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

[QquegChristian]

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 the first time a streaming service is built right into iTunes, actively trying to sign you up in the same place you were going to buy music. It would be like flipping to pay-per-view to browse movies to rent and having a box pop up that says, "Would you like to browse Netflix Instant first?"

It will put a dent in iTunes if it is successful. I don't think Apple is launching the service to add income, but to protect themselves from Spotify becoming so huge that they start to really eat into iTunes.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Let's go to the math: suppose that Apple's free trial woos 25M (million) to take the trial and Apple wanted to make everyone happy by offering a free trial AND paying for the trial in the background (much like Netflix pays for the content to offer it at $8). 25M times $10/month = $250M/month. 3 month of free trials = $750M. Is that a lot of money? Is that a lot of money for Apple? How much did Apple pay for Beats? How much profit did Apple make just for the last quarter?

Let's make the free trial much more successful: 100M free trial users for 3 months. 100M times $10/month = $1B (Billion) per month times 3 months = $3B. How much did Apple pay for Beats? How much profit did Apple make just for the last quarter?

And that's not even the real math, as it's including the amount that Apple would be keeping for itself (apparently about 28% or so). Redone: 100M times about $7.20/month = $720M times 3 months = about $2.2B for 3 months. Is $2.2B a lot of money for Apple?

In short, for a relatively tiny portion of the Apple cash hoard (smaller than they paid for Beats), they could just pay the full price of the service for everyone interested in the trial, and it would be almost nothing to Apple. Content creators would get paid, Apple could write it off as a business expense, consumers could try it for 3 months for free.

Furthermore, Apple could get creative and inject some iAds to help pay for the trial and clearly convey that these ads run only for that purpose and would not be included after the free trial ends. This weekend, HBO & Cinemax are running one their free trial weekends. These (what are usually thought of as) commercial-free channels are basically running commercials pitching watchers to sign up for HBO & Cinemax before the free trial ends. Apple could follow that well-established, well-proven lead too to further reduce their own bill during this trial period. HBO & Cinemax are not getting to run movies for free during this period; they are just eating the bill of running the movies as a marketing expense to try to woo more subscribers. Apple could copy this and everyone would be happy.

Instead, Apple, no longer the small, fledgling company it once was... now billed as "the biggest company in the world" or "the most profitable company in the world" or "the most successful company in the world" needs those artists to donate their wares for 3 months so that Apple can try to make even more money. I wonder if, instead of Apple, this thread was about Google or Samsung or Microsoft, would our collective sentiment be so overwhelmingly in favor of those corporations vs. the artists who create the content. (rhetorical)

 

[TallManNY]

Apple should pay, totally.

But the music labels negotiated this deal. If Swifty is so upset, she should leave her label.

Swift presumably has a contract with her label, Big Machine, that is not easily broken or renegotiated. Also, I think she makes perfectly clear in her letter that she and her label is ready to take the hit for three months. Frankly her label probably loves that this new competition is coming up to fight against Spotify (which they have their major beef with).

I don't think the big labels have a problem with this deal because they are getting a nice cut of the future subscription services. This is about the little guys who were not invited to the big negotiation session with Apple and the top Labels.

 

[gnipgnop]

Wrong!
If it is a selling point for Apple's own product, then why are they offering it on Android?

Because the competing services offer their products on Android. That doesn't change the fact that it's a selling point to people who are interested in Apple products. Apple's software and services exist to help sell it's hardware.

 

[muadibe]

Perhaps they can reach a compromise. Apple could still offer a 3 month trial period for users, but pay artists any royalties due for the first two months.

I wonder if that might be more palatable to the likes of Swift?

 

[Macronym]

The lack of critical thinking around here is appalling.

Also Apple is using the content to build Apple's service. Why does the very rich Apple company need that content donated for three months? You haven't addressed that point. Though in some ways the answer is easy, it saves Apple money to get the content donated for free for a few months. And also most of the content comes from the big labels and this is indirectly how Apple is getting the big labels to chip in some cost for building this service out.

Seriously? It is a free trial, Apple aren't receiving money during that period either. They are providing the infrastructure - already built with their money - and artists are providing the content. Both will benefit and both should share the burden to build the service - which consists of content and delivery.

And what does Apple want? Oh right, they're not in it for the cash, they're in it to make the world a better place.

Yes, except they are not asking artists to chip in for the servers.

With billions in the bank why not pay the artists what they're due during the free trial period.

