Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

So much cluelessness in this forum from people who aren't even artists or labels and have no stake in this, but are acting like experts on the subject. I'll try this one more time since my previous post got buried before anyone read it... this is from the previous Apple Music thread as well. PLEASE READ.

Since I am both a fairly unknown indie artist as well as an indie record label with music on the iTunes Music store, I have some actual insight into all of this. The offer I received was simply, Apple has a new streaming service "Apple Music" and I have the option to add all of my current iTunes Music Store music to this new streaming service with the condition that I won't get paid for 3 months of streaming due to the free trial of what ever user signs up. Me opting in or out has no affect on my music releases that are currently in the iTunes Music Store. Simple as that. I opted in since it's worth it for me to get my music on Apple's streaming service in case it does take off; though I generally don't like streaming services because I don't make as much money...

Also, I've made more money selling through Apple's iTunes Music Store than any other service (e.g. Amazon MP3 Store, Google Play, Xbox Music, etc.) And don't even get me started on Spotify! As I mentioned in another thread here, for every song of mine that sold on the iTunes Music Store (of which I received 70 cents per song) that same song streamed 50 to 100 times on Spotify... and I have yet to see a single penny in over 2 years from Spotify! Yes, I'll be pulling all of my music from Spotify very shortly here.

EDIT: One other thing I want to clarify is this, I don't think people get how the 3 month trial works, especially with relation to an indie artist. It's not a 3 month free trial starting in June and nobody gets paid no matter what! It's a 3 month free trial whenever a particular user signs up for the Apple Music streaming service and it depends on what he/she actually listens to.

So, for example, lets say Joe Schmoe decides to finally sign up to Apple Music on September 1st. He now has a 3 month free trial until the end of November. During that time all his "streams" are nothing but U2, AC/DC and Neil Diamond. So those 3 artists (or rather, their Record Labels) won't get paid for Joe's streaming during the months of September through November. Do you really think I am worried about that as an indie artist? Really?

On the flip side, say one of my fans (yes, I do have some) signs up to Apple's Music stream and the first thing they do is look for my songs. If I had opted out, my fan can't stream my stuff and I don't make any money anyway (and then my fan may forget about me and move on.) But if I opted in, which, again, I have, then my fan, who has already most likely bought my music in the past, is happy to see I am also part of the streaming service and now looks forward to what I do in the future. It's definitely a win/win for any indie artist to opt in and not to worry about the 3 month trial. It's really not that big of a deal.
----------------------
In reality, if you are already a big artist like Taylor Swift, this isn't going to affect you one bit (they've made a great amount of money on sales previously, and they will again once any trials are over) and if you are complete unknown indie artist that makes very small sales like my Seven Summer Eyes project, then I doubt millions of people, or even hundreds of thousands, will be specifically seeking you out during the trial just to stream your stuff. Most likely, it won't affect them either.

Who it will affect is those indie artists that are on the verge of becoming successful, that may get tens of thousands of sales, just enough to live off on, and once Apple Music goes live, if a bunch of people subscribe and get the free trial and seek out that particular, on-the-verge-of-success, indie artist, that means those fans are no longer buying that artist's music and are instead, streaming it for free, for 3 months. That could bankrupt that artist! That's where I am at with one of my new projects Science Patrol, which is quite surprising how this project of mine has taken off. I've been enjoying steady album sales, so if other people discover me during the trial of Apple Music, it could really hurt me.

(This will be my final post on the matter. We all just have to wait and see how this pans out.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jstuts5797, Tankmaze, seventhedition and 5 others
Some folks are reacting as if Swift really penned this letter. A PR flack did it likely on behalf of the label.
It's resentment for a deal they already signed on to and approved.

So strike me as one who sees all the disinegenuousness here. The flip side is Swift gets to he cheered by others in the industry which this is also seen as a PR advantage.

Trust me, she ain't losing any sleep over any of this.
 
warnerve said:
since streaming is so bad, lets just go back to our old ways and download everything for free at piratebay
Click to expand...

That's bad too since piratebay is a public torrenting website and your ISP will track you and send you letters. Go private.
 
Personally I don't see the argument here. If Apple was profiting from their music, yes the artists should be paid. Apple isn't as the trial is free. They're using it as a way to entice more consumers to pay for music via streaming.

DJ's have known this for a long while. Free promotion doesn't net you CD sales but it does net you concert tickets which puts a lot more money in your pocket. Some of the most successful EDM artists give almost all their music away for free on sites like SoundCloud.

Indie artists have a bit more ground to stand on but I still don't agree with them. How many users are not going to purchase their tracks on iTunes because they may be able to listen to them during a 3 month window? None of us have stats on this but I would wager it's not as high as they think is.
 
spjonez said:
Personally I don't see the argument here. If Apple was profiting from their music, yes the artists should be paid. Apple isn't as the trial is free. They're using it as a way to entice more consumers to pay for music via streaming.

