Taylor Swift pulls albums from Spotify

[Jud]

The bigger picture is: The economic model for streaming services doesn't yet appear to be self sustaining. Streaming services are responsible for enormously more plays/listens of music tracks than purchased downloads or physical media. Yet not only does this fail to provide an adequate income stream for most artists and labels; even for the biggest artists and labels, the income stream is dwarfed by the much smaller absolute numbers of purchased downloads or physical media.

 

To change this situation, assuming the streaming companies aren't making money hand over fist (and I don't believe they are), prices would have to increase substantially. Except that would very much discourage people from subscribing to streaming services. Rock, meet hard place.

[wwaldmanfan]

Haters gonna hate, hate, hate ...

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Somehow cable and satellite TV subscriptions work for artists and the like. I'd love to see a comparison of TV vs. streaming Audio, both while in their infancy.

[realhifi]

The bigger picture is: The economic model for streaming services doesn't yet appear to be self sustaining. Streaming services are responsible for enormously more plays/listens of music tracks than purchased downloads or physical media. Yet not only does this fail to provide an adequate income stream for most artists and labels; even for the biggest artists and labels, the income stream is dwarfed by the much smaller absolute numbers of purchased downloads or physical media.

 

To change this situation, assuming the streaming companies aren't making money hand over fist (and I don't believe they are), prices would have to increase substantially. Except that would very much discourage people from subscribing to streaming services. Rock, meet hard place.

 

Exactly. It will interesting to say the least to watch how this unfolds. My take would be that Apple has not said their last word on this whole streaming, purchasing, renting of music and that it would not surprise me if they have something a bit unique in mind to work to appease both sides of this. They're not going to just sit on the sidelines on this one.

[realhifi]

Somehow cable and satellite TV subscriptions work for artists and the like. I'd love to see a comparison of TV vs. streaming Audio, both while in their infancy.

 

TV can supply live events like sports, morning programs, etc. Not to mention a little thing called advertising. If you are wanting to watch the latest episode of a favorite television program you tune in at a certain time that it is first aired. The comparisons are not really valid between the mediums seeing as there so many more viewers than listeners.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Exactly. It will interesting to say the least to watch how this unfolds. My take would be that Apple has not said their last word on this whole streaming, purchasing, renting of music and that it would not surprise me if they have something a bit unique in mind to work to appease both sides of this. There not going to just sit on the sidelines on this one.

 

The behind the scenes games and hatred between Apple and the labels is incredible. Apple now says $5 per month is the right price. Labels don't want to give up everything like they did originally with iTunes.

 

I think maybe a universal application that can stream from different content providers may be ok. This would allow Taylor Swift to charge whatever she wants to go direct to the consumer. This is similar to HBO with AppleTV in 2015. If you don't like Taylor you don't pay for it.

 

It's a fascinating subject. In the end consumers will win and get what they want. I just wish the end was closer and the path wasn't full of partial solutions.

[The Computer Audiophile]

TV can supply live events like sports, morning programs, etc. Not to mention a little thing called advertising. If you are wanting to watch the latest episode of a favorite television program you tune in at a certain time that it is first aired. The comparisons are not really valid between the mediums seeing as there so many more viewers than listeners.

 

In its infancy cable had less viewers and no commercials just like XM Radio. The on demand piece is different of course.

[realhifi]

In its infancy cable had less viewers and no commercials just like XM Radio. The on demand piece is different of course.

 

The on demand piece is THE piece we are talking about. The difference between something akin to a radio station such as Pandora to an on demand model such as Spotify is night and day. The on demand piece of this puzzle is the single biggest sticking point in both TV and music.

[realhifi]

The behind the scenes games and hatred between Apple and the labels is incredible. Apple now says $5 per month is the right price. Labels don't want to give up everything like they did originally with iTunes

 

I think a number of artists are already looking back with nostalgia at what iTunes was paying them. The new streaming paradigm is making iTunes look positively generous.

[Jud]

In its infancy cable had less viewers and no commercials just like XM Radio. The on demand piece is different of course.

 

HBO has no ads. DirecTV charges $18/mo for it. HBO is said to be aiming for around $15/mo for its Internet product in 2015. So approximately half a dollar per day per subscriber on the revenue side. I have no idea what the rest looks like - how many current cable/satellite or future estimated Internet subscribers, what the costs of content production are, what the non-production costs are, etc.

