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.
Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry - but we're not talking about Spotify. We're talking about Apple who is entering the market with their product. I'm pretty sure plenty of artists have spoken out against Spotify and their revenue model. I find your side of the argument pretty irrelevant.
At the end of the day - an artist is saying thanks but no thanks. She's entitled to criticize as it directly affects her livelihood. Whether it's .01 or a million bucks - she gets to have a voice in the discussion.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I calculated that as a most expensive case based upon a very, VERY successful scenario of 100 MILLION people signing up for the free trial for all 3 months. I doubt that scenario will occur but I put it out there as a wildly successful case to show how little it might cost relative to either Apple's cash hoard or even their monthly profits.
I also pointed out that they could fire up iAd during the free trial to reduce their cost out of pocket and write off whatever they actually spend to reduce their tax liability.
So his number- $500 Million- could work out. $500M/$22 per free trial subscriber = abut 22.7 Million free trial users using it for all 3 months. That would also be a HUGE number. I personally expect Apple to get more than that but that could be viewed as very successful in and of itself.
From my perspective, even the 100-million user scenario is just so cheap relative to Apple's cash on hand and/or monthly profits, I'd authorize fully subsidizing this free trial period so that all of these artists that I regularly proclaim I care so much about would get paid in full during this trial period (which I want as I'm trying to get MY music service off the ground). Why? Because it's a solid PR move and, if I get the success I expect beyond 3 months, I'll make all of that expense back in my 28% take from this service for the rest of the time I run it (likely years and years and years from now).
But what do I know? Apparently, the up to $2.2B means more to Apple than the very positive PR that they could spin for looking out for the starving artists. I guess they'd rather have the rich and very popular artists like Swift and the poor and relatively unknown artists like The Brian Jonestown Massacre painting the same picture of the brand putting its own interests above the artists who create the content.
There's so much PR benefit opportunity here for Apple if they would just make a simple move that should have been made right from the start. Not only can they win on PR goodwill AND have artists praising Apple as a better option rather than faulting them for behaving badly but they could also put great pressure on established competitors to show how they look out for the artists. The others won't be able to do that as well as Apple could and Apple could ride that to help motivate many more people to switch and/or choose Apple's option over the established players.
Last edited:
For the so called Artist: blame Apple for giving it FREE
For listeners: Blame Taylor, if ever Apple remove the 3 mons FREE
still waiting for her breakup song about Spotify..... though Spotify did do a break up song about her...
Last edited:
Bingo. Anyone claiming she will transcend this path doesn't understand the music industry.
Well Steve Jobs is dead for one thing so his "values" don't have to be upheld by Apple. The rest of your post is senseless. Just because they have money doesn't mean they should foot the bill for your free listening pleasure and to fill the artists pockets while also footing the bill for hosting and promoting unknown and known artists.
Try that logic on yourself and see if you still agree. Just because you can afford to do something does that mean you should get stuck with bill?
Exactly, look at Avril Lavigne. Kids who were 16 when she broke onto the scene are now 29. They sure aren't listening to her music anymore.
I have not read the whole thread, therefore apologize if I repeat someone's argument.
I consider myself a Taylor Swift fan, and own Red and 1989. I like a lot about her. Liked her WSJ opinion piece where she withdrew from Spotify (well, I'm a bigger Apple fan than Swift fan as we will see).
First, I emphasize that Apple is negotiating a 71.5% payout, higher than the standard 70%, after the trial. So they recognized there might be an economic consequence to the three month trial. 1.5% forever, versus three months of a zero base should be considered a "rape of the treasury" by any thinking business person. Yes, let's put some skin in the game and make this work, it is no sure thing for Apple, coming in late, etc.
Apple has paid for the entire set up of this service, Apple Music, all the servers, account setup, advertising, negotiating with the music business industry, purchase of Beats. This is their skin in the game. No guarantee at all that it pays off.
Apple is a public company and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, like it or not.
So, Indie musicians won't get any payout from July thru September. If Apple hadn't started this service, Indie musicians would not have gotten anything from the company. Ah, but you say all the paid Spotify will go on hiatus for three months and they will lose that revenue. The argument is false because it implies that Apple Music will be the 100 million paid customer success Apple has set as a goal. So, from 20 million Spotify payers at 70% to 100 million payers at 71.5% isn't a good bargain? This short sighted thinking may explain why the music business industry is so weak, but that topic has many more facets to explore.
