To Apple, Love Taylor(taylorswift.tumblr.com)
taylorswift.tumblr.com
To Apple, Love Taylor
http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor
512 comments
3 months free to buy market share makes sense but I am amazed to hear that they are doing it by just not paying the content producers during those 3 months. I'd be doing the same thing in her place. Apple has the cash to run a loss leader on this.
Taylor Swift is signed to Big Machine Records (BMLG). Big Machine Records is distributed by Universal Music Group (UMG). I am sure BMLG/UMG received a sizable advance from Apple in exchange for streaming rights for their master recordings. UMG probably negotiated an even higher advance in exchange for permission to launch the 3 month free campaign. UMG / BMLG should be sharing this advance payment with their artists. Taylor knows this so a good question to ask is: What % of the advance is Taylor receiving? The answer is probably none because most artists receive nothing from these advance payments. Even the hugely successful ones. So why is Taylor writing this letter? She is extremely smart and has a brilliant team of advisors around her so she knows about the advance that Apple already paid UMG. While posting this letter fits into the general discourse regarding underpayments to artists from streaming services, behind the scenes she is likely negotiating her own, separate, significant advance from Apple. I would do the same if I were her.
Presumably, the labels are responsible, not Apple. Apple represents Apple's interests, while the labels are supposed to represent the artists'. Though in practice, the labels probably represent their own.
So, presumably, the labels have decided that offering their content for free to Apple for 3 months will result in more revenue in the future, just as Apple has. Surely any artist understands the idea of giving away their music in order to build a paying fan base in the future.
Ultimately, any artists who lose a significant chunk of income due to these 3-month trials and never see increased income after the trials should be upset with their label's failure to represent them well.
Then again, isn't that to be expected as an artist? Your label encourages you to give CDs away, or tour at a loss, and sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't? Isn't this the same idea? It sounds to me like a worthwhile risk. How many people were going to buy your debut album or come see a show and choose not to because they used their iTunes streaming account? Versus how many people easily stream (and pay for) you music 3 months later because they got hooked on iTunes streaming?
So, presumably, the labels have decided that offering their content for free to Apple for 3 months will result in more revenue in the future, just as Apple has. Surely any artist understands the idea of giving away their music in order to build a paying fan base in the future.
Ultimately, any artists who lose a significant chunk of income due to these 3-month trials and never see increased income after the trials should be upset with their label's failure to represent them well.
Then again, isn't that to be expected as an artist? Your label encourages you to give CDs away, or tour at a loss, and sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't? Isn't this the same idea? It sounds to me like a worthwhile risk. How many people were going to buy your debut album or come see a show and choose not to because they used their iTunes streaming account? Versus how many people easily stream (and pay for) you music 3 months later because they got hooked on iTunes streaming?
In 215 comments no one that I could find has mentioned that, while well-intentioned, this post comes off as somewhat disingenuous because Apple does not deal directly with the artists. The entire (pretty well-written) thing doesn't mention _at all_ that the majority of musicians do not deal directly with distributors. Think about it: how are Apple/Google/Spotify/Amazon going to deal directly with 10 million individuals? The answer is that they don't.
I think anyone can agree that Apple is being shitty by not paying for something they're making money on, the people who are directly responsible for not compensating the artists are, rather conspicuously, left out of this rant.
I think anyone can agree that Apple is being shitty by not paying for something they're making money on, the people who are directly responsible for not compensating the artists are, rather conspicuously, left out of this rant.
I like how she states her position so concisely in the last two lines:
We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.
We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.
Lots of record labels (mostly independents) are definitely unhappy with this as well. The biggest one to speak out is beggars group[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9738304
This is very black and white. This is a great "business" move for apple, but morally reprehensible.
This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.
This is a big business asking the "little people" to work for free. Completely unfair.
> I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.
> ... just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field
> ... we admire and respect Apple so much.
> I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been...
> I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done.
