Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter

[Sheza]

I guess you could argue that if people are using apples free trial, they aren't using an alternative service that is paying its artists.

I'm not going to stop paying for Spotify during the Apple Music trial and neither should anyone else.

 

[jlseattle]

Yeah. I don't give two hoots about Taylor Swift or her music, but it seems like they should at least offer a reduced cut to the artists during the trial period. After all, the music is the reason anyone signs up for a streaming service in the first place.

What I don't agree with is that somehow the fact that Apple has billions in the bank should enter into it. I hear this argument a lot, but it never made any sense. We live in a market economy. Apple should not be expected to be altruistic here. If they were, they should be sending a bunch of money my way. I participate in Apple user groups, I speak at conferences on Apple topics, I'm part of the reason they have billions in the bank! I should at least get a free iPhone out of the deal...

Me too! I gotten my friends addicted to Apple and have gotten lots of people to purchase Apple products. I too deserve an free Apple product at least.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

Every music label should just move to Amazon Prime Music they could make so much more money there and it is a great at no cost.

 

[HenryDJP]

Yeah.

That doesn't answer my question.

Actually it does. Taylor Swift pulled out of Spotify because she felt (most likely her record company) she was not getting either enough or any compensation for her music on Spotify's freemium tier.

 

[Iconoclysm]

As someone who has worked with someone in the indie music industry and my one of my main customers being an artist, I can completely agree with Taylor Swift for once. Its a huge blow as many people won't get paid a single penny for this! As many people will be using he Apple music for free from June, any album released from July to October, none of those artists will be paid for what they what could be streamed a billion times!
People like Taylor can manage that but my friend and customer cannot cope with that - I will lose business also as they wont be able to pay my bills.
I understand a small start up doing this, but the worlds richest company? Can't it afford losing some money on trying to get this service going?
This is not a Problem for Taylor Swift and big bands, but its for the indie artists and the teenager artists in their bed rooms - working all night on a song!
And that to me is why I'm pleased Taylor has put her foot down and said no and that's also why I will still pay for Spotify.

She's not helping them, nobody's buying their music right now - Apple will be the one helping them in the long run.

 

[ProVideo]

Does the three month trial start when the service goes live or when the user signs up? If someone doesn't sign up for the first three months of the service being available, will they not get the three months of free service after those three months are up?

 

[stevewayment]

But if you think about it... she wasn't getting anything from Apple Music subscriptions before it was a thing. In 3 months time, she will start getting money from Apple Music subscriptions.

How is it putting people out of jobs when they got 0 before and will get 0 for free months and then something?

People understand that streaming music services are temporary - if they stop paying, they stop being able to listen. Is this really going to hurt CD / iTunes sales? Because if people really support one particular artists they might not stump up the subscription fee just to listen to a handful of artists, and instead they will just buy like they always used to.

I basically don't agree that CD / iTunes sales would be impacted as much as the industry fears.

This is my thought exactly. I am very frugal with my money and would not have purchased 99.9% of the music from these artists on iTunes anyway. Now with this service many of these artists have a chance of getting some money from me, even if they have to wait an extra 3 months...

Do they want my money or not? If I hear their music during the trial and like it, I will continue to listen to it later (thus providing them some revenue). If I didn't like it during the trial, I would have never purchased it anyway.

 

[cmaier]

Yeah. I don't give two hoots about Taylor Swift or her music, but it seems like they should at least offer a reduced cut to the artists during the trial period. After all, the music is the reason anyone signs up for a streaming service in the first place.

they are already being compensated for streams during the free trial period because Apple pays a larger than industry standard rate AFTER the trial period ends. The issue isn't that they don't get paid, the issue is when do they get paid.

 

[HenryDJP]

Good job for Taylor speaking up. I've gained new respect for her. I do think that if Apple does this free 3 months they need to compensate the artists for what users are consuming.

I love these types of posts. So then why don't you pay for a subscription without a trial. That way the artists get paid for what you consume?

 

[p774]

As someone who read the first 6 pages of this thread, I am in disbelief of how stupid and blind people can be. So, let's get this straight.

First off, I know baking cupcakes is a bit different than making music, but bear with me.