DJ's have known this for a long while. Free promotion doesn't net you CD sales but it does net you concert tickets which puts a lot more money in your pocket. Some of the most successful EDM artists give almost all their music away for free on sites like SoundCloud.

Indie artists have a bit more ground to stand on but I still don't agree with them. How many users are not going to purchase their tracks on iTunes because they may be able to listen to them during a 3 month window? None of us have stats on this but I would wager it's not as high as they think is.
Click to expand...

Apple couldn't care less if Apple music made a profit...that's not their goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and aylk
spjonez said:
Personally I don't see the argument here. If Apple was profiting from their music, yes the artists should be paid. Apple isn't as the trial is free. They're using it as a way to entice more consumers to pay for music via streaming.
Click to expand...

I'm eager to see the Apple music version for Android...
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkie
crabbo said:
Still, someone has to pay for all the crazy R&D Apple is doing to innovate their hardware and software. Apple is like a magic factory lately with all the innovation.
Click to expand...

Crazy R&D?

Apple spends less than its peers and way less as a % of revenue.

uploadfromtaptalk1434923435801.png
 
Paradoxally said:
That's because free is eternal. Taylor hates that. With AM, it's just 3 months.
Click to expand...

Nahhh Taylor considers the streaming model the same as giving the music for free, at least the Spotify model.

Also she prefers to support the physical format apparently.
 
marco114 said:
Here's the things Talyor Swift isn't considering:
  • Apple spent TONS on R&D, Advertising, employee labor, and negotiations to ramp up the service
  • Apple has millions of customers with credit cards on file ready to buy
  • Apple has brand loyalty
  • Apple has millions of devices ready to play their songs.
If the artists just think of all the new customers they will be getting later on.. they should just live with it. It's a cost of doing business. Maybe they can declare a loss on their taxes if it's really that bad. Getting customers accustomed to the service by offering a free trial will get people addicted to using the service.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Stop making excuses for Apple. They're sitting on an absurd pile of cash, yet they want artists to go without pay for 3 months? It's insulting. I'd wager that 99% of the people commenting here do NOT make their living in the music industry (so really have NO IDEA what they are talking about), yet because it's our beloved Apple we must look the other way.

Your list is correct. I'd like to add another bullet point:

• Apple does not have a streaming service to sell without content

People like you minimize and trivialize the hard work of artists. You want to enjoy the content. You want to listen to that favorite song over and over and over again, but you don't want to see the artist you (supposedly) love compensated. I buy a lot of music. When I think of how many times I play an album over and over and over again...over many many years...I'm the one getting a great deal at $10/album.

But now artists are supposed to make even less on throw-away streaming services? And filthy rich Apple can't dip into its bottomless pit of cash and pay some kids crammed into a van driving around the country promoting their self-financed album a few pennies every time someone streams a song for three months? Seriously? Apple can't do that???
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventhedition, Benjamin Frost and smorrissey
smorrissey said:
Nahhh Taylor considers the streaming model the same as giving the music for free, at least the Spotify model.

Also she prefers to support the physical format apparently.
Click to expand...

The Spotify model, exactly. That's why she took all her music off. With AM, it's just 1989 because she knows Apple will give her $$ after the 3 months with the rest of her discography.
 
robbyx said:
People like you minimize and trivialize the hard work of artists. You want to enjoy the content. You want to listen to that favorite song over and over and over again, but you don't want to see the artist you (supposedly) love compensated. I buy a lot of music. When I think of how many times I play an album over and over and over again...over many many years...I'm the one getting a great deal at $10/album.

But now artists are supposed to make even less on throw-away streaming services? And filthy rich Apple can't dip into its bottomless pit of cash and pay some kids crammed into a van driving around the country promoting their self-financed album a few pennies every time someone streams a song for three months? Seriously? Apple can't do that???
Click to expand...

Isn't that what most people do when they sign up for streaming services? Hate the game, not the players.

