Spotify CEO says it pays $6 million a year for a top artist like Taylor Swift
In the wake of Taylor Swift clarifying her reasons for opting out of Spotify, the streaming service’s CEO took to the company blog to offer a rebuttal.
Just when I accepted her bubble gum pop adorability she went all Metallica and Prince. Sorry lady I don't feel bad for you. You're filthy rich, your latest album just went platinum (the only one this year and I think fastest in history?!), and it's the labels that negotiate that crap. The reason album sales are down is because that's not how consumers want to consume music anymore; and even with that being the case YOURS WENT PLATINUM so STFU. Welcome to the future.
If it bothers her that much, don't re up with the label and distribute your own music. That way you can have total absolute control. The only caveat is that she'd actually have to work
It's a business move her management probably had more to do with than she did. The music industry has a love hate relationship with Spotify… Following the backlash U2 received from giving an album away they want to test the waters. Taylor Swift is someone who actually sells albums anyway yes, but they want to know if her fans will purchase when ad supported/subscription access to her music is taken away. I believe this will be a successful test for them. Sure people who aren't really Taylor Swift fans but just casually like a few of her songs are going to raise hell. The music industry could care less about those types, they just want to see how her core fan base will respond because they know it's her core fan base that keep her viable as a commodity (I'm not saying this is a good thing, just a reality of how the industry treats all their signed talent) This will boost her album sales no doubt. Once album sales decline a bit her music will be back on Spotify. I predict this is the model we'll see down the road. New releases being delayed to boost initial album sales then eventually becoming available to stream to keep those reoccurring pay-for-play profits coming in. They would all do this if they could get away with it.
sho 'nuff!!
What's surprising to me is that no is talking about Garth Brook strategy. Not only is he keeping his music off all streaming services, he's keeping tight control of the digital download and distribution insuring he retains most of the profits from digital sales. Not only that, his new album is not available at market value of new albums ($9-10 on amazon, itunes, etc…) instead it's 50% more coming in at $15!!! Only available for purchase digitally though his website. Yet surprisingly he has gotten little negative press for this. Do you really think anyone is going to sell more albums in 2014 than Garth Brooks and Taylor Swift? If these strategies work they are good for the artist and the labels they are signed to and they will set a new trend that will lead to Spotify changing in the long term. Probably loosing out on first day releases and instead being a catalog of older albums that don't sell as well (think Netflix)
+Jeremy Deats, how much of that do you think relates to Garth Brooks' demographics?
+Paul Spoerry Looks like the "Hipster" is not so hip to current technology!! LOL
+Laurel Lawson He's an interesting case because he's sold over 150-million records. He's in an elite category up there with U2 and The Eagles and his sold out tour proves he still has a huge fan base so I believe he transcends the country music demographic… I'm sure the music industry is paying very careful attention to how well this works for him and I think the timing is right where it will (for better or worse) work very well and will just lead to changes down the road.
I was trying to remember him when I was rattling off Metallica and Prince +Jeremy Deats. Dinosaurs as far as I'm concerned. Here's how it works: the people who were going to buy the album/software/whatever are going to buy it anyway. Those who were never going to pay for it… were never going to pay for it anyway. The music industry continues to fight this losing battle instead of innovating.
+Paul Spoerry Well it's an experiment they are doing and Taylor Swift and Garth Brooks are the artist they've picked to do this. I strongly disagree that whoever is going to pay for it will anyway. I pay for Spotify and if one of my favorite artist has a new album I can only get though buying it I have strong incentive to do that. It doesn't mean I will, but some people will. If I can get it as part of my Spotify subscription on the day of release then I have no incentive to buy it so I won't. I would like to why why you think a customer would buy something they are already paying for through a subscription service? What is a fan's incentive to buy? Just because we pay for Spotify we aren't entitled to every major album release. Just because we pay for a Netflix we aren't entitled to every major movie rental release. Behind it all is licensing and industries hell bent on making as much money as possible. That's just the nature of Capitalism. The industry is bigger than any single artist. Taylor Swift was probably convinced by her management this would be a good thing for her not realizing she's the test case for the industry…. If you doubt this is the case you should really read up a bit on the music industry. I recommend Donald Passman's book as a start.
Good night my friends
+Jeremy Deats I have zero empathy for the music industry. I worked in record stores when the CD came out. I remember getting the rags from the labels, from the stores themselves, etc. At the time cassettes were running around $15. CD's came out and they were ~$19. I remember being told how album prices would drop once CD's came out because there are no mechanical parts, they could mass press them, etc. Did the CD prices drop after mass adoption? Nope.