Let's say I'm setting up a service called "Granny's cupcakes.". I'm one of the biggest cupcake resellers in the city and my store is in the downtown, which means quite a few people might see/buy it. So I go up to you, the content provider (baker) and we agree on the price you sell me your cupcakes for.

Now, that I have a content (cupcake) provider, I'm ready to start selling. Of course I have costs like rent, electricity and so on. With that in mind, I decide to have — let's say — 25% higher price to cover the costs + 5% revenue on each product I sell.

I really believe in my service but I tell you I need you to deliver your cupcakes to me free for 3 months in order for me to start paying you for them, because I got this great idea of giving people the cupcakes for free, which means they'll try my service and when they see they like my (read your) product, they'll eventually start paying for it. But you'll still need to pay your costs (flour, cream, cherries, rent, electricity…) 'cause your costs are none of my business, of course. I'm also not getting paid, so what?

Now imagine a scenario in wich your bakery is a partner with a bigger company called United Cupcakes, Inc. which resells not only your but other's bakeries cupcakes. They send you a monthly report which tells you how much you should bill them.

My company goes up to CEO of United Cupcakes and we arrange a deal. And then the CEO goes up to you and tells you that you're not getting paid for 3 months in a row but then you'll eventually get paid the next month.

Of course you're not dumb, so you're selling your products to other resellers. But you know that my company has the money to market my service and they'll giving it for free for 3 months. So why would anyone buy from these resellers anyway when they can have them for free, right?

For Jack, the consumer, this is great. He will get cupcakes free for 3 months. But you're not getting paid for any of them.

Great business idea, don't you think? Not so much for you I guess.

Now, please answer these questions:
- would you think this is a fair offer?
- would you deliver me your cupcakes free for 3 months, knowing that I might be just the right cupcake reseller?
- what would you think of the CEO of United Cupcakes?

I imagine this wouldn't hurt your bakery if it was big and profitable, but if you're just starting, I can't possibly think of an universe in which you are like: "whatevs, I can support other company's product".

edit: valid point is that bakers need to buy ingredients every time they bake a new cupcake. But this isn't about the ingredients. The message is that they will work for free and can't cover their costs of living.

edit2: let's say you're an app developer and apple decides a subscription for AppStore would be a great idea. But you would get paid because of the trial.

 

[Subdiv]

I honestly don't understand why it would take anyone 90 days to decide if they like a streaming service. It takes me about an hour...

 

[HenryDJP]

Musicians should 100% without a doubt be getting paid during the free trial. If a gym gives out a free trial during a grand opening do the gym employees work for free for two weeks? If a restaurant has an opening night dry run do they tell their food suppliers "we're not going to pay you for this shipment, this was for our free night... You understand... We're going to be open for at least 2 years and you still want our business, right???"

While I just love your analogies, as a person who is paid on commission I can tell you now that when I have to provide services that don't have any gross profit I get no compensation from the company, but the client gets receives services free of charge still.

 

[petsounds]

It's called a loss leader... Don't worry you'll be back to pulling in 100's of millions after this terrible trial period.. I hope you can make it until then.

And why should musicians "lose" in order to help kickstart Apple's streaming service? If Apple wants to offer a free trial of music they don't own, they should pay the musicians to use their work. This is not about Taylor Swift, because as she says in her letter, she can support herself at this point. This is about the smaller bands and artists who are barely getting by. Asking them to devalue their work to zero for three months is unacceptable, especially coming from a company like Apple that supposedly loves music. If they love it that much, then they should support the artists, not exploit them.

 

[domo74]

People who don't want to pay for music have plenty of ways to get it.

If Apple can convert some percentage of those people into payers isn't that a good thing?

And you're going to b**** that it takes 3 months instead of happening instantly?

Give me a break. I guess you'd prefer they just remain pirates forever? How is THAT better?

People forget what it was like before Itunes and how everyone was just pirating all their music. Other services also give a free trial, And now that apple is trying to do the same they are evil ? How fast people forget that thanks to apple they started making money. I'm not saying they are perfect but give a break they are not out to kill artist. Taylor talks about how hard is for indie artiest to make money, well in the era of CD's do you think it was easier lol nope. It was impossible, only a few people that where backup by the industry made it. Everyone else was out of luck. Now they are able to get their stuff out there just like the guy making millions of dollars, Thanks to Apple.