With billions in the bank why not pay Apple for providing the infrastructure, software development and their own clientele?

Its a huge blow as many people won't get paid a single penny for this!
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!

Nobody is being forced to use this service. Also, I don't see you asking for the big bands to also chip in here.

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.

That is how every startup works.

B. Even if she is doing it to buy herself a bigger mansion, so what?! That's her music and her effort why shouldn't she buy a 3rd, 4th or 5th mansion if people are willing to pay? If you're happy to give away your work for free after a certain income good for you, but that doesn't mean she or the other artists have to.

Nobody "has to". The service isn't compulsory. Apple are also giving their work for free, unless, of course, one doesn't think of software development and building a clientele as work.

That is simply not true. They get paid now via services like Spotify. When people switch to Apple Music during the free trial period, then these payments will go away. So it is not going from "nothing to something" but from "something to less and back to something". Some artists can't afford that "less" period.

And they are free to choose. Of course, those who are complaining know very well that it will be going from "something to less and back to something better". Otherwise, what is the problem? Stick to Spotify.

Reading the replies here it's obvious that people still don't see 'music' as a real product. And we can probably add 'movies', 'photographs' and 'written content' to that list.

Sure you can decide you'll offer a service as a 'loss leader' for 3 months. Sure you can decide to offer free trials for a new service you dreamt up.

It's also obvious that some people don't consider the infrastructure and clientele provided by Apple as a real product. Servers, developers, client base, are those "dreamt up" too?

I think it is okay that Apple is getting the big labels to donate their songs for three months for free. But Apple could offer a different deal to the Indie labels (assuming the big labels would let that happen). Or Apple could say that it will pay normal streaming rates for any song up to X streams per month during the trial period. X could be set at a level that the Indies will get their relatively normal but modest monthly payment, and only the mega stars and big labels who have 10s of millions of streams per month have to take a hit.

Sounds like a great idea, but it won't work well in reality. What would be considered a "big label" and what would be "Indie"? It will be a huge nightmare of deciding who should pay how much with results worse than what we are seeing now..

 

[Narsail]

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.

It is so sad, i'm coding all night so that i maybe can sell my application some time. But until then i have a part time job to manage my bills. Poor teenage writers... Accept the market and your environment. I mean, you don't have to be part of apple music and then will not get any money. If you take the risk then you will be part of apple, don't get money for three months and then the moneys is coming. Don't complain, work hard and it will pay off. Or start your own streaming service with your conditions.

 

[Paradoxally]

I'm going to side with Apple here. I love Taylor but she's always complaining about something nowadays.

Her back catalog will be available so that's not an issue to many people who appreciate her music. After all, I know many people that don't particularly enjoy 1989 (her latest album) and consider it to be generic pop - myself included. So that's not the worst thing in the world. Those who love her latest album have likely bought it anyway.

I think these artists will rue the day they said no to Apple. This isn't Google, who did much, much worse when they launched Google Play Music. They say this now, because Apple Music has not launched yet. Once it reaches millions of iDevices, soon enough it will overtake Spotify (maybe in a year or so) and they will come crawling back.

Swift and her label probably won't because they have the money, but indie artists...oh you bet they will. They can't afford to say yes to Apple now, but they also can't afford to say no forever. It's either that or no streaming service. And that's going against progress.

Apple is just the lesser of many "evils" in the streaming business.

 

[dtich]

she needs to back off the streaming industry...NOW

i'm sorry, i kinda like this girl. i don't disagree with her, and i think it is a well-measured expression of her point.

 

[Zimmy68]

I am completely confused by these crybaby artist.
What do you think Apple is trying to do here?
Stiff you?
What is the ultimate goal? Get more ears on your music.
You want people to sign up for a monthly subscription and then forget about it while they pay after the free three.
It is not like they are passing out free music to everyone. This is streaming.
I swear, I thought the record companies were the problem.
Apple is technically paying, guess what 0% of 0 dollars is?

 

[TallManNY]

Let's go to the math: suppose that Apple's free trial woos 25M (million) to take the trial and Apple wanted to make everyone happy by offering a free trial AND paying for the trial in the background (much like Netflix pays for the content to offer it at $8). 25M times $10/month = $250M/month. 3 month of free trials = $750M. Is that a lot of money? Is that a lot of money for Apple? How much did Apple pay for Beats? How much profit did Apple make just for the last quarter?