Taylor's post reminds me strongly of this article by Eli Schiff:
"Wilcox's flattery is not accidental. It was essential that Wilcox mentioned his qualification as an Apple fanatic, because that is, of course, the pre-requisite for saying anything remotely unfavorable about Apple."
– https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256014
> ... just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field
> ... we admire and respect Apple so much.
> I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been...
> I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done.
Taylor's post reminds me strongly of this article by Eli Schiff:
"Wilcox's flattery is not accidental. It was essential that Wilcox mentioned his qualification as an Apple fanatic, because that is, of course, the pre-requisite for saying anything remotely unfavorable about Apple."
– https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256014
Couple of thoughts here:
1) If you're an indie artist and you can afford to opt-out of Apple Music on principle, then clearly you can afford to opt-in for the three free months. Either way you're not making money from Apple Music. If you opt-in, you make more money in the long-term. If you opt-out, you continue to earn from your current streaming and downloads.
2) If you think that Apple Music will be so earth-shatteringly successful from day one that it will destroy your business -- then your business model is razor thin and completely unsustainable.
1) If you're an indie artist and you can afford to opt-out of Apple Music on principle, then clearly you can afford to opt-in for the three free months. Either way you're not making money from Apple Music. If you opt-in, you make more money in the long-term. If you opt-out, you continue to earn from your current streaming and downloads.
2) If you think that Apple Music will be so earth-shatteringly successful from day one that it will destroy your business -- then your business model is razor thin and completely unsustainable.
It seems really weird to me that apple would get away with paying nothing for the 3 months. Especially since it's not like they are anything but yet another competitor in an already crowded space.
As others point out, it doesn't make much sense for Apple to attempt this (not paying content producers during a 3-month trial) for the sake of money alone - they have the cash (even if subject to high taxes) to pay for a loss leader like this.
If that's not the primary motivation, I can think of two alternatives:
1. Apple lacks confidence in rolling this out - they don't even know if they'd make back their money using a loss leader of this magnitude. They don't feel that the service alone has any meaningful advantage over the competition, so they feel a need to compensate with an extraordinarily long trial period, and they're willing to abuse some of their market power to strong-arm content producers into (hopefully) covering the bill. As a tiny part of their overall business strategy, they are unwilling to make any large bets on it, regardless of their ability to cover a loss.
- or -
2. (probably more likely) Apple is so myopically over-confident that they believe this service will disrupt the music industry in the same way the App Store changed software distribution. They honestly feel that they are creating a new market here, not trying to steal market share from other streaming services. Consequently, they don't feel a need to justify covering any expense to content producers because in Apple's mind, content producers will give anything for the privilege of existing on Apple's revolutionary new service. This would represent a new opportunity for revenue above and beyond what the music industry has already come to expect.
If that's not the primary motivation, I can think of two alternatives:
1. Apple lacks confidence in rolling this out - they don't even know if they'd make back their money using a loss leader of this magnitude. They don't feel that the service alone has any meaningful advantage over the competition, so they feel a need to compensate with an extraordinarily long trial period, and they're willing to abuse some of their market power to strong-arm content producers into (hopefully) covering the bill. As a tiny part of their overall business strategy, they are unwilling to make any large bets on it, regardless of their ability to cover a loss.
- or -
2. (probably more likely) Apple is so myopically over-confident that they believe this service will disrupt the music industry in the same way the App Store changed software distribution. They honestly feel that they are creating a new market here, not trying to steal market share from other streaming services. Consequently, they don't feel a need to justify covering any expense to content producers because in Apple's mind, content producers will give anything for the privilege of existing on Apple's revolutionary new service. This would represent a new opportunity for revenue above and beyond what the music industry has already come to expect.
Can anyone at Apple (or perhaps formally at Apple) explain why this is the case? It seems like a raw deal that no sane musician would ever agree to. Imagine if when the first iPhone came out AT&T told Apple they were giving every customer a free trial with the device for 3 months before they pay for it Apple would have laughed and chose another carrier for its exclusive deal. I don't agree with the model of payment that musicians currently expect (imagine if developers recieved payment everytime a user used and app!) but if that was the norm I don't think many would just agree to put their app on the appstore for 3 months without payment.