 

[darkknight14]

So, Taylor Swift has written an "open letter" to Apple explaining why she won't be putting her new album on Apple Music.

She says even though she's "ok and can afford not be be paid for 3 months" (Really? Like she's actually skint, aye?) she's "speaking up" for the indie labels who won't get paid during the 3 month trial period.

She's kidding no one on, she's raging she won't be paid. The simple fact here is that if she wanted to help Indie labels she'd use her Twitter to showcase upcoming names, but she doesn't. She is hiding her rant about not being paid behind the smokescreen of, "I'm doing this to raise awareness for those who don't make as much as me." No hen, you're not.

So, the good thing is that she's no longer on Spotify and soon she won't be on Apple Music. Another place where I can listen without being bothered by her psychotic ranting pop songs about the men who left her.

Brilliant.

Bottom line, I use streaming services but also buy thr hard copy of my favourite bands latest album. I'm older, so remember the buzz of going into a store and buying the album.

I agree with this, although I am not afraid to say I have enjoyed her music in the past.

Apple certainly has a few difficult questions to answer, if they change the 3 month trial to 30 days consumers could boycott the service (even though I believe 30 days is enough for anyone to decide if they like something or not).

Going to be an interesting couple of months ahead..

 

[Marx55]

In summary, greed everywhere. Is there a limit?

 

[whiteonline]

Last time I checked, the record companies agreed to the 3 month trial. Why not direct the criticism to them?

 

[nikhsub1]

And who saved the music industry's ass 10 years ago?

Clearly you need to revisit history. It was more than 10 years ago too... what happened happened as a result of technology, the industry didn't need saving, it just needed to find it's way in the new tech. It still isn't there and this move by Apple certainly isn't helping matters at all. Apple can more than afford to pay the artists out of their pockets for the 3 months, it is the right thing to do. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional and has no clue how music artists get paid on their works.

 

[nikhsub1]

Last time I checked, the record companies agreed to the 3 month trial. Why not direct the criticism to them?

Again, record companies usually get ZERO from publishing royalties. Artists care less about units sold than publishing royalties (as a general rule, exceptions aside).

 

[aajeevlin]

Wow if that's the type of logic you employ, do I have a job offer for you!!! It pays ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the first three months, but after that I promise I'll start paying you.

Sign here:


_____________________

It's call unpaid internship, and no it's not legal but it happens. So if you can actually promise a job after three months, I can promise that you will have a very long line at your door. I agree that the music stream system isn't perfect, but at least the artist will get pay after three months for their work. As for us, we just hope we don't get another "unpaid" internship.

 

[stevewayment]

As someone who read the first 6 pages of this thread, I am in disbelief of how stupid and blind people can be. So, let's get this straight.

First off, I know baking cupcakes is a bit different than making music, but bear with me.

Let's say I'm setting up a service called "Granny's cupcakes.". I'm one of the biggest cupcake resellers in the city and my store is in the downtown, which means quite a few people might see/buy it. So I go up to you, the content provider (baker) and we agree on the price you sell me your cupcakes for.

Now, that I have a content (cupcake) provider, I'm ready to start selling. Of course I have costs like rent, electricity and so on. With that in mind, I decide to have — let's say — 25% higher price to cover the costs + 5% revenue on each product I sell.

I really believe in my service but I tell you I need you to deliver your cupcakes to me free for 3 months in order for me to start paying you for them, because I got this great idea of giving people the cupcakes for free, which means they'll try my service and when they see they like my (read your) product, they'll eventually start paying for it. But you'll still need to pay your costs (flour, cream, cherries, rent, electricity…) 'cause your costs are none of my business, of course. I'm also not getting paid, so what?

Now imagine a scenario in wich your bakery is a partner with a bigger company called United Cupcakes, Inc. which resells not only your but other's bakeries cupcakes. They send you a monthly report which tells you how much you should bill them.

My company goes up to CEO of United Cupcakes and we arrange a deal. And then the CEO goes up to you and tells you that you're not getting paid for 3 months in a row but then you'll eventually get paid the next month.
Of course you're not dumb, so you're selling your products to other resellers. But you know that my company has the money to market my service and they'll giving it for free for 3 months. So why would anyone buy from these resellers anyway when they can have them for free, right?

For Jack, the consumer, this is great. He will get cupcakes free for 3 months. But you're not getting paid for any of them.

