Majority of artist make their money from tours and shows vs records sold, Taylor doesn't even get her revenue from streaming. Her label does.
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
Majority of artist make their money from tours and shows vs records sold, Taylor doesn't even get her revenue from streaming. Her label does.
I understand. either way, it's a marketing campaign being subsidized by the labels. Take it up with them, TS... but remember, odds are that the label loaned you the funds to record and promote your album when you were an unknown artist. Odds are that the first million you made was used to repay all the business costs associated with your recordings...this is the same thing. Indirect marketing cost.
Doesn't any artist that signs on for apple music, sign some form of contract, that says they are ok with having the 3 month trial?
Of course most artists will choose that they are ok with the trial, as they will make more money in the long run.
So how can someone criticize Apple for following through with what them and and their artists agreed upon?
After all I am under the belief that Apple will be making more money for artists.
Of course most artists will choose that they are ok with the trial, as they will make more money in the long run.
So how can someone criticize Apple for following through with what them and and their artists agreed upon?
After all I am under the belief that Apple will be making more money for artists.
Only one word internship.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:
_____________________
A lot of people work for free for a prospect of a high paying opportunity not a promise a prospect or possibility...
I torrent my albums will be getting a family sharing subscription on this so there u struggle for 3 months of no money same no money I gave u before and after I will start sound fair I think....
Except her music isn't on spotify. Torrent is out of fashion? You must so out of touch with the current young generation.and perhaps you are just a blind Apple fanboy...
I'm not sure about that only both parts know their numbers. Torrents are SO out of fashion perhaps not for movies but for music you just use Spotify free currently and problem solved.
To me, this whole issue is being presented and discussed in the wrong terms. There are really just two pertinent questions:
- How much does the 3-month trial period help generate paying subscribers?
- Do these "extra subscribers" and the extra 1.5% of payout that Apple offers offset the 3 months that musicians (and Apple) are not paid?
It's not clear to me that a 3-month non-payment and 71.5% payout is worse than being paid from day 1 with a 70% payout.
I am not saying Taylor Swift is wrong, but Apple is betting that the "gain" beyond 3 months will offset the "loss" over the trial period. I believe Apple thinks that their model will actually be BETTER for musicians (because that would mean it's better for them too). At this point though, whether they are right or wrong is anyone's guess.
- How much does the 3-month trial period help generate paying subscribers?
- Do these "extra subscribers" and the extra 1.5% of payout that Apple offers offset the 3 months that musicians (and Apple) are not paid?
It's not clear to me that a 3-month non-payment and 71.5% payout is worse than being paid from day 1 with a 70% payout.
I am not saying Taylor Swift is wrong, but Apple is betting that the "gain" beyond 3 months will offset the "loss" over the trial period. I believe Apple thinks that their model will actually be BETTER for musicians (because that would mean it's better for them too). At this point though, whether they are right or wrong is anyone's guess.
True. But, they still pay their supplier for dough, cheese, pepperoni, etc., right? The pizza store takes the loss on handing out freebies. In this Apple music scenario, the artists are paying for apple's attempt to attract customers. 3 months can be a lifetime for a song. I agree with Taylor, Apple and the labels are being a dirt bags here.
To the main thread in general. It popped up at like 11 pm last night (in Asia here). Woke up this morning and it was already at 44 pages. Too late for me to follow everything and respond to individual posts.for clarity, where are you getting this from or who are you arguing against? responders in this thread or in response to something in the original post? or something else?
taylor swift did
Still digesting everything. But the general sensing is that there is no clear ready solution to this. Either Apple reduces the duration of the free trial, or pay musicians during this period, or they simply opt out. All of which have their own ramifications.
Or perhaps you are too young to notice the changes?, times have changed for illegal downloads, links from share files sites are deleted almost immediately, thepiratebay? is its ok but it was much better years ago...times change.
10 years ago illegal downloads were thriving, now it is more easy to use spotify free.
you have to understand how the industry works. 99% of artist don't even own their royalty like streaming revenue, radio play, music played in commercials etc. The record label owns and get all the revenue. So the record label signs the contract, the artist, well most have no say so at all.
Now the artist may get a small percentage from the label but not much...
If I choose to torrent Taylor's music right now, it can be done in less than a minute. BTW, it's the young people who are dictating the technological trends in case you haven't realized.