Let's make the free trial much more successful: 100M free trial users for 3 months. 100M times $10/month = $1B (Billion) per month times 3 months = $3B. How much did Apple pay for Beats? How much profit did Apple make just for the last quarter?

And that's not even the real math, as it's including the amount that Apple would be keeping for itself (apparently about 28% or so). Redone: 100M times about $7.20/month = $720M times 3 months = about $2.2B for 3 months. Is $2.2B a lot of money for Apple?

In short, for a relatively tiny portion of the Apple cash hoard (smaller than they paid for Beats), they could just pay the full price of the service for everyone interested in the trial, and it would be almost nothing to Apple. Content creators would get paid, Apple could write it off as a business expense, consumers could try it for 3 months for free.

Furthermore, Apple could get creative and inject some iAds to help pay for the trial and clearly convey that these ads run only for that purpose and would not be included after the free trial ends. This weekend, HBO & Cinemax are running one their free trial weekends. These (what are usually thought of as) commercial-free channels are basically running commercials pitching watchers to sign up for HBO & Cinemax before the free trial ends. Apple could follow that well-established, well-proven lead too to further reduce their own bill during this trial period. HBO & Cinemax are not getting to run movies for free during this period; they are just eating the bill of running the movies as a marketing expense to try to woo more subscribers. Apple could copy this and everyone would be happy.

Instead, Apple, no longer the small, fledgling company it once was... now billed as "the biggest company in the world" or "the most profitable company in the world" or "the most successful company in the world" needs those artists to donate their wares for 3 months so that Apple can try to make even more money. I wonder if, instead of Apple, this thread was about Google or Samsung or Microsoft: would our collective sentiment be so overwhelmingly in favor of those corporations vs. the artists who create the content.

Yep that $2.2 billion is the very high end of what Apple could pay. I think also that Apple could have capped payments to the big labels and just paid out to the Indies. $100 million distributed amongst the indies over three months would have basically made this issue go away. The big labels would have had to agree to that, but I think this could have been negotiated.

 

[yourtoys7]

No need for 3 months free, either you like it or you don't, 14 days/ 1 months max.
Why (I think) Apple is doing 3 months is to work out all the bugs/ network problems they'll have, yet they want Artist to pay for it.
I would like their Return policy be changed to 3 months!!!

 

[Speechless]

You take the ****ing good with the bad.

Taylor, there is absolutely nothing you can do to make this different. Apple owns all of your fans devices and logs. Apple Music is the new iTunes, and there have been streaming sites galore (and not to mention ENDLESS torrenting sites). If you weren't so focused on having that freaking album for "purchase" only (a la Spotify fiasco), you would see how good this is for you in the long run. The majority of people ****ing torrent EVERYTHING, and now will have to pay the full price of an album MONTHLY just to stream your crap.

Not to mention, Apple has been the GREATEST supporter for Indie artists. This is also a GREAT platform for them in the long run to get their music out there on the biggest platform on earth. Apple has too much money and devices invested into this ridiculously smart program to give two ****s about your letter. Don't bite the ****ing hand that feeds you and don't piss off the biggest distributer of music on earth.

This is like a blast from the past with the 1:30 previews that sent the world on edge.

I just find it funny that she complains so hard when it comes to 1989, you want full price purchase and NO stream (Which I understand, but it is NOT realistic). People don't care enough to buy albums, but they care *just* enough to stream them.

I don't listen to anything except for Indie and have heard nothing but praise from the artists who are featured on the new platform. Stop playing games and just stream that stupid album without all the drama you constantly display every.single.time. a company wants to stream it.

 

[Boomchukalaka]

This seems like an easy fix for Apple. Continue to offer the three month free service, and get that same one month no charges that all the other companies have been granted from the publishers, thus saying that you are competing on even footing with the terms your competitors also enjoyed at launch. Then pay for the additional fees for the other 2 months themselves. This is after all the same company that bought and gave every iTunes user a U2 album and caused such an uproar. Use this opportunity to look like the "big guy" you are in music and do something benevolent, that will reap rewards further down the road. Take a small hit now, and then clean up both financially and in the forum of public opinion.

 

[CoZmicShReddeR]

I'm confused... Is it possible that Apple is just trying to suck in as many people as they can by first providing free content?? In a way I am thinking it's a great idea from a business standpoint. It's not like that's going to be the normal business model. And Taylor Swift this is about your fans or new fans! I am sure the smaller Indie Artist would love for you to help get them more fans by allowing Apple to use your talent to attract people to Apple Music? I don't see the harm as long as it's for a short while...

