... I meant to post this a couple days ago.
There's something a little funny about the whole Taylor Swift calling out Apple Music and their initial "3 months not paying artists for using their music to promote Apple's new Apple Music free for the first 3 months" thing.
It's the timing of it... since not long ago many were applauding Taylor for calling out Spotify on low royalty payments... resulting in Taylor pulling her new album from Spotify.
... to be honest though, I don't feel it was actually Taylor Swift calling out Spotify, but her handlers. I imagine they all have handlers since there's too much to stay on top of, especially if you're at the top of your game in the pop world.
So back to Apple Music, considering the Apple we know was basically founded on decimating the music industry (the iPod -> good bye physical sales) and they have an estimated $165+ billion in cash (<-- $$$... as in money under their mattress), it seems odd they'd backpedal on their decision to not pay artists during the initial (3 months free) offering of Apple Music to the public.
Not because they're cheap... but because they can do what they want... and because they could justify it. Income splitting is easy when income is $0.
(... since hey... Apple Music isn't getting paid so to be fair, I guess the artists shouldn't either!)
Corporations (for the most part) do what they want... unless public backlash is so great, they absolutely have to go into damage control. Apple acquired Beats Music just over a year ago, so this plan (of Apple Music in general) has been forming for probably over a year now... at least.
Big companies rarely stray from their plan... and the Apple Steve Jobs built thinks ahead of the curve and does what it wants, right?
The response Apple Music initially experienced revealing it's "3-months free and not paying artists" wasn't great, but we all would've forgotten about it soon after we start using it... and potentially loving it.
Think about it... it's pretty obvious the general public (aka average consumer) doesn't care too much what happens upstream or downstream if at the end of the day, they feel like they get more and pay less. It's been pretty obvious since the iPod came out physical/album sales have gone down, it's pretty obvious why, and it's pretty obvious most people turned a blind eye to what was happening. The industry has been forced to adapt and struggled along the way. I believe there's light at the end of the tunnel... but it's been rough for many mid-level artists.
... and lower-level artists... if only you could exchange Facebook likes and YouTube views for groceries and gas!
... back to Apple Music though, it's in a position where it can do what it wants. Taylor Swift is finally on record (it's really hard to not make puns btw) that she doesn't make her money from album sales but from live performances... so what does she care?
Well... it raises her profile and apparent power in the music industry even more if she can snap her fingers calling out a huge company like Apple (again, with $165+ Billion in their wallet) and they obey.
People won't see (or remember) Apple Music changing their policy, they'll see and remember Taylor Swift standing up for musicians/artist rights and royalties. It's a win/win for both... and it wouldn't surprise me if someone digs up dirt on it being part of the plan between the two.
... which brings up another initial thought I had, and glad to see a few other people have written articles about it.
... anybody remember Lars' lawsuit against Napster?
I'm a firm believer it's not what you say, it's who says it. Sometimes I wonder what state the music industry would be in if it wasn't Lars... no offence Lars.
P.S. Also worth factoring in Apple's botched publicity/PR stunt with U2 recently (Songs Of The Innocence). I think public backlash was pretty crazy considering Bono considered it "a gift". I was shocked more people weren't freaking out about the fact something showed up on their phone/iTunes they didn't approve... and how much other stuff is on their phone running in the background they don't even know about.
With Apple Music, I think we'll have access to everything, at all times, potentially for "free". It'll be stored in the cloud, but accessible at all times. So you'll still have that U2 album in a way.
P.P.S. I like a lot of things about Apple Music in case you were wondering.
Lars Ulrich vs Napster (video/interview): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r6wn47_Vqs
Taylor Swift Vs. Dave Grohl (Record Sales Vs. Streaming aka I'm too busy selling out arenas to care)
If you're even remotely interested in music, or I guess pop culture at all, you know Taylor Swift recently released a new album... and there was a big fuss over her pulling her music off streaming service Spotify.
I'll admit, I only have time to skim these articles but at the core is something that crosses my mind every day... especially as someone who makes records for a living.
What's more important... album sales? Or giving your fans access to your music through much lower paying subscription services?
... there can only be one right?
We have Taylor Swift stating recently she believes music shouldn't be free, and we have Dave Grohl's response that he's basically too busy playing arenas to care about album sales.
First off... it's safe to say both of these artists already built their careers and made their money before or during the collapse of the old music industry/restructuring of the new. We can't fault them for that, but we need to factor that into the choices they make and positions they defend. I don't think either have to sell records at this point (really) in order to eat.
... I'm just realizing now how all over the place my thoughts are trying to wrap my brain around this... apologizing in advance!
Let's start with Taylor Swift... she releases an album, her camp pulls her back catalogue off of Spotify because she feels music shouldn't be free and the royalties are too low for the streaming service... and encourages her fans to buy it... and then sections of the music industry applaud her for making a stand against crappy low paying royalties.