Both sides of this disagreement are hilariously petty. Both desperate to hold on to every last penny they can get hold of.
The music industry has been dying for a while but this really is a fantastic example of it. Everyone who thought Apple cared about artists now has to come up with a new rationalisation.
The music industry has been dying for a while but this really is a fantastic example of it. Everyone who thought Apple cared about artists now has to come up with a new rationalisation.
Though this might seem a raw deal for artists I think it should be considered that the artists (and record labels etc) are effectively business partners with Apple.
What they are really doing here is asking the other side of the partnership to participate in the loss leader effort. Apple provides the platform development + storage and delivery infrastructure, the artists provide the content.
When you consider it as a partnership it doesn't seem so reprehensible, they are both forgoing income to secure future recurring income.
I think what people are upset about is the fact Apple has a big war chest when many artists do not. Fundamentally this isn't really Apple's fault though, likely this deal was brokered by their biggest partners - huge record labels. Huge record labels also have big war chests and are probably fine with the arrangement.
It makes good business sense if you are a record label or Apple, less so if you are an independent artist but maybe not no sense at all, I don't know what exposure is worth.
Unfortunately Apple can't create a 2 tier system where they have the big record labels foot the cost of the indie artists nor can their ignore the obvious good business sense of the loss leader approach.
What they are really doing here is asking the other side of the partnership to participate in the loss leader effort. Apple provides the platform development + storage and delivery infrastructure, the artists provide the content.
When you consider it as a partnership it doesn't seem so reprehensible, they are both forgoing income to secure future recurring income.
I think what people are upset about is the fact Apple has a big war chest when many artists do not. Fundamentally this isn't really Apple's fault though, likely this deal was brokered by their biggest partners - huge record labels. Huge record labels also have big war chests and are probably fine with the arrangement.
It makes good business sense if you are a record label or Apple, less so if you are an independent artist but maybe not no sense at all, I don't know what exposure is worth.
Unfortunately Apple can't create a 2 tier system where they have the big record labels foot the cost of the indie artists nor can their ignore the obvious good business sense of the loss leader approach.
Unfortunately Taylor does something similar with concert photographers (grants Taylor unlimited usage with a large scope, severely restricts photographers' usage):
https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-h...
https://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/those-in-glass-h...
For anyone suggesting that Taylor is not greedy, most artists don't get the majority of the money from airplay, the record labels do. Apple's move is to cut record labels massive control grip on the market, not to rip off the artist. Taylor Swift is in a very unique positions to have a very lucrative record deal with her label. Most artists don't, that's why you are hearing from her and not others.
It was the same situation with Metallica and Napster. They got the majority of the money from their record sales. Most artists are just interested in the massive distribution these platforms offer, so when a relatively small act shows up in your town you might have heard of them. The live show is were most acts make any money anyway.
Many years ago, I recorded a number of albums with different bands. On average, for every $10 album sold, I would get 10 cents, paid to me after the label recoups costs. When you aren't Taylor Swift, that is the deal most artist are offered through a record label.
It was the same situation with Metallica and Napster. They got the majority of the money from their record sales. Most artists are just interested in the massive distribution these platforms offer, so when a relatively small act shows up in your town you might have heard of them. The live show is were most acts make any money anyway.
Many years ago, I recorded a number of albums with different bands. On average, for every $10 album sold, I would get 10 cents, paid to me after the label recoups costs. When you aren't Taylor Swift, that is the deal most artist are offered through a record label.
3 months free is a way for Apple to promote its service against its competitors, and they need to do this promotion because they're late-comers. There is nothing to gain for the creators of music in getting more people to use Apple streaming service instead of Spotify or Google, so, why should they finance Apple's promotion?
Hate to make the comparison, but drug dealers have a saying "the first hit is free." In this context, I think making the first months free lowers resistance to get people on the service, and will ultimately serve artists better in the long run. That said, I don't know what rates Apple pays out to artists who use this service, so I can't comment there. Anyhow, Apple has always run its business very aggressively so this move does not surprise me. $0.02
So Apple run a loss-leader... where they don't incur the loss, and just get the lead.