Again, artists that are okay with spotify most likely have no issues with apple music.
It's whiny idiots like Taylor who seems to hold an irrational hatred against streaming services that will force people to pirate her music.
1. It's 1.5% in the US but 3% in almost every other country
2. It's a new service, there's risk associated with it.
3. Im sure we have all witnessed apple's ability to lock people into their well-integrated ecosystem. When iOS 8.4 hits, more than 85% of iOS users will see the service in an app they use on a daily basis. Let's not forget that this service is also available to PC and android users.
Last edited:
60- and 90- day terms are very common in business. But in this case they ARE getting paid during that time period. They will be receiving royalties from people who are past their free trial and are now subscribers. And during those 90 days they aren't working (except on the next album).
Look at it this way - they do their work, write the songs, go into the studio and record, etc. They aren't paid immediately even without taking Apple into account. They are paid when the CD's sell, when the songs stream, etc. That happens later.
So Apple is trying to convince people who currently get their music for free on Youtube to actually pay for music. In the long term the artists will be better off. But if they disagree they don't have to participate (assuming they have any say over it, which brings me to the second point - if the artists really want a better deal, the low-hanging fruit would come from disintermediating the record labels, or at least get a better deal from them. When Apple pays the labels 71.5% of the subscription fee, how much of that do you think goes to the artists?)
You make it sound like apple isn't paying for anything.
Who is paying for electricity, software development, staff, server bandwidth and maintenance?
Sure, you can argue that this is apple's service, but once the trial is over, the artists are the ones taking the majority of the profit.
46 pages and no one has asked the important questions...
Will Apple Music users get to stream Taylor's upcoming All You Had To Do Was Stay music video?
What about New Romantics? It's technically being sold as a single on iTunes, not as a proper 1989 track.
Will Apple Music users get to stream Taylor's upcoming All You Had To Do Was Stay music video?
What about New Romantics? It's technically being sold as a single on iTunes, not as a proper 1989 track.
Solid username / comment synergy.Hah, you commented on this article. Something tells me you do.
What if Apple Music will be successful, iPhone and Android users are all listening... and What if another artist will bloom coz of Apple Music? And Taylor will be banned forever on Apple. Since she hates Spotify... Spotify also banned Taylor... You can only hear Taylor on torrent.
1. Good point, though still unclear to me how beneficial that really is, in real money over time compared to a 3-month loss in profit.
2. Yup, but a risk whose terms were decided by Apple. Musicians (or anyone else) are not forced to take this risk.
3. This is undeniably a different situation. This is a paying, subscription-based service. If you want to compare it to another Apple product, compare it to people who for pay for iCloud I guess.
I see that side of it (and argued it earlier in this thread) but still the way this whole rollout has been handled has been a mess. And that falls on Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine. And is a free trial of 3 months really necessary? Why not do what everyone else does?
No, everything from 1989 won't be available (as far as music is concerned). As for the video, perhaps, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
But Spotify does offer a 3 month trial...
Way too many comments for me to read everything first so I'm probably repeating things others have said but I'll state my opinion anyway:
1) it's called recurring revenue and is a definitely advantage in the long run. Look at what the software industry has done with the transformation to SaaS/Cloud and subscriptions. Moving away from a one time purchase/license model to monthly subscriptions was very difficult and many went out of business just due to the cash flow issues of that transition but it has made software (for those in this new[er] model) even more valuable. I suspect there's quite a bit of short term thinking and lottery mentality among musicians who think they need to hit that huge break and then be rolling in dough. This allows for a much more controlled and sustained income. Short term pain, long term benefit.
2) asking Apple to "eat" the first three months: this isn't three months free with 2 year contract or such or I'd agree. This is a free trial that presumably everyone could try out. There are what, nearly a billion iOS devices actively in use? Let's do the math, everyone takes it for a spin, 1x10^9 * $10(monthly fee) * 3(number of months) * .71(I think that was the advertised split to musicians) = a little north of $21BILLION, that's not even chump change to Apple. Now to think that the artists would be taking that hit in the interim would be like using RIAA math on piracy. It's just silly. If I were in Apple's position I'd probably be willing to concede something based upon projections of future actual subscribers and such but NO WAY would I be willing to front all of those musicians the full amount for the duration of the trial. If they did that would be a massive influx of cash completely out of step with the expected ongoing performance of this business. It would take Apple at least many years if not decades to recoup that on their 29% from those that continue on as subscribers. If the artists drew a line in the sand and said all or nothing I'd move forward with the remainder and provide less attractive terms to those that come on late to the party.