Plus, if you want to REALLY support artists, go to their live shows.
 
jmh600cbr said:
she needs to back off the streaming industry...NOW
Click to expand...
Why? She appears to be "dead on, balls accurate" in her assessment. If Apple wants to lure people with a free 3 months, then they should pony up and pay the artists for promotional considerations. I love Apple and it's products but it's time for them to stop squeezing every nickel and being cheap. It's no different than them not providing 2 gb ram in the iPad Air less than two years ago or them withholding any feature to entice folks to upgrade. It's not ethical and it's not fair minded towards the consumer. It's chicken ****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
So much fuzz about 1989, i found that hilarious, yes i bought it, i know it was the #1 top seller last year in the States but sorry it is not THAT good, it is not bad obviously but it is NOT a great album. Personally i don't care if it is available on Spotify or AM.
 
smorrissey said:
So much fuzz about 1989, i found that hilarious, yes i bought it, i know it was the #1 top seller last year in the States but sorry it is not THAT good, it is not bad obviously but it is NOT a great album. Personally i don't care if it is available on Spotify or AM.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some love it, some absolutely hate it. I'm like you, it's good, definitely not great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smorrissey
easy4lif said:
Her attitude is why i bought be deluxe cd, made a copy, and then donated it to my local library. Hundereds more people must have " borrowed " it as well :D
Click to expand...

Your attitude sucks. You have no respect for artists or their art.
 
genshi said:
So much cluelessness in this forum from people who aren't even artists or labels and have no stake in this, but are acting like experts on the subject. I'll try this one more time since my previous post got buried before anyone read it... this is from the previous Apple Music thread as well. PLEASE READ.

Since I am both a fairly unknown indie artist as well as an indie record label with music on the iTunes Music store, I have some actual insight into all of this. The offer I received was simply, Apple has a new streaming service "Apple Music" and I have the option to add all of my current iTunes Music Store music to this new streaming service with the condition that I won't get paid for 3 months of streaming due to the free trial of what ever user signs up. Me opting in or out has no affect on my music releases that are currently in the iTunes Music Store. Simple as that. I opted in since it's worth it for me to get my music on Apple's streaming service in case it does take off; though I generally don't like streaming services because I don't make as much money...

Also, I've made more money selling through Apple's iTunes Music Store than any other service (e.g. Amazon MP3 Store, Google Play, Xbox Music, etc.) And don't even get me started on Spotify! As I mentioned in another thread here, for every song of mine that sold on the iTunes Music Store (of which I received 70 cents per song) that same song streamed 50 to 100 times on Spotify... and I have yet to see a single penny in over 2 years from Spotify! Yes, I'll be pulling all of my music from Spotify very shortly here.

EDIT: One other thing I want to clarify is this, I don't think people get how the 3 month trial works, especially with relation to an indie artist. It's not a 3 month free trial starting in June and nobody gets paid no matter what! It's a 3 month free trial whenever a particular user signs up for the Apple Music streaming service and it depends on what he/she actually listens to.

So, for example, lets say Joe Schmoe decides to finally sign up to Apple Music on September 1st. He now has a 3 month free trial until the end of November. During that time all his "streams" are nothing but U2, AC/DC and Neil Diamond. So those 3 artists (or rather, their Record Labels) won't get paid for Joe's streaming during the months of September through November. Do you really think I am worried about that as an indie artist? Really?

On the flip side, say one of my fans (yes, I do have some) signs up to Apple's Music stream and the first thing they do is look for my songs. If I had opted out, my fan can't stream my stuff and I don't make any money anyway (and then my fan may forget about me and move on.) But if I opted in, which, again, I have, then my fan, who has already most likely bought my music in the past, is happy to see I am also part of the streaming service and now looks forward to what I do in the future. It's definitely a win/win for any indie artist to opt in and not to worry about the 3 month trial. It's really not that big of a deal.
----------------------
In reality, if you are already a big artist like Taylor Swift, this isn't going to affect you one bit (they've made a great amount of money on sales previously, and they will again once any trials are over) and if you are complete unknown indie artist that makes very small sales like my Seven Summer Eyes project, then I doubt millions of people, or even hundreds of thousands, will be specifically seeking you out during the trial just to stream your stuff. Most likely, it won't affect them either.

Who it will affect is those indie artists that are on the verge of becoming successful, that may get tens of thousands of sales, just enough to live off on, and once Apple Music goes live, if a bunch of people subscribe and get the free trial and seek out that particular, on-the-verge-of-success, indie artist, that means those fans are no longer buying that artist's music and are instead, streaming it for free, for 3 months. That could bankrupt that artist! That's where I am at with one of my new projects Science Patrol, which is quite surprising how this project of mine has taken off. I've been enjoying steady album sales, so if other people discover me during the trial of Apple Music, it could really hurt me.

(This will be my final post on the matter. We all just have to wait and see how this pans out.)
Click to expand...

Good, clear and concise post. Thanks for the clarification. Glad I jumped to the final page and skipped all the stupid posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: genshi
spjonez said:
Personally I don't see the argument here. If Apple was profiting from their music, yes the artists should be paid. Apple isn't as the trial is free. They're using it as a way to entice more consumers to pay for music via streaming.
Click to expand...
Apple makes money selling devices. The services (eg music streaming) is just to sell more hardware devices (of which artists don't get a cut).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back