Scum.
Scum.
Apple even named a programming language after her and she still refuses to cooperate
I agree with everything she said... but she didn't answer the question she posed at the start: why is she withholding 1989, (and not any of her other albums), and what does that have to do with the 3 month trial? If she disagrees with the free trial don't put any of your music up for that time span.
My thought is Apple can offer opt-in for artists who wish to get unpaid during the trial period. Some artists would want to get some exposures instead of cash.
For those who want to get paid from the start, their work will only be available to paying customers.
I don't see this is a major change to be made by Apple, and it is a win-win.
For those who want to get paid from the start, their work will only be available to paying customers.
I don't see this is a major change to be made by Apple, and it is a win-win.
Out of curiosity, and on a similar note, is Spotify not paying artists during their "3 months for $0.99 promotional period"?
I guess that would explain why her 1989 album isn't there either... At least she's consistent.
I'd lean on the side of Apple eating the cost during the period, not the artists.
I guess that would explain why her 1989 album isn't there either... At least she's consistent.
I'd lean on the side of Apple eating the cost during the period, not the artists.
If only the labels had 5 years ago put a reasonable music licensing system in place for the digital world... we might now have a burgeoning ecosystem of startups and niche music services competing to provide a great customer experience instead of a couple of giants.
Apps that are "beta", "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will
be rejected
“We don’t ask you for free iPhones,” she added. “Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.”
Funny, her best line and I would wager she hasn't paid for an iPhone or any consumer electronics (or any branded good for that matter) in years if ever given her family history. I find her use of the royal "we" arrogant.
I really do not understand the issue. What Apple is creating is a unified platform for exposure to music and musicians not just a streaming music service. With Connect artists take their fans into their lifestyle and the creative process to gain traction / engagement.
A "free trial" is exactly the kind of thing that would induce consumers to use it away from the hodgepodge networks out there now, all of which Swift, Inc seems to use exorbitantly to prop up her brand (web, mobile app, fb, twitter, instagram, tumblr, vine, ....) but which is next to impossible for an indie artist to maintain on his/her own.
I can understand why the economic return on her investment in Apple Music may not be in Swift Inc's best interest but not the community she is appointing herself to represent.
Seems like a no-brainer to me and also an opportunity for someone here to create some tools to create and maintain a presence on Connect for artists ready to go with content when it launches.
Funny, her best line and I would wager she hasn't paid for an iPhone or any consumer electronics (or any branded good for that matter) in years if ever given her family history. I find her use of the royal "we" arrogant.
I really do not understand the issue. What Apple is creating is a unified platform for exposure to music and musicians not just a streaming music service. With Connect artists take their fans into their lifestyle and the creative process to gain traction / engagement.
A "free trial" is exactly the kind of thing that would induce consumers to use it away from the hodgepodge networks out there now, all of which Swift, Inc seems to use exorbitantly to prop up her brand (web, mobile app, fb, twitter, instagram, tumblr, vine, ....) but which is next to impossible for an indie artist to maintain on his/her own.
I can understand why the economic return on her investment in Apple Music may not be in Swift Inc's best interest but not the community she is appointing herself to represent.
Seems like a no-brainer to me and also an opportunity for someone here to create some tools to create and maintain a presence on Connect for artists ready to go with content when it launches.
Is software free trial similar to this? Don't we, as developers, give our software for free in either a freemium or free trial business models? One freemium tool I'm involved in only monetizes 2-3% of our users... But it's a model that works as far as marketing goes.. Not saying you shouldn't pay artists but isn't this another form of marketing to users? In the end, it's win-win. Apple gets more users, artists gets more listens...
The "deal" is first of all unfair to Spotify, Rdio and other competitors who still have to pay royalties during their free trial.
