Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reverses Course, Will Pay Artists During Apple Music Free Trial
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually Apple is providing their product for free for three months too, as are the publishers.
Ironically the only group complaining is the one with the least amount of money spent/given up in the three month trial. Both apple's expenses and those losses for publishers will dwarf artist payouts by a huge margin.
Consumers won't end up paying for it, the artists will. They will see future increases or even pull backs in future negotiations. Not hard to see how it will play out. Given Apple already gives them more than anyone else and they complained into getting paid for free trial apple can easily negotiate all that back in the future. Was short sighted decision by artists.
I don't want to get into the photo thing because it is apples and oranges. Suffice it to say they are pictures of her she is trying to control which I think is a reasonable standard and will absolutely become more common place.
Not like she is keeping photographers from selling pictures of trees. If they want to photograph her she gets the rights. That is a business deal. They can not photograph her and not worry about it.
I still don't understand how many people can look passed the labels that made the deals, obviously unbeknownst to the artists, but on their behalf.
Don't get me wrong, Apple needed to do something for the many people that help us enjoy our everyday drive, but the focus on Apple, whose duty as a company is to make the best deal they can bargain, for doesn't make sense. They're not even a dominating force in the market! I can't imagine their sway with the labels since they have a successful Spotify in their belt (albeit the free tier, which I assume they hope Music kills).
Am I crazy to bat an eye at the labels who should be responsible to the artists, who are giving them the talent to profit on? They were not forced. They helped to form this deal. They are responsible for the contract that was constructed as well.
Either way, hooray for Apple for shouldering the financial responsibility as artists deserve to be credited. In this instance, as the labels are the ones who signed, I think they should bear some responsibility after reconsideration of the deal on fair terms, but I seem to be in the minority
Don't get me wrong, Apple needed to do something for the many people that help us enjoy our everyday drive, but the focus on Apple, whose duty as a company is to make the best deal they can bargain, for doesn't make sense. They're not even a dominating force in the market! I can't imagine their sway with the labels since they have a successful Spotify in their belt (albeit the free tier, which I assume they hope Music kills).
Am I crazy to bat an eye at the labels who should be responsible to the artists, who are giving them the talent to profit on? They were not forced. They helped to form this deal. They are responsible for the contract that was constructed as well.
Either way, hooray for Apple for shouldering the financial responsibility as artists deserve to be credited. In this instance, as the labels are the ones who signed, I think they should bear some responsibility after reconsideration of the deal on fair terms, but I seem to be in the minority
I guess the definition of the word "visitor" is confusing you?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That group is also the poorest of the three when you factor in all of them together. Apple: Richest. Music Labels: Rich. Artists (with the exception of a handful like Ms. Swift): Poor
After 3 months:
Apple will get it's 28% or so right off the top indefinitely, the Labels will get the bulk of the other 72% per the generally exploitative deals they are well-known for and the artists will get the scraps out of that same 72%.
Apple's 28% is solely for Apple. The Studios 72% is divvied up among ALL of the labels/publishers involved and all of the labels artists. The vast majority of the artists get scraps. I don't know if any single label has a big enough slice of the 72% to make as much as Apple's 28% but, I would guess that Apple is getting the richest share of the whole pie, individual labels & major publishers are getting rich shares and the artists are getting scraps.
In other words, after 3 months, both Apple's revenues and revenues for publishers will eclipse artist's payouts by a huge margin, and will continue on for however long this service exists.
The moral of the story: all parties are not equal here. As much as we will tout wishing the artists who create the content would get paid rather than the greedy music corporations (or cable corporations in TV service threads), here's a chance for the artists to actually get paid something rather than nothing during this trial and we're siding with the richest corporation of them all.
And, since you like irony, THAT corporation has now reversed it's stance to side with the artists and you're still arguing against the artists. If all this is blind worship of Apple, Apple now wants to pay the artists during the trial- see post #1... so you are making a case against both the starving artists AND Apple's wishes.
Last edited:
You are talking about previously created music and, potentially, however many contracts Taylor is contracted to do. That doesn't change the fact that Big Machine wants future contracts with Taylor. Nor does it change the fact that you want to be on good terms with your chief money maker. I assume that everyone knows that Taylor didn't write this blog post. It was written by a PR person or, if they are smart, a lawyer. It was certainly reviewed and discussed by everyone important at Big Machine and their lawyers. Of course. But Taylor has pull at Big Machine. They take meetings with her. They include her and get her consent in the big decisions that have to do with her music.
Again, her popularity does not seem to be going away. She is young and increasily producing bigger and bigger hits. A country music label can't hope to have much more of a star on their books than this cross over pop icon. Taylor could be the next Madonna or Beyonce. She could be making hit records ten years from now. No existing contract (unless Taylor's agents and lawyers are complete idiots) covers Taylor's new music in 2025.