For Indie musicians, you know this is coming, plan your life accordingly. It will be a success, and you will "sell" more music on iTunes during the summer. See you in September.
For Taylor. You have demonstrated a brilliance in navigating all aspects of your profession. I don't know for sure, but I don't think you have a disciplined understanding of economics (not just pontificating, BA econ, MBA).
Also, your music I love but there must be a higher level. So, now you are rich, go undercover and sign up for some philosophy, psychology, english, history and economics classes at Columbia or somewhere and come back in a couple of years and set new all time sales records for a recording artist. And Apple Music will be there to help.
I consider myself a Taylor Swift fan, and own Red and 1989. I like a lot about her. Liked her WSJ opinion piece where she withdrew from Spotify (well, I'm a bigger Apple fan than Swift fan as we will see).
First, I emphasize that Apple is negotiating a 71.5% payout, higher than the standard 70%, after the trial. So they recognized there might be an economic consequence to the three month trial. 1.5% forever, versus three months of a zero base should be considered a "rape of the treasury" by any thinking business person. Yes, let's put some skin in the game and make this work, it is no sure thing for Apple, coming in late, etc.
Apple has paid for the entire set up of this service, Apple Music, all the servers, account setup, advertising, negotiating with the music business industry, purchase of Beats. This is their skin in the game. No guarantee at all that it pays off.
Apple is a public company and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, like it or not.
So, Indie musicians won't get any payout from July thru September. If Apple hadn't started this service, Indie musicians would not have gotten anything from the company. Ah, but you say all the paid Spotify will go on hiatus for three months and they will lose that revenue. The argument is false because it implies that Apple Music will be the 100 million paid customer success Apple has set as a goal. So, from 20 million Spotify payers at 70% to 100 million payers at 71.5% isn't a good bargain? This short sighted thinking may explain why the music business industry is so weak, but that topic has many more facets to explore.
For Indie musicians, you know this is coming, plan your life accordingly. It will be a success, and you will "sell" more music on iTunes during the summer. See you in September.
For Taylor. You have demonstrated a brilliance in navigating all aspects of your profession. I don't know for sure, but I don't think you have a disciplined understanding of economics (not just pontificating, BA econ, MBA).
Also, your music I love but there must be a higher level. So, now you are rich, go undercover and sign up for some philosophy, psychology, english, history and economics classes at Columbia or somewhere and come back in a couple of years and set new all time sales records for a recording artist. And Apple Music will be there to help.
I agree in that I think that she didn't do this just for self-promotion.
It is true that artists don't want to speak out against their label. Labels can make life really hard for artists. Pat Benatar's autobiography goes into this quite a bit.
Except there's always the chance that customers that want 1989 will simply buy it. Just because Apple has a new service doesn't mean suddenly that artists will sell MORE (eventually). They might sell the same, just spread out against more platforms.
It doesn't matter who you're a fan or bigger fan of really. Apple can set up their service how they want and artists can participate whether or not they want. I don't think anyone can really argue against an artist stating why they won't participate. They have skin in the game.
Right because with the price of a cookie or candle they're usually charging you the amount it took to make that cookie or candle so they make the compensation for that individual cookie or candle right back when they sell it.
That's not how these artists are compensated. When someone streams their song they get paid like what ? less than half of 1 cent ? Even when someone buys their album alot of these artists are making less than 30 cents on that one physical album being bought at Walmart or wherever.
So accumulation of compensation is very important in that sense. That's why the business model in this particular industry is set up the way it is and why artist would be justified in not wanting their music out there for free.
Let's say your mother was a exercise instructor, she made exercise videos and sold them. Would you be okay with people in some way shape or form exercising to those videos without properly compensating her for them ? If they just said " Well someone else already paid her and it only took her one time to make the tape so...." How would you feel about a family member being paid unequal to how her work is being used ? If she has 1000 people who used her tape she should be paid for it. Not have only 10 people pay 10 bucks each, the other 990 found a way to get it free of charge and expect your mom to be happy with the $100.