Keep in mind she was making a push for the first (and probably only) platinum-selling (1,000,000 copies) artist of 2014.
This is the goal here... selling copies... 1,000,000 I'm assuming.
I think she was en route to hitting that number anyway...
I saw a post pop up on my Facebook feed where she'd retweeted a fan's selfie holding her new album in the store... and then encouraged all her fans who bought the album to tag and share pics.
... this is a huge incentive for fans to buy the new album.
Who knows how much was spent on her promotional campaign at this point, but that probably cost all of $700 for her smartphone, whatever her phone bill is, and however long it took to set up the Twitter account and hit retweet... that's going to add some sales!
There was also a lot of focus on all the bonus material included with the physical CD.
This is something I stand behind firmly... if you want people to buy your album, make sure it's worthwhile for them! Make sure your core fans feel like they're getting more than their monies worth! Include the lyrics, posters, handwritten notes (*cough* copies *cough*), photos from the studio/live, etc. Basically anything you think your core fan might enjoy. Give them a little behind the scenes look, make them feel included, make them feel like part of a club.
That's what Taylor Swift did with the album package and that's what she solidified simply retweeting a fan pic.
So where does Spotify fit in with her? Well... call me cynical, but my guess is it's simply marketing/PR. The iron was hot, and this pushed her new album (and noble stance) on the state of the industry, record sales and no platinum selling artists (for better or worse) right in our faces.
Again, "music shouldn't be free"... except it has been if you think about it... it's the medium we pay for... and that Apple took all the money away from the record labels by providing a medium (iPod) that replaced the CD (medium), which replaced all the other mediums before it... and now we're in the process of replacing the iPod.
... "music shouldn't be free", keep that in mind for a minute.
Let's hop over to Dave Grohl's side of the fence... where he's too busy playing arenas to care about album sales.
Dave just spent a fair amount of time and money travelling and documenting the making of Foo Fighters latest album Sonic Highways.
Again, let's just pretend the video/documentary aspect of making the album isn't the actual product and that the album isn't just the soundtrack to the documentary.
Do the record sales of Sonic Highways really matter to Dave if he's too busy selling out arenas?
Well... let's Google what Foo Fighters make (according to the internet) per show...
Foo's are sitting around $500k+ a show.
Let's check T-Swift while we're at it...
... so being conservative... $1,000,000+ a show.
... let's pretend for a minute, using easy math, that both of these artists are independent and selling their album for $10 on itunes. iTunes takes around 30%, leaving the artist with $7. We'll assume physical sales are the same.
$500,000/$7 = 71,428
... doing some further easy math, we can sort of compare those number into album sales... obviously needing to factor in all the overhead with touring, but touring at that level, we're assuming they're touring at a profit regardless.
It'd take Foo Fighters around 14 shows (1,000,000/71,428) to hit "platinum status" and Taylor would need 7.
I love easy math!
... I think you get the point though.
Another important thing to keep in mind, when an artist sells a record, that's a one time cost and unlimited use/access to the music. With ticket sales, that ticket has value up until the show starts and rapidly declines (unless it's a collectors item which is another blog post) until the show's end. If you want to see either artist again, even if it's the exact same show on the same tour, you pay for it again.
How many people do you know who attend multiple shows of the same band or the same tour? Maybe not so much here in Canada but I know a dozen living in the US who do.
Pearl Jam? Phish? Dave Matthews Band?
Back over to Spotify/streaming, yes the payouts are low, but streaming is a subscription service... which means continuous money (for listening to music) coming in, and being paid out.
Considering how things have changed... I think in the long term, subscription/"free" is better for several reasons (another blog post). We're still going through growing pains over what people think is fair price/royalties... but then considering how badly most artists were treated financially over the last 3-4 decades (once they saw the numbers), they should see streaming as a step in the right direction to more importantly, increasing their reach and increasing their fanbase.
... then again, the labels could probably launch their own subscription based service if they really wanted to.
To sum this up... what I think most musicians are failing to see at the root of this... is the focus of music is going back to what it was... performing live... in whatever form the audience demands and accepts.
I'd say these top tier artists know where their water comes from, and everything else is a drop in the bucket... record sales included. In my opinion, Team Swift used all this as part of marketing hype for (at the end of the day) touring, just like Team Grohl is using the Sonic Highway series as a piece of the promotional puzzle for their core fans... before the big tour.
Both artists know who they are and understand what their product is.
Both are too busy selling out arenas to care about album sales.
... and we can assume both are paying big money to have their singles played on radio... which is sorta like... paying to have people listen to your music... for free... what a second.
... my brain just exploded again.
Mike Langford - Official Blog
Being on both sides of the glass, I get the chance to wear many hats in the music industry. This is a place to share my thoughts, views, predictions, rants, stories and news!