So she totally has influence over Big Machine.
trials generally don't work that way.
it's 3 months from the day each individual signs up for the service.. you sign up october1 ? expires jan1..
Apple's 28% also covers all of the server farms, the construction guys to build them, the electricity to run them, the bandwidth to push the content out, the engineers to oversee them, the programmers to make the App, the DJs to create the playlists, etc. Artists may in fact be getting scraps. I think that is one of the issues that artists have raised about streaming. But don't think that Apple's 28% is going straight to Apple's shareholders and the executive officers. I don't know if the labels do much more to get a previously recorded song onto a streaming system than email over the music's file. Heck all those songs are on iTunes. I don't think they need to do much more than say, "Yes, I'd like my music to be included." Apple probably takes it from there.
Here's what I truly don't get. It's one thing to not agree with Taylor Swift. It's one thing not to like her music. It's one thing to want to get the maximum amount of stuff for the least amount of money. But, but, but ... Apple is NOT a pioneer in music streaming. In fact, they're sort of getting into this very, very late. Why are people acting like if something isn't on AM, then they can never listen to that song again? Are spotify, pandora, Google Music, Amazon Music, et al. now garbage because AM is launching? They were all doing this, and doing it WELL, before Apple jumped into music streaming. That kind of blind loyalty to one corporation is something I don't get. You love your iphone and ipad? Well guess what, you can still listen to all your songs in your spotify library next week. Apple Music is just another streaming service and I don't see what it offers that the others don't.
Best gorilla marketing strategy ever.
Step 1: Create "trial" policy guaranteed to solicit reaction from Taylor Swift, media buzz, fans, etc.
Step 2: Let it simmer
Step 3: Emerge as the hero and "give in" to Swift
Step 4: Everyone knows about it and everyone thinks its good
Step 1: Create "trial" policy guaranteed to solicit reaction from Taylor Swift, media buzz, fans, etc.
Step 2: Let it simmer
Step 3: Emerge as the hero and "give in" to Swift
Step 4: Everyone knows about it and everyone thinks its good
maybe you don't get it because you're just making things up to not get?
who said that? who's acting like that?
Everyone who said they'd have to cancel their spotify because of AM next week. And if you haven't read those posts, then you must not be paying attention to MR.
which again raises the question: why isn't everyone going off on the labels, which get 72% of the money and keep most of it for themselves? Isn't that the low-hanging fruit for artists who think they should get a bigger slice of the pie? If Apple gives up some of its 28%, very little of it will reach the artists.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I appreciate the hardware/infrastructure argument but wasn't that already largely in place? Isn't the same hardware/infrastructure hosting and delivering the entire iTunes library, iCloud, etc already in place? Wasn't the same IT personnel managing all that hardware and software already in place running servers for iTunes, iCloud and so on. Could anyone point me to any reference anywhere on the Internet that conclusively shows that Apple had to make a HUGE investment in new servers and infrastructure and personnel to be able to support this new Apple Music service? Last I heard (which may not be true), Apple laid off a bunch of the Beats staff as redundant because they already had people with duplicate skillsets in place: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-starting-to-lay-off-beats-employees-2014-7
As you say, "Heck all these songs are on iTunes", so it seems that Apple doesn't have to buy a bunch of new server farms and spend a bundle on new infrastructure beyond what is probably mostly already in place.
Relative to worrying about Apple's electric bill, isn't Apple very, VERY green when it comes to electricity usage? Have we not seen multiple stories about how Apple's server farms are running mostly (entirely?) on green sources such as solar? http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/05...rth-carolina-data-center-on-renewable-energy/
And even if such a cite exists that shows this massive burden of new costs Apple is having to endure to pay for the backbone of Apple Music, Apple will write the whole cost off, reducing their tax liability on the profits they make from everything else they sell... just as they'll write the free trial costs off as promotional expense. The savings in not making those expenses- if of any real, tangible size- would be inconsequential to Apple's total revenues & profits for the year.
I never said the 28% was pure profit- just that it's probably the biggest slice of the whole pie. I can't prove that but it seems like a good guess for anyone who thinks it through. How many major labels are there? Isn't that 4 or 5? IMO, it seems reasonable to assume that those 4 or 5 would take most of the 72%. 72% / 4 = 18%. Maybe one of them is bigger than the other 3 or 4, so maybe one of them MIGHT get up to Apple's 28%. Maybe?
My point is richest (Apple), rich (labels & publishers) and poor (artists not named Swift, Perry, Bieber and a relatively small group of others who really could give their music away for 3 months and be fine) was to the point of Apple taking on all of the risk (for Apple's new service) implying that the artists should share in those risks as if each party is equal partners in this endeavor. They are not. If it is successful, Apple will make FAR more than any of the other players, the labels & publishers will take smaller slices out of the 72% and these "greedy" artists will get the scraps... for years and years to come.