 

[springsup]

I'm not taking sides, but on the one hand, Apple *can* afford to support the artists during the 3 month trial period. On the other hand, Apple Music isn't the only service to sell your music. As a matter of fact, it didn't even exist until now, so all these indie artist claiming they'll starve because of the free trial period, what were you doing BEFORE Apple Music? Hopefully, artists are diversifying their sales efforts, and really, the three month trial period is sort of free advertising. If people like your music, they WILL listen after the 3 months, and maybe even buy it on iTunes or other service.

While it's pretty cheap of Apple to do this (not surprising lately from the richest company in the world), on the other hand, artists have many other avenues to generate revenue. The entire world isn't going to switch to Apple Music overnight.

The point is not whether Apple has the cash in its bank account, but whether they can afford to pay those 3 months out of their 30% (or whatever it is) cut of Apple Music revenue.

If not, Apple goes out-of-pocket for each subscriber, which clearly is not a business model which scales to Apple's hundreds of millions of users.

What they would need, would be a bigger slice of the subscription revenue pie to make up for those 3 months trial, with guarantees in case you cancel before they've made that back. I don't imagine Miss. Swift will be happy with lower streaming royalties either. She just wants to leach off Apple, using their brand connection to music to somehow claim they should financially underwrite the indie music industry.

Musicians also have to push their product. That means they need to engage in marketing practices like loss-leaders. There is a music market, and if you want to stand out you need to attract listeners. It's like Taylor Swift doesn't know what the labels do for her, and is in constant shock by what they have done to make her a celebrity.

 

[RebornProphet]

So many people bemoaning how rich artists are. And nobody ever mentions how rich Apple actually is.

What work do you people do? What you're all saying is that you would be perfectly okay with someone else deciding to do a promotion for their own business, and expecting you to deliver the goods for that without getting paid for it. And if you dare complain, other people will start pointing out that you're rich enough as it is.

Hahaha. Sad.

What's more ridiculous is when people try to argue by using real world, working class, every day people as an example. Your example is flawed, you can't compare someone working in an office, behind a bar, or at a supermarket checkout to a musical artist earning millions of dollars.

 

[k1121j]

PR stunt.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yep that $2.2 billion is the very high end of what Apple could pay. I think also that Apple could have capped payments to the big labels and just paid out to the Indies. $100 million distributed amongst the indies over three months would have basically made this issue go away. The big labels would have had to agree to that, but I think this could have been negotiated.

Great point. I could see that too. Apple certainly has the muscle to motivate them to play ball while taking care of the little guys by being a bit more generous partner. That would work too and cost Apple a lot less. Consumers would still get their free trial and the nearly starving artists wouldn't have to starve.

 

[Wiesenlooser]

I think she is right. It was not the artists decision to make a 3-month free trial yet it is their loss.

 

[Martinez74]

Because the competing services offer their products on Android. That doesn't change the fact that it's a selling point to people who are interested in Apple products. Apple's software and services exist to help sell it's hardware.

You are not making any sense. How can it be a selling point when the exact same product is made available on competing platforms? Apple software and services are considered as selling point for their products because they are almost always exclusive to Apple, but not apple music. It can't be a selling point for Apple products when the same product is on android. Unless, Apple reduces the features of the android app or makes it cheaper on iOS.

 

[Oletros]

No, it's fair to generalize torrent use as being illegal. Look at the annual Top 10 lists for torrented movies, music, games etc...how often do you see releases that were intended to be distributed for free?

In some places there is a right to private copy and torrenting music and movies is legal

 

[Paradoxally]

PR stunt.

Exactly! Her old stuff will be on AM, so it makes you think "hmm, why does she only stop 1989 from being streamed".

Simple, her label is greedy, they know she won't be on the top of the world forever, and that's why they are milking her like there is no tomorrow.

Greed speaks louder than empathy, always remember that.

 

[Abazigal]

You know, if it's really such an issue, why aren't all the indie developers simply pulling their music selections from Apple Music until the initial 3-month free trial is over, then adding their music back in?

Why are they even bothering to complain and make so much noise about it?

 

[Mr Fusion]

That is how every startup works.

Cheeseburgers smell like flimsy.

There. I said something that makes as much sense as you did. Your move, fanboy.