[Jud]

HBO has no ads. DirecTV charges $18/mo for it. HBO is said to be aiming for around $15/mo for its Internet product in 2015. So approximately half a dollar per day per subscriber on the revenue side. I have no idea what the rest looks like - how many current cable/satellite or future estimated Internet subscribers, what the costs of content production are, what the non-production costs are, etc.

 

University of Google says about 28.7 million HBO subscribers. So revenue of around $14.4 million per day = about five and a quarter billion per year.

[Jimmypowder]

The point is not WHO the artist is, it's that people are paying for a service and suddenly that service is not the same for them.

 

Then go to Rdio,Beats,Rhapsody,Tidal,Deezer,etc if they have it. Plenty of competition in music subscription services.

[bleedink]

Where do we write to thank whomever decided this is a good thing. I can think of a few others as well for whom this makes aesthetic sense and saves a few ears as well.

[mrvco]

The subscription television model is definitely different, networks are still making money on both advertising as well as ever increasing per sub fees. AC Nielsen continues to report numbers that keep the ad revenues coming in, but the content owners have seen the writing on the wall and are doing everything they can to increase the per sub fees they charge through the cable, IPTV and satellite aggregators.

 

HBO is in a tough position since they have no advertising revenue and are spending more and more money to develop original programming. They are heavily dependent on cable and satellite providers to sell and deliver their product, but they can't realistically squeeze any more money out of those relationships (HBO is -very- low margin for the service providers, but it helps sell bundled services). Going direct to boost their margins should make sense, but they lose the loyalty of their traditional reseller channel. So can HBO's customer direct revenues grow faster than their cable and satellite revenues decline as alternate services are promoted by those companies (case in point)?

 

The thing that musicians received in the heyday of FM radio that they aren't getting from the subscription services is promotion. Where do I click in Spotify or Rdio or Tidal's interface to buy tickets to the next "Taylor Swift" concert in my area? Where do I click to buy the collector's edition of the new "Taylor Swift" album? As its been explained to me, all but the most elite level musicians make their money selling concert tickets and their paraphernalia at those concerts, rather than from their label selling CD's on Amazon or downloads on iTunes. It would be interesting to see what Spotify's interface looked like if it was designed with input from actual working musicians.

[realhifi]

University of Google says about 28.7 million HBO subscribers. So revenue of around $14.4 million per day = about five and a quarter billion per year.

 

Then put those programs out for distribution. That is where they reap some more benefits I would assume.

[christopher3393]

From The Verge: "Notably, Swift's back catalog remains on other streaming services, including Rhapsody, Rdio, and Beats Music. Those services are significantly smaller than Spotify, though, which limits what impact pulling the catalog might have. Those services still don't have access to 1989."

 

And: "Swift and her label are in the extremely uncommon position of having the power to pull this off and likely benefit from it. As of November 1st, 1989 was on track to have the biggest first-week album sales since 2002 and set a new record for first-week sales by a female artist."

 

So this is likely more business savvy timed for a major album launch than it is about any ethical concern on Taylor Swift's part.

 

Taylor Swift has removed all of her albums from Spotify | The Verge

 

Also worth noting: "Sure, 1989, Swift’s new album, is not on Spotify. But it’s still up on the Apple-owned iTunes, where the singer had an exclusive agreement for the track-by-track release. And it’s also still streaming on Beats, a music service acquired by Apple this January."

 

Taylor Swift Dumps Spotify, Igniting Turf War Between Spotify and Apple - The Daily Beast

[hagensieker]

I'm a 52 year old guy and not ashamed to say I will listen to Taylor Swift. Not critically with my best stereo and headphones but as background music, sure. That being said I'm no fan of the pop Taylor Swift.

 

Now on to the other matter. I firmly believe she's doing this for the starving artist however I feel this is going to backfire on her. She should have stayed neutral on this but somebody had to do it. She doesn't understand that segment of the industry. They all want people to run out and buy the full CD and people just don't do that like they used to in days before.

 

People are streaming. I guess the problem is an artist releases new material and wants their full cut but now the streamers pay them pennies compared to what they used to get. World is changing. Harder to make a platinum record these days. I read somewhere there are none for this year for the first time. Don't know if that's true or not but I read it.

