue.

So you might not make a cent from Apple Music from the trial, but for every cent you don't make form Apple Music, you are still making 99 cents form actual sales, which will in all likelihood have been boosted by it being available for people to listen to first on streaming services.

In order for your argument to work, we are required to suspend belief and imagine an entirely unlikely scenario - i.e. one where an album becomes the most streamed album on Apple Music, but doesn't actually sell, at all.

The reality is that that just wouldn't happen.

 

[coarserocks]

Impressed by the boldness Apple is showing by publicly reversing their decision. Many companies would be too proud and lack the bravery to pull out of a mistake early and announce it to everyone.

The arguments that the musician's were just whining and they didn't see that this is in their interest in the long run did not resonate with me. It seemed like an economic/analytical approach which doesn't have much to do with art itself. The arguments that artists (and every working professional) deserves to be paid for their work rings with truth and simplicity. This is the only way to go Apple, better late than never even if it was public sentiment that forced your hand.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I take your point.

But Apple, by creating a long term new profit stream, where they pay royalties over and above the existing industry standard, is in the artist's best interests as much as anyone.

That's why this has been such in interesting discussion - precisely because there is merit to both viewpoints.

If I was an unknown artist making virtually no money from existing streaming services, and Apple Music came alone putting a new streaming service right in front of nearly 1 billion existing iTunes account holders, and was offering a little more than the existing industry rate to make up for a free trial period to get as many of those 1 billion people on board as possible...

Would I be all over that? Absolutely.

Why - what would you do? Stand up for your right to earn mere pennies for three months, at the cost of a long term revenue stream marginally above the industry standard for all time after those three months? If so, good for you, but you'd be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Having said all that, I do think its great that smaller, unknown artists will get those pennies on a point of principle. I just think all the talk of them losing remotely signifiant proportions of their income is baloney.

I appreciate your point. Are you putting the small, starving artists on par with Apple? Let me reframe: If I'm a small starving artist just barely eking out a living mostly on the strength of iTunes store transactions and Apple takes the stage to surprise me and the world with this new service that they proclaim will be the new iTunes and I learn they will be pushing people to try this even when they are trying to buy music in the iTunes store FOR 3 MONTHS for FREE, I probably get nervous. Then, I learn that during the free trial period when I'm probably seeing my iTunes revenue fall or potentially be eliminated, I am also told that Apple will pay nothing to me during that 3 MONTHS, all I can see is that the money that might pay my rent or food is probably going to be gone or mostly gone during those 3 months.

Do I just happily go along with that? Hmmm, I may be homeless by the end of the first month or two but I'll just buckle down, live in a box on the street until I weather the 3-month storm and then my added slice of the extra 1% or so that Apple will share with us that I don't get from Spotify and similar should enrich me enough to forget the misery of living in that box.

Is that extreme? Yes, but I bet applicable to at least some too. If you were an unknown artists making virtually no money, you'd be happy with this deal. That's great. If I was a virtually unknown artists barely squeaking out enough money from iTunes "as is" to pay the core costs of life, I wouldn't be happy with this deal. I'd especially be unhappy that the end result of this deal is to further enrich a very, very rich corporation who could easily play the wholesaler here and throw a little cash at us starving artists while leveraging our creations to establish a new 28% right-off-the-top revenue stream.

It's all in how you look at it. If I want to make the case for Apple pre-reverse, I can easily do that. I could talk about shareholder obligations, why does Apple have to take on all of the risk, server/infrastructure costs/etc. too. I could spin how rich Taylor Swift is and make this about her trying to get richer and so on. But in the end, I see this whole thing as a PR problem or opportunity. It's not really about Apple having to endure an unfair cost structure or making Taylor Swift even more money. Basically, Apple is the Goliath here and there's no spinning out of looking like they are exploiting "starving artists" for their own gain even with the argument of more "future potential" for those same starving artists down the road.

Even Apple has realized this and thus the reversal. Short term, this will cost Apple a tiny fraction of their cash holdings. In the medium and longer-term they are going to quickly transform from black knight to white knight in the court of public opinion, looking like the service who cares so much about the little guy, starving musicians that they put some of their vast wealth to good use even while they were making no profit for themselves. It will be a very cheap investment in building that good will.

 

[johngordon]

Sorry, I don't keep up to date with Teeny Bopper music, I'm more a metal guy myself and can be found listening to Slipknot rather than songs about being annoyed at boys for being dumped.

Let's reword it, she a "current album" out and has a tour in progress for it.

It's not so much a conspiracy theory as being able to see through some corporate back slapping for mutual gain.

Well, the album has been out for months, has been about the biggest selling album of the last few months.

And the tour is happening now, so has probably been pretty much sold out for months.

So I'm not sure she's getting much additional benefit in terms of album and ticket sales from this publicity.

God forbid she might actually believe in what she says she believes in.

Do you not think it is a perfectly valid view to take?

 

[furi0usbee]

Yay!!! Apple did the right thing. Don't care why they changed their minds, just glad they did. There should be NO ONE on this thread that has anything negative to say about this move. Once Apple pays for the music, they are free to trial it out or give it away as they wish. The free trial was always a great idea, but the trial has to come out of Apple's pocket, not the pockets of the artists/labels.

But being the way MR is, I'm sure someone will say that's not right and Apple shouldn't have to pay for it. But even Apple doesn't agree with you, as they come to the realization that not paying was a pretty low thing to do.

 

[furi0usbee]

Cant believe apple bowed down to a whiny singer.

Tim, I mean JXShine, you did the right thing! Pay for the music, then do whatever you want with it. Trial it, sell it, give it away for free. The right thing happened, we can move on now.