On one hand, the music industry tries to get higher revenue on every front but then agrees to something that has essentially one goal in mind, to kill off any competitive streaming market, which will eventually lead to them being solely dependent on Apple. Interestingly enough, all major labels have stake in Spotify (not sure about the exact number but around 20-30% in total). Why do they now apply different rules, I don't know.
Unless of course Apple demanded not to pay any royalties, in which case the music industry is really hopeless (again). The cry for "we love you Apple but pretty please, we gave you all our music, would you mind paying us" just confirms that. They feel being robbed in an era for which they've been long overdue with a business model, don't know what to do, and look up to big brother to save them.
I love Apple's products, their marketing is brilliant, and they cleverly use all their power to make the most money out of anything. But they're getting more and more hungry and arrogant every year. Microsoft, anyone?
On one hand, the music industry tries to get higher revenue on every front but then agrees to something that has essentially one goal in mind, to kill off any competitive streaming market, which will eventually lead to them being solely dependent on Apple. Interestingly enough, all major labels have stake in Spotify (not sure about the exact number but around 20-30% in total). Why do they now apply different rules, I don't know.
Unless of course Apple demanded not to pay any royalties, in which case the music industry is really hopeless (again). The cry for "we love you Apple but pretty please, we gave you all our music, would you mind paying us" just confirms that. They feel being robbed in an era for which they've been long overdue with a business model, don't know what to do, and look up to big brother to save them.
I love Apple's products, their marketing is brilliant, and they cleverly use all their power to make the most money out of anything. But they're getting more and more hungry and arrogant every year. Microsoft, anyone?
My wife is a musician and we have this argument all the time. She's not a recording artist or anything, but she does complain of abuse in the deals her different bands and groups get at venues. And I say, that's supply-demand, that's the way business is done, how much is the venue getting out of the concert? How can you compete when there's so much people playing for free or on much lower cuts? What can you do if the end-customer prefer not to pay cover charges or see the value in live music? etc. etc. It's a music business after all.
So Taylor Swift's plead is pathetic, "Thankfully... I can support myself," deceiving "by playing shows" [1] and even condescending, "This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut... who works tirelessly." Oh, come on!
You don't agree with the terms of the deal, so you pulled out. Fine. Now your fans who are going to try this new service won't have access to your latest album. That's the price of your decision. To me that's fair game, show a little muscle to your distributors, maybe get a better deal. Now, please don't try to spin this as some social injustice towards creative people. Just because you're an artist it doesn't mean you're immune to market laws. Taylor Swift is a billion-dollar business. Stop treating music fans like we're stupid.
[1] "Swift had sold over 40 million albums, 130 million single downloads and was one of the top five music artists with the highest worldwide digital sales" -- http://www.ifpi.org/news/Taylor-Swift-named-IFPI-global-reco...
So Taylor Swift's plead is pathetic, "Thankfully... I can support myself," deceiving "by playing shows" [1] and even condescending, "This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut... who works tirelessly." Oh, come on!
You don't agree with the terms of the deal, so you pulled out. Fine. Now your fans who are going to try this new service won't have access to your latest album. That's the price of your decision. To me that's fair game, show a little muscle to your distributors, maybe get a better deal. Now, please don't try to spin this as some social injustice towards creative people. Just because you're an artist it doesn't mean you're immune to market laws. Taylor Swift is a billion-dollar business. Stop treating music fans like we're stupid.
[1] "Swift had sold over 40 million albums, 130 million single downloads and was one of the top five music artists with the highest worldwide digital sales" -- http://www.ifpi.org/news/Taylor-Swift-named-IFPI-global-reco...
> Tomorrow, Apple announces that it will be introducing an "App Store Subscription." For $9.99/month users will receive unlimited access to all apps on the App Store. Developers will receive a share of each user's subscription payments in proportion to app usage. Apple simultaneously announces a 3 month free trial for all App Store accounts, and states that it will be making no payments to developers during that trial since users are not paying for it.
I, personally, would ditch iOS development for Android in a heartbeat if that happened. I can't blame musicians for having a similar reaction.