Great business idea, don't you think? Not so much for you I guess.

Now, please answer these questions:
- would you think this is a fair offer?
- would you deliver me your cupcakes free for 3 months, knowing that I might be just the right cupcake reseller?
- what would you think of the CEO of United Cupcakes?
I imagine this wouldn't hurt your bakery if it was big and profitable, but if you're just starting, I can't possibly think of an universe in which you are like: "whatevs, I can support other company's product".

You are assuming that every time someone listens to a song the artist has to purchase raw ingredients to remake the song from scratch at their own cost. This is a crappy deal for the person baking cupcakes, but an excellent and free marketing deal for someone providing digital content.

 

[Denmac1]

The point that people are missing is that Apple won't make a cent out of the trial period too. It's like a joint effort with the studios to get more people on board and make more money later.

The bigger subscription base will be beneficial to both artists and Apple later on.

This... The Indies still may have made money from other sources. Like others have said, Zero of zero is still....'0'. It's not like Apple was paying them before and now took that money away. If I was a new band and wasn't making any money anyway, wouldn't this be an opportunity to eventually promote yourself and have a potential to gain recognition?

I know this may inflame some TS fans, but this artist is so over exposed. I personally don't care for her music or her overall attitude. Her ego may be larger than her bank account. She left Country because her audience there wasn't big enough to satisfy her quest for attention. Think Justin whats his name....

Oh, and before flaming, I worked in the music industry for many years and helped support many upcoming bands. The good ones were aware of the hard work and sacrifice they were making to support their craft, as many times it meant unloading their own equipment and eating cheap.

 

[robogobo]

The solution to this problem is for Apple to pay royalties for free trials just for the first three months that Apple Music is active, June 30th-Sept 30th. It's during those months that zero revenue will be coming in because everyone will be on a trial period and there won't yet be any paid subscribers. During that time nobody is making any money, and Apple needs to compensate for that. On day 91 the money starts pouring in and Apple will be paying royalties for subscribers whose trial has ended, so the sting of new free trials beginning from that point onward won't be felt. They should have offered this from the beginning, and would have been in their best interest in order to get everyone on board early on. They could even expand this to give all newly signed artists a three month "bonus" where they're paid for free trial "plays" during their first 90 days of publishing their work. Everybody wins and Taylor Swift could shut her trap.

 

[FrancoRumors]

As someone who has worked with someone in the indie music industry and my one of my main customers being an artist, I can completely agree with Taylor Swift for once. Its a huge blow as many people won't get paid a single penny for this! As many people will be using he Apple music for free from June, any album released from July to October, none of those artists will be paid for what they what could be streamed a billion times!
People like Taylor can manage that but my friend and customer cannot cope with that - I will lose business also as they wont be able to pay my bills.
I understand a small start up doing this, but the worlds richest company? Can't it afford losing some money on trying to get this service going?
This is not a Problem for Taylor Swift and big bands, but its for the indie artists and the teenager artists in their bed rooms - working all night on a song!
And that to me is why I'm pleased Taylor has put her foot down and said no and that's also why I will still pay for Spotify.

So Apple is supposed to provide a new revenue generating music streaming platform, all of the promotion, software development, customer support, servers, bandwidth etc etc all for free?? Hmmm... Great business plan! You all realize apple is a business right? Their whole existence revolves around being profitable and having the bankroll to develop all the tech we depend on.

Taylor needs to get a grip... If the larger artists such a Taylor Swift sign of to streaming services they will draw a larger user base and help out all of the indie musicians in the long run (a rising tide lifts all surfboards ) Apple has a such a large worldwide network I would think it will be getting exposure for some bands that may have never seen the light of day. Sure, it may hurt some artists but that is life. Those who adapt and learn to change with the times will ultimately survive and profit.

Maybe Apple should charge artists a surcharge to be a part of their streaming network? Or perhaps 3 months of free exposure will lead to increased ticket sales and a general increase in revenue across the board?? Have an open mind - try not to be the old guy who swears by his 8 track.

 

[HenryDJP]

I don't actually support it. I think Apple should just cover the cost themselves. But that's because they can easily afford it.

Absolutely ridiculous. Because they can easily afford it huh? Well why don't you pay the subscription model upfront and that will fix the issue? Surely you can afford that.