Newest Conspiracy!

[Angel of Ioren]

This is a fun one that I'm sure Gene will find interesting.

Conspiracy theorists thinks Taylor Swift's Apple beef was a publicity stunt

When I saw how quickly Apple changed course on this, my mind did drift to the idea that it was planned. Also, I agree with Taylor Swift on this. Unlike a lot of people that have commented on this by prefacing how they are by no means a fan of her's, I will unabashedly say that I completely am. She's a huge talent and although I'm really only familiar with 1989, I love that album.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It's all show biz.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It's all show biz.

So you think it was planned? It certainly is possible.

 

[Wade]

I would lean towards a theatrical element as well because with the resources apple has I don't think it would have been a huge drain for them to not pay the royalties for what would have been a pretty limited time, if they really thought they had a moral high ground i'm certain they would hang in their awhile longer with their original decision, hell they hung in there against Samsung.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It happened at a very convenient time, so it's not impossible. Within days after the announcement of the change of royalty policy, Apple also signed up a large group of indies. Lots of publicity. Lots.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Being somewhat familiar with the music business after having worked in it for the past 25+ years, both at indie labels and artist management, in my opinion, I don't think the Taylor Swift tumblr post last Sunday was in any way a "publicity stunt." The opinions she expressed were in line with her previous actions, most notably, removing her catalog from Spotify. I agree with her position 100%. Also, as she pointed out, it's really not as much about her, streaming revenues represent an extremely small part of her income, as it is about artists who are much more reliant on income from streaming, downloads and sales because they don't have a lucrative revenue stream from live touring. They are the ones that were getting shafted by that 90 day "free" period that Apple Music was offering. Even though some notable indies subsequently signed up this week, it is still not clear if the royalty rate Apple will be paying artists during the 90 day free periods when new users sign up, will be equal to the rate paid once users are paying their $9.99 per month. I will refrain from a longer screed about the music streaming business model and how artists are getting the shaft, big time, while the majors continue to rig the game and get theirs. Suffice to say, being an Apple fanboy myself, I was extremely disappointed in Apple's original position of not paying royalties during the 90 day free period. That's a marketing cost that should be borne by the company, not at the expense of the content creators. I'm still not sure they are going as far as they can in being fair to artists. Time will tell. I know people at the executive level there and I hope to garner some insight from them at some point in the future as to what they were thinking, given that they view themselves as extremely "artist friendly."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Being somewhat familiar with the music business after having worked in it for the past 25+ years, both at indie labels and artist management, in my opinion, I don't think the Taylor Swift tumblr post last Sunday was in any way a "publicity stunt." The opinions she expressed were in line with her previous actions, most notably, removing her catalog from Spotify. I agree with her position 100%. Also, as she pointed out, it's really not as much about her, streaming revenues represent an extremely small part of her income, as it is about artists who are much more reliant on income from streaming, downloads and sales because they don't have a lucrative revenue stream from live touring. They are the ones that were getting shafted by that 90 day "free" period that Apple Music was offering. Even though some notable indies subsequently signed up this week, it is still not clear if the royalty rate Apple will be paying artists during the 90 day free periods when new users sign up, will be equal to the rate paid once users are paying their $9.99 per month. I will refrain from a longer screed about the music streaming business model and how artists are getting the shaft, big time, while the majors continue to rig the game and get theirs. Suffice to say, being an Apple fanboy myself, I was extremely disappointed in Apple's original position of not paying royalties during the 90 day free period. That's a marketing cost that should be borne by the company, not at the expense of the content creators. I'm still not sure they are going as far as they can in being fair to artists. Time will tell. I know people at the executive level there and I hope to garner some insight from them at some point in the future as to what they were thinking, given that they view themselves as extremely "artist friendly."

I agree with everything you said, completely.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

You have to think that Taylor could have contacted Apple directly and privately on the matter? The outcome would probably have been the same considering she is the hottest star around there was no way apple didn't want to have her albums.

I read somewhere that all this fuss over various streaming services is very one-sided because there are numerous places people can get contemporary and back catalogue music for free, so why get angry at only one outlet?

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

You have to think that Taylor could have contacted Apple directly and privately on the matter? The outcome would probably have been the same considering she is the hottest star around there was no way apple didn't want to have her albums.

I read somewhere that all this fuss over various streaming services is very one-sided because there are numerous places people can get contemporary and back catalogue music for free, so why get angry at only one outlet?

Goggs is alive!

Never underestimate the power of a public shaming. By posting it as an "open letter" Apple could not simply brush it under the rug or simply ignore it. The firestorm of bad PR it was going to create had to be nipped in the bud and that's exactly what they ended up doing.

As for only getting angry at one outlet, Swift has a consistent message - if you are giving it away for free, and are not fairly compensating artists, I prefer not to be a part of your service, and I'm pulling my music, which is why she pulled her music from Spotify months ago in a rather public move. As for the "other outlets" you refer to where one can get current and back catalog for free, the difference is they do not legally have the rights to that music. Pirate sites wouldn't/don't comply with take-down orders. Swift is controlling her music where she can.

 

[zaphrella]

if you are giving it away for free, and are not fairly compensating artists, I prefer not to be a part of your service, and I'm pulling my music, which is why she pulled her music from Spotify months ago in a rather public move.

This is a question based on ethics & integrity which probably a foreign concept to major media but how can Apple (or Amazon or anybody else) think that because they choose to have a promotional price that the artists/writers they carry automatically agree to drop their take?

That would be like a retailer telling a supplier of theirs to take a loss on a product that the retailer decides to put on sale but that is not what happens. The retailer takes less profit or no profit on the item during the sale but they do it inorder to bring people into the store. They expect to make more profit by people buying other things while in the store which is kind of like that free promo offer of the media outlets: they will make more money if people sign up with their service.

Is this something that can be written into a contract - that royalties will be X or higher (but never lower than X) despite whatever promotion the distributing organization decides to run?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

This is a fun one that I'm sure Gene will find interesting.

Conspiracy theorists thinks Taylor Swift's Apple beef was a publicity stunt

When I saw how quickly Apple changed course on this, my mind did drift to the idea that it was planned. Also, I agree with Taylor Swift on this. Unlike a lot of people that have commented on this by prefacing how they are by no means a fan of her's, I will unabashedly say that I completely am. She's a huge talent and although I'm really only familiar with 1989, I love that album.

Ditto. I've never hid that I think she is very talented and I really dig a good few of her songs. She also seems from reports to be quite a caring person. I mean few stars of her level make a point of inviting fans places with her to do normal shit. She also has given plenty money to deserving causes.
She like cats!

I'll stop short of putting her poster on my wall but ill defend my liking her to anyone.
(I'm not however, a 'Swiftie'. I'm nobody's bitch! )

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

Ditto. I've never hid that I think she is very talented and I really dig a good few of her songs. She also seems from reports to be quite a caring person. I mean few stars of her level make a point of inviting fans places with her to do normal shit. She also has given plenty money to deserving causes.
She like cats!

I'll stop short of putting her poster on my wall but ill defend my liking her to anyone.
(I'm not however, a 'Swiftie'. I'm nobody's bitch! )

And physically attractive...? lol

 

[Jeff Crowell]

.... Unlike a lot of people that have commented on this by prefacing how they are by no means a fan of her's, I will unabashedly say that I completely am. She's a huge talent and although I'm really only familiar with 1989, I love that album.

One of my guilty pleasures; I have Shake it Off on my playlist of regular workout songs.

Yeah....write that down right there.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Now Slayer on the other hand...