In entrepreneurship, there is a saying: "to he who takes the bulk of the risk, goes the bulk of the rewards." As this is now unfolding, that's exactly what is happening here. If we actually expected the artists to fully share in the risks, where's their 28% cut right off the top?
Last edited:
Apple caved because they were afraid Taylor would write a song about them.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's so easy to write but so hard to do. The labels actually do offer value to musicians. They usually take on some-to-much of the risk, even funding some musicians creating music or in promotions before that music is generating any revenue for the label. They put up HR talent like marketing, graphics design, producers, engineers, etc to whom THEY pay salaries to contribute to the overall whole for some artists. Etc. They are not fat cat crooks completely exploiting the artists in every possible way. There is value there.
While not well known, Apple's iTunes has long offered a direct path to market for any artists that wanted to basically do a "for sale by owner" approach rather than working with labels: http://www.apple.com/itunes/working-itunes/sell-content/music-faq.html . Why haven't the vast majority of artists on iTunes jumped on it? Think about someone like- say- Paul McCartney who has been around the block so many times and who sits atop a mountain of cash himself and has even owned his own label long before Apple even existed. He knows about promotion, he knows how to package an artists, etc. What can a label offer him that he could not do himself AND fully fund himself. Does he need third party promotion? Does he need to be fronted some cash so he can make a new album? Does he need a label to promote him to the other what- 100 people on the planet that don't know who he is? And yet, even he signed with a brand new Starbucks label: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccartney-signs-with-new-starbucks-label/ for an album. Why? Because even a guy as knowledgable about the business and as fully funded as him must see some value in the labels. He's not a naive, ignorant, innocent child ready to sell his soul for a music contract and a few bucks.
All that said, yes, for the artists, their real opportunity is to try to get the labels to give them better deals... not so much Apple who is basically Walmart in the digital store space. However, generally artists have nothing at the beginning when they sign and showing them even a few thousand dollars and a recoding contract will motivate them to sign away most of their earnings forever. Also consider that new artists are typically just as connected as any of us. They have as ready access even to MacRumors where they can read our collective view of how exploitative the music labels are and yet, talk to any unsigned musical artist and what is their #1 goal: to get signed by a label? Why?
Again, even the Beatles signed away 25% to Brian Epstein who was a fledgling band manager who moved them to sign away a large share mostly because he was part owner of a group of regional record stores in Northern England. He then naively signed away something like 90% of their merchandizing revenues in the Seltaeb deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seltaeb. They signed away ownership of their music so that Michael Jackson would eventually own the entire Beatles catalog. That's typical of the kinds of things that happen down at that end of the pond. So many musical artists are ridiculously far from being a Beatles or a Swift/Perry/Bieber... yet living every moment of every day trying to get any label to sign them.
And here, we armchair experts expect these starving artists to negotiate on a similar plane as an Apple or a Label and just pull their music and make it work without an Apple or a Label if necessary... as if all of these artists are as expert at all musical industry matters and the various skills involved, as many of us Apple fans.
Last edited:
heh.. probably the most important piece of infrastructure that's in place is all of us buying phones and whatnot..
all of the arguments pretty much boil down to who gets to take money out of our pockets and put it into theirs.
i mean, we're funding ALL of this.
(not an argument etc.. just sayin is all)
The look on that guy's face when he says "don't you think, Billy?"
American anchors are hilarious/terrifying people.
That's so easy to write but so hard to do. The labels actually do offer value to musicians. They usually take on some-to-much of the risk, even funding some musicians creating music or in promotions before that music is generating any revenue for the label. They put up HR talent like marketing, graphics design, etc to whom THEY pay salaries to contribute to the overall whole for some artists. Etc. They are not fat cat crooks completely exploiting the artists in every possible way. There is value there.
While not well known, Apple's iTunes has long offered a direct path to market for any artists that wanted to basically do a "for sale by owner" approach rather than working with labels. Why haven't the vast majority of artists on iTunes jumped on it? Think about someone like- say- Paul McCartney who has been around the block so many times and who sits atop a mountain of cash himself and has even owned his own label long before Apple even existed. He knows about promotion, he knows how to package an artists, etc. What can a label offer him that he could not do himself AND fully fund himself. Does he need third party promotion? Does he need to be fronted some cash so he can make a new album? Does he need a label to promote him to the other what- 100 people on the planet that don't know who he is? And yet, even he signed with a brand new Starbucks label: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mccartney-signs-with-new-starbucks-label/ for an album. Why? Because even a guy as knowledgable about the business and as fully funded as him must see some value in the labels. He's not a naive, ignorant, innocent child ready to sell his soul for a music contract and a few bucks.