Then this little thing called the Internet happened, and instead of embracing the tech and making it easy for people to get their music they did shit like employ DRM, and Sony went to far as to deploy rootkits on users computers without their knowledge.
I'm all for people getting paid for their work. I ran in the house/techno circles for a long time and had friends who made their living either producing or playing music. They should get paid for their hard work. This goes far beyond that; this is the gatekeepers trying desperately to keep a lock on the system as-is and resisting change. It's totally bogus for Swift to claim she isn't getting paid. She went platinum… how much more does she need.
I wish she would go away. Unfortunately technology hade it so easy for people like her to whip out the tunes nonstop so now we NEVER get a fucking break from these artists anymore. They don't give us time to miss them. I feel like they are forcing me to listen to her.
Folk need fair payment for their hard work like anyone else. Authors, writers, artists, musicians, producers engineers, management are all necessary to give the kids their headphone candy. Why should they not be able to make a living doing something that's really hard to create something of value, that require years of training (I should know) especially when some kid can pick up a bigger & more regular paycheck each month for being barely conscious in a coffeshop. (For example!)
These top artists arent the issue, its new artists maybe selling a few thousand cds etc making their way who need fair reward and I think that Swift's point is to support that, not look after herself as she is frankly loaded.
Hlw dear
Hi how are u?
+Ben K Except that she stated he position in reference to herself. "And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists and creators of this music. And I just don't agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free."
It's not free… they are compensated… and it's the labels that negotiate that. Her beef needs to be with the labels not new ways to consume media.
Well, she references all the people who made it happen and references reinforcing the perception that music has little to no value, so not just herself . the amount of money any reasonable non big time artist can make from streaming services is effectively zero, a few quid. and doesn't even cover costs, that's their system, artist accepts or their music isn't on that ecosystem. her label only divides up the slice they get from spotify, it is not upto them to determine it. All I'm saying is that isn't fair compensation for doing something universally excepted as difficult, highly skilled and if many people consume it, you deserve a paycheck. Imagine a world of volunteers and how shite everything would get very quickly!
First of all… to say that people doing things on a volunteer basis would turn everything to shit is 100% factually inaccurate. Linux as just one example is free and there are entire ecosystems build around it. Companies run on it, contribute to it, etc. If you have an Android phone… you have a Linux variant in your pocket. Now that one was build by a company but it's still based off the free Linux kernel.
This thinking that the old model of distribution and income is just the old guard not wanting to break their stranglehold on their distribution model. The music industry has been fighting any sort of change for ages now. Here's some actual facts to back up how people are consuming music:
* In 2007 album sales in millions: 500 million. In 2014 that number is 120 million. http://goo.gl/2vUMmw In short, people don't want to buy albums.
* Digital music revenue trends are the complete opposite. In 2007 revenue (measured in billions… and only tales in US sales) was 2.7b. In 2013 that number was 5.9b. http://goo.gl/ So clearly if people pay they don't want the old distro model. The trend isn't away from music, it's away from the old ways people consume music.
* By 2013 digital music subscription & streaming has surpassed album downloads in revenue. Revenue in billions for streaming in 2013 was 1, 438b versus album revenue of 1,233b. http://goo.gl/7WcHS1
To be clear, I don't use Spotify so this isn't me fanboying over their service. This is, sadly, a major artist being a dick over more money. If the model needs to change, or she wants more compensation, her beef should be with her label who negotiated it. Instead she acts like it's Spotify trying to rip her off somehow. And again… I have little sympathy for her complaining about compensation when she's sitting on a platinum album.
come now, you need to rethink the linux argument.. people need to get paid.
*then* they might have some spare time to volunteer.
my point is about small new artists trying to make a simple living. i get a sense that miss rich Swift is maybe thinking that too, or she is concerned about herself. doesn't matter. i don't really care what her motives are.
–
Say you're a skilled craftsmen and have dedicated your life to making nice things people like, that you sell in a shop – however your shop is under the control of the mafia who dictate the price of your precious goods.
you can only sell them at a massive loss and can barely afford to live. plus there are 10 million other shops selling similar stuff in the region, (because the mafia realised people like this kind of stuff you make and they can cash in if they control its distribution.)
you long for the days when you could just sell your stuff for a small profit so you could invest in new equipment or buy your mother a new washing machine.
people who like and buy the stuff you make love this new way of doing things, they have all this cheap cool stuff and don't buy anything more expensive, why would they.
however you the craftsmen isn't such a fan of this new way…;)
best o luck. i'm out!