As far as the second part asking about her seemingly contradicting stances is that it's not contradicting at all.
She left Spotify because they had a free tier which consists of the majority of Spotify's customers. Artists are not paid for music that is streamed on Spotify's free tier. Which is why she pulled her music from Spotify.
Now paid services do pay artists per stream. A VERY small percentage but they're still paid. Which is why I can see it mattering to artists that they want to be paid off as many streams they deserve.
More people streaming = less people buying albums.
So I can see why an artists is gonna fight for every penny. It's also not just them that needs to be paid. Producers, song writers, instrumentalists, studio engineers, etc , etc, etc all need to be paid off that small amount as well.
What about if you are 40 and you like her? Am i gonna be able to rectify my mistake ever? maybe in hell?
A couple days ago BuzzFeed reported that Taylor Swift's new album, "1989", would not be available to stream on Apple Music, denying the service of one of the best-selling albums of the last two years. Today, Swift penned an open letter to the Cupertino company explaining her decision.
Swift, who calls Apple one of her best partners in selling her music, says that while she is able to take care of herself and her band, crew and management with money from live shows, indie artists do not have the same luxury. She explains that her sentiments about the three-month free trial are echoed by "every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much."
She goes on to say that she understands Apple is working toward a goal of paid streaming and that Apple Music could be the first streaming service that "gets it right" in her eyes in regards to artist compensation. However, she also points out that Apple is "astronomically successful" and could afford to pay artists, writers and producers during the three-month free trial. She closes the open letter asking Apple to reconsider its policy.
This isn't the first time Apple has received criticism for not paying labels and artists royalties during the 3-month free trial. Last week, indie labels from the United Kingdom who housed artists like Adele argued that the trial period would "put people out of business". Singer-songwriter Anton Newcombe also spoke out about the policy, claiming the Cupertino company threatened to ban his music from iTunes if he did not accept no royalties during the 3-month free trial. Apple denied the claim.
Apple Music will launch in just under 10 days, going live 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.
Article Link: Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter
OK, Taylor, how about you be "generous" with your $$$millions and to your fans and prospective fans by giving up a bit of your profits to support Apple and its customers via whom you have benefited greatly?
Just a suggestion in the spirit of your open letter...
I respect that she is speaking up for the majority of artists for whom three full months of people listening to their music with no compensation at all is a big deal. It is low class of Apple to not pay the artists during the trial period.
Are you aware of her generosity to her fans and causes? Again - I'm not TS fan, but your "request" is pretty ignorant of everything she's already doing.
So many forget how expensive it is for an artist to make an album.
Studio time isn't cheap.
A record producer isn't cheap.
It's mixed by somebody.
It's mastered by somebody else.
Distribution.
Promotion, etc.
There are only a few bands, in metal, that can get away with not paying for these things. Most albums take 6 months or more to make and most bands only release albums every 2 to 3 years. It's a cycle of write-record-tour. While many of them aren't broke, they sure aren't rich, either. Some of this come to light in the documentary, As the Palace Burns (about the band Lamb of God).
Only the mega-bands like a Metallica or Iron Maiden are "rich" yet, I read that even Metallica isn't as well off as you'd think. Why do you think they are always touring even though they don't have a new record to promote? To make money to pay for the album they are making...
So, not to be paid for the expense of making their music is absurd.
Studio time isn't cheap.
A record producer isn't cheap.
It's mixed by somebody.
It's mastered by somebody else.
Distribution.
Promotion, etc.
There are only a few bands, in metal, that can get away with not paying for these things. Most albums take 6 months or more to make and most bands only release albums every 2 to 3 years. It's a cycle of write-record-tour. While many of them aren't broke, they sure aren't rich, either. Some of this come to light in the documentary, As the Palace Burns (about the band Lamb of God).
Only the mega-bands like a Metallica or Iron Maiden are "rich" yet, I read that even Metallica isn't as well off as you'd think. Why do you think they are always touring even though they don't have a new record to promote? To make money to pay for the album they are making...
So, not to be paid for the expense of making their music is absurd.
OK, "I'm not a fan" either, but connect the dots on her demand to have Apple compensate her and other artists during this 3 month period. I'm not ignorant of her "good works" but her going after Apple for their net worth strikes me as hypocritical. That's all...