All that said, yes, for the artists, their real opportunity is to try to get the labels to give them better deals... not so much Apple who is basically Walmart in the digital store space. However, generally artists have nothing at the beginning when they sign and showing them even a few thousand dollars and a recoding contract will motivate them to sign away most of their earnings forever. Also consider that new artists are typically just as connected as any of us. They have as ready access even to MacRumors where they can read our collective view of how exploitative the music labels are and yet, talk to any unsigned musical artist and what is their #1 goal: to get signed by a label? Why?
Again, even the Beatles signed away 25% to Brian Epstein who was a fledgling band manager who moved them to sign away a large share mostly because he was part owner of a group of regional record stores in Northern England. He then naively signed away something like 90% of their merchandizing revenues in the Seltaeb deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seltaeb. That's typical of the kinds of things that happen down at that end of the pond. So many musical artists are ridiculously far from being a Beatles or a Swift/Perry/Bieber... yet living every moment of every day trying to get any label to sign them.
And here, we armchair experts expect these starving artists to negotiate on a similar plane as an Apple or a Label and just pull their music and make it work without an Apple or a Label if necessary... as if all of these artists are as expert at all musical industry matters and the various skills involved, as many of us Apple fans.
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, why doesn't Taylor Swift, for example, take a stand against the labels for demanding unfair deals with new artists? Why did she focus on Apple? (I believe because she's in it for herself, but what do I know).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
My guess would be that with the Apple thing hitting in just a few days, she appeared to think more highly of Apple than maybe she thinks of the labels, and maybe thought a plea from a very successful artist on behalf of all those starving artists might motivate some other bigger names to also make a plea this week. And, believing in Apple (much like many of us do), it seemed plausible to her that with the right push, they would come to their senses and do the right thing here even if it might cost them a tiny fraction of their cash hoard.
The same effort with all of the labels over the weekend couldn't have done anything. There's hundreds of labels, maybe thousands, and there was no impending launch leverage to be potentially flexed to move all of their Eddie Cues to do the right thing in the next few days. Apple has long spun their great love for the artists. The labels aren't exactly known to be that way. She appealed to that PR stance and just was- apparently- the last punch from yet another artist, to finally motivate Apple to reverse their stance.
OR, she could be the greediest witch on the planet and disguised a play for more money as a white knight plea to the biggest company in the world, solely for her own interests.
Either way, I don't see this whole matter as being much about Taylor Swift. I see it as a PR problem or opportunity and Apple was moved to do the right thing all things considered. IMO, this is basically how it should have been rolled out from the start. Sometimes a rich corporation needs to spend a little of it's riches on it's PR/brand/image rather than tarnish that image a bit to retain a little more profits that- let's face it- Apple will never even miss.
Hopefully, this rare (mostly perceived) victory for the smallest players might spur on some of them to try to approach the whole thing differently and maybe move away from the old label model to try to bypass some middleman. And maybe this streaming "new music discovery" will flow some extra cash through to some of them to help them give it a shot. Swift won't have any leverage against almost all labels with whom she has no relationship. But she did have an opportunity to move a digital Walmart to rethink and then reverse their approach. Personally, I think it's good for everyone involved, including Apple (image & good will are hard earned and very valuable).
The same effort with all of the labels over the weekend couldn't have done anything. There's hundreds of labels, maybe thousands, and there was no impending launch leverage to be potentially flexed to move all of their Eddie Cues to do the right thing in the next few days. Apple has long spun their great love for the artists. The labels aren't exactly known to be that way. She appealed to that PR stance and just was- apparently- the last punch from yet another artist, to finally motivate Apple to reverse their stance.
OR, she could be the greediest witch on the planet and disguised a play for more money as a white knight plea to the biggest company in the world, solely for her own interests.
Either way, I don't see this whole matter as being much about Taylor Swift. I see it as a PR problem or opportunity and Apple was moved to do the right thing all things considered. IMO, this is basically how it should have been rolled out from the start. Sometimes a rich corporation needs to spend a little of it's riches on it's PR/brand/image rather than tarnish that image a bit to retain a little more profits that- let's face it- Apple will never even miss.
Hopefully, this rare (mostly perceived) victory for the smallest players might spur on some of them to try to approach the whole thing differently and maybe move away from the old label model to try to bypass some middleman. And maybe this streaming "new music discovery" will flow some extra cash through to some of them to help them give it a shot. Swift won't have any leverage against almost all labels with whom she has no relationship. But she did have an opportunity to move a digital Walmart to rethink and then reverse their approach. Personally, I think it's good for everyone involved, including Apple (image & good will are hard earned and very valuable).
Last edited:
She is. Apple iTunes and other online music stores have been a huge revenue generator for indie artists who couldn't previously distribute an album for profit without giving 75% or more to a studio.. IF they were signed.