 

I suspect we'll see more of this. I love Spotify but see the rights of the artist to try to make money. I recall when iTunes first hit I wanted to hear one of my favorite groups, The Beatles, and couldn't. I ended up buying their catalog on CD so I could hear it. They resolved their issues (Apple) so hopefully Spotify will too.

[Ajax]

I like the streaming concept but am concerned that the more obscure artist is going to get killed. A couple of thoughts:

 

1. Obvious one is that I (and most others) think $11/mth for 25M songs is a bargain. I would pay double that for 320kps quality. The company wouldn't incur any additional costs (overheads) and could therefore increase its distribution to the artist to 80%. i.e. they would get 2.5 times what they are getting now.

 

2. Have more quality categories - premium lossless CD quality and Hi res and price accordingly.

[wappinghigh]

Boo hoo Taylor Swift. Sour Grapes.

 

The issue here is services like Spotify suddenly expose artists to massive worldwide reach.

 

These services are becoming the defacto "radio stations" of years gone by. Did these old radio stations pay artists?

 

The problem here is hardly the success of the new model . Is it Spotify's fault they are giving consumers a better user experience and easier way of accessing and listening to music?

 

It's up to Artists like Taylor Swift to negotiate a better deal. Surely this is nothing new in the music industry!

 

Isn't this why they pay agents?

 

Do these guys expect to get fees for nothing?

 

So what's new?

 

Hasn't it been like this since year dot?

 

What about the sensational way services like Spotify allow artists to build a world wide audience?

[wwaldmanfan]

Boo hoo Taylor Swift. Sour Grapes.

 

The issue here is services like Spotify suddenly expose artists to massive worldwide reach.

 

These services are becoming the defacto "radio stations" of years gone by. Did these old radio stations pay artists?

 

No, just the opposite. In the old days, in order to gain public exposure, the artists paid the DJ's to play their records. It was called "payola".

 

What Taylor Swift is doing by pulling her material off Spotify has nothing to do with "starving artists". She is simply forcing her fans to purchase her recordings outright. There's nothing wrong with that, but, with the level of financial reward that she has already attained, don't misconstrue it as anything but good ol' fashioned American greed.

[wappinghigh]

^ Nope. I'm not.

 

I agree.

 

Sure. 100 years ago artists couldn't even record music.

 

Taylor Swift is actually a talented artist. Good luck to her. Her music is not necessarily my taste, but she can sing and perform: so good on her.

 

But please. Blaming Spotify for the eminent collapse of artists and the music industry ?

 

I'm a premium subscriber, because I now use it rather than iTunes.

 

How this washes out will be up to market forces.

 

Again.

 

What's new?

 

Records 78 gramophone, 33, then 48, then tape , then cd, then iTunes now this model..

 

The best way of listening always wins out in the end. Is that consumers fault?

 

Folks need to remember first up there was no recording industry at all

 

There wasn't even "radio"....

[realhifi]

[quote=wwaldmanfan;363569

 

She is simply forcing her fans to purchase her recordings outright.

 

Am

 

LOL! Yeah, that'll teach em! Do you realize how silly that sounds? How long has that model been in place where someone makes something, anything, and charges someone for it?

[wappinghigh]

Right.

 

So is the industry suggesting we wind back the clock?

 

Since when in human achievement has this ever happened?

 

The issue is how does the industry strike the right balance between artist reward and consumer convenience in listening to the artist.

 

I'd suggest market forces will eventually decide.

 

If Spotify business flops, or can't support artists with appropriate remuneration their delivery model will collapse and we will move onto the next way (model)

 

In this case another service will provide the correct balance.

 

Artists and services will need to get along. They both need each other.

 

Like I said.

 

What's new ?

[wwaldmanfan]

She is simply forcing her fans to purchase her recordings outright.

 

LOL! Yeah, that'll teach em! Do you realize how silly that sounds? How long has that model been in place where someone makes something, anything, and charges someone for it?

 

Silly? I said there was nothing wrong with it. Don't quote me out of context.

 

My point is that, on the eve of the release of what is expected to be her biggest-selling album to date, anybody who thinks that Taylor Swift has altruistic motives for pulling her catalog from Spotify is naive.

[realhifi]

Silly? I said there was nothing wrong with it. Don't quote me out of context.

 

My point is that, on the eve of the release of what is expected to be her biggest-selling album to date, anybody who thinks that Taylor Swift has altruistic motives for pulling her catalog from Spotify is naive.

 

Point taken. I wish her well in doing it.