This is a great business model for Apple and musicians alike. It is change and change is hard though. I'm am sure that some won't survive that change but those that do will come out the other end much better positioned. Those that try to buck the trend to streaming in general though are doomed to fail, the world will move on without them.
1) it's called recurring revenue and is a definitely advantage in the long run. Look at what the software industry has done with the transformation to SaaS/Cloud and subscriptions. Moving away from a one time purchase/license model to monthly subscriptions was very difficult and many went out of business just due to the cash flow issues of that transition but it has made software (for those in this new[er] model) even more valuable. I suspect there's quite a bit of short term thinking and lottery mentality among musicians who think they need to hit that huge break and then be rolling in dough. This allows for a much more controlled and sustained income. Short term pain, long term benefit.
2) asking Apple to "eat" the first three months: this isn't three months free with 2 year contract or such or I'd agree. This is a free trial that presumably everyone could try out. There are what, nearly a billion iOS devices actively in use? Let's do the math, everyone takes it for a spin, 1x10^9 * $10(monthly fee) * 3(number of months) * .71(I think that was the advertised split to musicians) = a little north of $21BILLION, that's not even chump change to Apple. Now to think that the artists would be taking that hit in the interim would be like using RIAA math on piracy. It's just silly. If I were in Apple's position I'd probably be willing to concede something based upon projections of future actual subscribers and such but NO WAY would I be willing to front all of those musicians the full amount for the duration of the trial. If they did that would be a massive influx of cash completely out of step with the expected ongoing performance of this business. It would take Apple at least many years if not decades to recoup that on their 29% from those that continue on as subscribers. If the artists drew a line in the sand and said all or nothing I'd move forward with the remainder and provide less attractive terms to those that come on late to the party.
This is a great business model for Apple and musicians alike. It is change and change is hard though. I'm am sure that some won't survive that change but those that do will come out the other end much better positioned. Those that try to buck the trend to streaming in general though are doomed to fail, the world will move on without them.
The necessity of it is certainly debatable. We do have to understand that the music streaming market is extremely crowded right now and apple is using that as a differentiating factor against competitors.
Reminds me of that South Park episode where the stars complained about piracy as they would have to not buy an island, or buy a smaller lear jet....
On the one hand she wants to be paid for he work, on the other she's most likely a multi millionaire, and on the other hand Apple are desperate to get a foothold in the streaming market and so are given it away for free for those 3 months..
Interesting conflicts there but that's business. But it also means the customers will lose out as the indie artists refuse to let Apple stream their music, and the fan will go to where they can stream it.
I think Apple made a bad business choice due to that and should have had a 1 month trial in order to get as many artists as possible on board. Or paid the artist's royalties for the first 3 months, it's not like they can't afford it!
On the one hand she wants to be paid for he work, on the other she's most likely a multi millionaire, and on the other hand Apple are desperate to get a foothold in the streaming market and so are given it away for free for those 3 months..
Interesting conflicts there but that's business. But it also means the customers will lose out as the indie artists refuse to let Apple stream their music, and the fan will go to where they can stream it.
I think Apple made a bad business choice due to that and should have had a 1 month trial in order to get as many artists as possible on board. Or paid the artist's royalties for the first 3 months, it's not like they can't afford it!
Last edited:
If we're talking hypothetically then on average 3% increase isn't much when compared to giving away 25% of your annual revenue. That would hypothetically take what ? over 8 years to make up the difference ?
At the end of the day it's the artist's right to voice their opinion on how justly they feel their work is being compensated. I pretty sure they're aware of the exposure vs. compensation dilemma they face. So if they still feel in their mind the compensation side is the better one than who are you or I to say otherwise about THEIR livelihood ? Would you like someone else to tell you how to make the decisions and form the opinions in your own life ? If you're talking ulterior motives behind stances then trying to decide what's better for the artists when you're not them would seem like a blatant one wouldn't it ?
So if a Pizza store wants to attract customers guess what ? the pizza store decides what they want to do. If the customer wants free food, that doesn't make the pizza store wrong for choosing not do it. Therefore an artist is perfectly justified in saying how they feel their art should be offered.
Last edited: