This particular issue did remind me why I hate, in general, the commenter community at sites like Ars. I can tell you that.
I've made this point elsewhere, but what she's really objecting to, seems to me, is what I've kinda dubbed the "Netflixification" of content. Everybody loves Netflix. But Netflix is cheap. Too cheap. It's why they get into fights with ISPs, and why when I go to look for a specific film half time time it's not on there, and why their shows aren't as good as HBO's and won't be anytime soon. Netflix is about paying a small amount of money to choose from some limited selection and just watch some stuff when you don't necessarily much care what stuff you watch. But what it also does is create the perception that "all the movies" cost eight bucks a month. And creates a reluctance in the customer to ever pay more.
I see this every time my girlfriend balks at paying $3 or $4 for an online rental of a movie that isn't on Netflix/Prime yet/anymore.
Swift's position is even more reasonable than that. She's willing to be on the "Netflix tier" of Spotify's library, or at least that's her claim. She just refuses to be on the (non-plus) "Hulu tier," and they won't give her the choice. She feels that by forcing her to accept an ad-supported model, they're reinforcing the idea that her music doesn't cost money. And she's right, IMO. That's poor for your business, long-term, if part of your business is selling music.
I think you're correct that these kinds of services (Netflix, Steam, Spotify, ect) tend to lower prices dramatically.
You haven't explained why that's a bad thing. There is still a huge amount of content on those services, likely more than the average user can ever use. I literally can't play all the games I own on Steam. I can't watch all the movies and shows I'd like to watch on Netflix. I can't listen to all the music I'd like to listen to on Spotify. Despite the low prices, there is no shortage of supply. Quite the opposite - supply hugely outpaces demand, which is why the prices remain so low.
Uh, what? What are you basing this assumption on? Cause there is no way that this statement is true because prices are not low due to a high supply of content. That's not how the purchasing of content by Netflix works.
And secondly, the fact that there is a huge amount of content already on these services is irrelevant. If we literally stopped making music/movies/TV right now, there would still be a huge amount of content on these services. Exactly the same huge amount of content in fact. The exact thing you are talking about. Of course, pretty much everyone would consider this a bad thing though. Your framing here that "there's a huge amount of content already so it doesn't matter how more gets made" is utterly silly.
And yet, we don't just see the existing content - we see tons of new awesome content being made every year.
This suggests, rather strongly, that artists will continue to create new art even under the Netflix/Spotify/Steam models.
So why would we need to change things, exactly? The whole consequence that keeps being raised here is that artists won't be able create under the current system (this would be a supply shortage.) However, this hasn't happened. There is no evidence of any kind of supply shortage that I can see. Clearly artists are able to create lots of awesome content under the current model, even in a world where Taylor Swift can only make 2 million from putting her songs on Spotify.
So why would we change things to further favor the suppliers, when there's no evidence of any kind of supply problem?
The music industry loves to suggest that if everyone doesn't give them more money that people will somehow decide to stop making music, because reasons. But people are making plenty of music under the current model and show no actual sign of stopping. Can you explain how we would get from A (Spotify/Netflix/Steam having massive libraries) to B (nobody making games/art/music)? Can you show me data that suggests we are progressing towards this dark fate?
Uh, it's really obvious. If I can't get paid for my music, then I need stop doing music and get a different job. Case closed.Furthermore, Steam is nothing like a streaming music service and has no business in this discussion.
No offense, but streaming services have been around for a little while and we don't seem to be running out of good music.
If it's not working out for you, sorry to hear that. Like most forms of art, music is a tough gig!
But I see zero evidence for any kind of supply shortage in music right now. The problem seems to be completely the opposite of that - too many people making awesome music, and not enough demand to support them all.
Is there any evidence there's less demand? Cause the only evidence we seem to have is for less profit, which is not the same thing. All the data points to consumers spending less money on music. That does not necessarily indicate a drop in demand and, in fact, the very theory being proposed is that it isn't a drop in demand simply a drop in the ability to make money off that demand.
This particular issue did remind me why I hate, in general, the commenter community at sites like Ars. I can tell you that.
I've made this point elsewhere, but what she's really objecting to, seems to me, is what I've kinda dubbed the "Netflixification" of content. Everybody loves Netflix. But Netflix is cheap. Too cheap. It's why they get into fights with ISPs, and why when I go to look for a specific film half time time it's not on there, and why their shows aren't as good as HBO's and won't be anytime soon. Netflix is about paying a small amount of money to choose from some limited selection and just watch some stuff when you don't necessarily much care what stuff you watch. But what it also does is create the perception that "all the movies" cost eight bucks a month. And creates a reluctance in the customer to ever pay more.
I see this every time my girlfriend balks at paying $3 or $4 for an online rental of a movie that isn't on Netflix/Prime yet/anymore.
Swift's position is even more reasonable than that. She's willing to be on the "Netflix tier" of Spotify's library, or at least that's her claim. She just refuses to be on the (non-plus) "Hulu tier," and they won't give her the choice. She feels that by forcing her to accept an ad-supported model, they're reinforcing the idea that her music doesn't cost money. And she's right, IMO. That's poor for your business, long-term, if part of your business is selling music.
I think you're correct that these kinds of services (Netflix, Steam, Spotify, ect) tend to lower prices dramatically.
You haven't explained why that's a bad thing. There is still a huge amount of content on those services, likely more than the average user can ever use. I literally can't play all the games I own on Steam. I can't watch all the movies and shows I'd like to watch on Netflix. I can't listen to all the music I'd like to listen to on Spotify. Despite the low prices, there is no shortage of supply. Quite the opposite - supply hugely outpaces demand, which is why the prices remain so low.
Uh, what? What are you basing this assumption on? Cause there is no way that this statement is true because prices are not low due to a high supply of content. That's not how the purchasing of content by Netflix works.
And secondly, the fact that there is a huge amount of content already on these services is irrelevant. If we literally stopped making music/movies/TV right now, there would still be a huge amount of content on these services. Exactly the same huge amount of content in fact. The exact thing you are talking about. Of course, pretty much everyone would consider this a bad thing though. Your framing here that "there's a huge amount of content already so it doesn't matter how more gets made" is utterly silly.
And yet, we don't just see the existing content - we see tons of new awesome content being made every year.
This suggests, rather strongly, that artists will continue to create new art even under the Netflix/Spotify/Steam models.
So why would we need to change things, exactly? The whole consequence that keeps being raised here is that artists won't be able create under the current system (this would be a supply shortage.) However, this hasn't happened. There is no evidence of any kind of supply shortage that I can see. Clearly artists are able to create lots of awesome content under the current model, even in a world where Taylor Swift can only make 2 million from putting her songs on Spotify.
So why would we change things to further favor the suppliers, when there's no evidence of any kind of supply problem?
Ok, where is your evidence there is no supply problem? Cause there certainly seems to be a profitability problem which is related to supply since said profits pay for the supply.
Also, this is a fine point but has nothing to do with your original post so I've no idea why it's written as a reply to my reply to that.
The problem with the info-graphic is that it's disingenuous and discounts quite a bit of nuance.
-Not everyone that buys a Tyler Swift album or song is going to listen to her on Spotify. Actually, I would think that would be a good thing if they do listen to her stuff on something like spotify, pandora or what have you, if they own a copy of the song because then she is getting revenue from them listening to something again, that they could listen to in a manner that would generate no additional income for her.
-Not everyone that listens to her songs there is or were ever going to by any of her songs because they have a finite amount of disposable income for entertainment purposes and determine that they would rather use it to support other creators.
-Some that do listen to her stuff on spotify decide that they do want to support her with their limited disposable income, but that wouldn't have happened if they didn't hear her songs first (there might be a very limited number, where if she wasn't on spotify, they would have never bought her music).
-She still gets some revenue; however small it may be, from each song heard on spotify, which is better than no revenue if the alternative for listeners was to either pirate it, borrow it from someone they knew or get a used copy.
So I'm in agreement with Jeffe. Comparing album sales and streams, just doesn't work the way they are doing it.
But none of what you mention is relevant to the point the infographic is making. It's a complete non-sequitor. Like, I literally cannot understand wtf you think you are talking about.
The infographic is not about Taylor Swift, it's about the difference in the number of units you need to move under different models in order to achieve the same standard of living.
Like, most of your examples are talking about different models interacting and the whole point of the infographic is to give a comparison of those models as replacements for one another. (in part or in total)
shryke on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This particular issue did remind me why I hate, in general, the commenter community at sites like Ars. I can tell you that.
I've made this point elsewhere, but what she's really objecting to, seems to me, is what I've kinda dubbed the "Netflixification" of content. Everybody loves Netflix. But Netflix is cheap. Too cheap. It's why they get into fights with ISPs, and why when I go to look for a specific film half time time it's not on there, and why their shows aren't as good as HBO's and won't be anytime soon. Netflix is about paying a small amount of money to choose from some limited selection and just watch some stuff when you don't necessarily much care what stuff you watch. But what it also does is create the perception that "all the movies" cost eight bucks a month. And creates a reluctance in the customer to ever pay more.
I see this every time my girlfriend balks at paying $3 or $4 for an online rental of a movie that isn't on Netflix/Prime yet/anymore.
Swift's position is even more reasonable than that. She's willing to be on the "Netflix tier" of Spotify's library, or at least that's her claim. She just refuses to be on the (non-plus) "Hulu tier," and they won't give her the choice. She feels that by forcing her to accept an ad-supported model, they're reinforcing the idea that her music doesn't cost money. And she's right, IMO. That's poor for your business, long-term, if part of your business is selling music.
I think you're correct that these kinds of services (Netflix, Steam, Spotify, ect) tend to lower prices dramatically.
You haven't explained why that's a bad thing. There is still a huge amount of content on those services, likely more than the average user can ever use. I literally can't play all the games I own on Steam. I can't watch all the movies and shows I'd like to watch on Netflix. I can't listen to all the music I'd like to listen to on Spotify. Despite the low prices, there is no shortage of supply. Quite the opposite - supply hugely outpaces demand, which is why the prices remain so low.
Uh, what? What are you basing this assumption on? Cause there is no way that this statement is true because prices are not low due to a high supply of content. That's not how the purchasing of content by Netflix works.
And secondly, the fact that there is a huge amount of content already on these services is irrelevant. If we literally stopped making music/movies/TV right now, there would still be a huge amount of content on these services. Exactly the same huge amount of content in fact. The exact thing you are talking about. Of course, pretty much everyone would consider this a bad thing though. Your framing here that "there's a huge amount of content already so it doesn't matter how more gets made" is utterly silly.
And yet, we don't just see the existing content - we see tons of new awesome content being made every year.
This suggests, rather strongly, that artists will continue to create new art even under the Netflix/Spotify/Steam models.
So why would we need to change things, exactly? The whole consequence that keeps being raised here is that artists won't be able create under the current system (this would be a supply shortage.) However, this hasn't happened. There is no evidence of any kind of supply shortage that I can see. Clearly artists are able to create lots of awesome content under the current model, even in a world where Taylor Swift can only make 2 million from putting her songs on Spotify.
So why would we change things to further favor the suppliers, when there's no evidence of any kind of supply problem?
It could be argued that there is a qualitative shift, not a quantitative one, in the supply as a result of the changing distribution landscape. For example, it could be that the incentive structures encourage first albums but discourage second ones, leading to an overall landscape of musical groups that form, bet their future on promising but unpolished work, don't find the financial support they need to continue, and dissolve without ever having the chance to release the more mature, accomplished music that comes later in an artist's career.
It could also be argued that distribution methods disfavor the consumer even as they encourage more overall works, because the consumer has limited access or awareness of them. In film, for instance, technological advances have made it more accessible than ever for private individuals to make their own movies, and the result is that more films are made each year than ever before; but the vast majority of these movies are never seen outside the festival circuit, because there is no financially viable way to distribute them--the result being that the vast majority of consumers will never see this flood of independent features, which are crowded out at the multiplexes by blockbuster material. It's possible that a similar effect happens in music, where small bands focus on more lucrative live performances, leaving their music either unstreamable or unnoticed due to the lack of any real marketing or distribution.
I don't know if any of these things are happening in music, but these are at least other possible reasons why the current state of the industry might not be preferred to an alternative set up.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, and it's a question of the proportion.
That is as may be. But doesn't address what I said.
Actually, it does, because it points out that artists have the right to negotiate what they feel is proper compensation for their work. And considering how well her album sold, and that Spotify was asking her to cannibalize sales of it for their benefit, yeah, $2M is a pittance.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, and it's a question of the proportion.
That is as may be. But doesn't address what I said.
It does if we take the only sensible reading of your point.
Cause the only alternative is that you are suggesting that spotify is acting like some sort of wealth redistribution program where it's ok that Taylor Swift is getting stiffed on her compensation because she's already rich.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, and it's a question of the proportion.
That is as may be. But doesn't address what I said.
Actually, it does, because it points out that artists have the right to negotiate what they feel is proper compensation for their work. And considering how well her album sold, and that Spotify was asking her to cannibalize sales of it for their benefit, yeah, $2M is a pittance.
It's worth noting that sales cannibalism is vastly, vastly overrated, because stuff like online only, ad interlaced music is alright, but plenty of people would rather just buy the MP3s if they can.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
How did you to come to the conclusion that it's worth 10 million dollars if you've only been offered two?
We're talking the only album to go platinum this year, and they were asking her to cannibalize her album sales so they could use it as a draw for their ad-supported service.
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
How did you to come to the conclusion that it's worth 10 million dollars if you've only been offered two?
Based on current performance of creative output. Taylor isn't pulling stuff from her ass when she thinks she's getting a raw deal, here.
So you consider two million dollars for X amount of work to be a raw deal.
You're certainly free to think so but I definitely disagree.
Considering the amount of money that amount of work produced? Care to explain why you think it wasn't a raw deal?
I find it amazing that people talk about how artists get ripped off by record companies...then turn around and defend them getting ripped off by tech companies.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
Yes, imagine getting paid 2 million dollars a year from a single content distribution channel but thinking that you could have gotten more if only society and the industry didn't something...
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
I don't think that anyone, and particularly anyone who has worked as an artist of any kind, would disagree that being an artist is a tough gig. Making millions of dollars is absolutely not the norm, and most artists struggle to make ends meet. As digital distribution has become easier and better tuned, things have become harder for artists in some ways, and easier on others. Previously you were reliant on industry gatekeepers, now you're trying to make your work stand out in a sea of other artists trying to do the same, and every other person's work drives down the value of yours. Creating independent art of any kind is an incredibly difficult and taxing lifestyle, and while it may be easier than it used to be, it still takes skill, luck, and a special kind of obsession to make it work.
What is less clear to me from this thread is what anyone is suggesting be done about it. Go back to an album/publishing model, which screwed over every artist it could reach for decades? Legislate a minimum price for Spotify subscriptions? Scold people and make disappointed scowly faces until everyone who listens to an artist donates $100 a month to finance them?
Lots of people want to make music. Lots of people are good at making music, such that the supply of music outstrips the demand. I think it's always going to be hard to be an indie artist while those things remain true, and I don't see how shuffling around the distribution methods is going to fix that.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
Wow. You mean a pop star with hundreds of millions of fans doesn't command the same price on their labor as a normal person?
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
Considerably more than the average singer makes.
Stephen Hawking is technically a teacher. He has a net worth of $20 million. Is that too much money for his labor?
Yes, imagine getting paid 2 million dollars a year from a single content distribution channel but thinking that you could have gotten more if only society and the industry didn't something...
If Taylor Swift is making $2 million, then the average artist would be lucky to make $1000.
Which, you know, is not nearly enough money to encourage people to keep doing art.
Which might be fine as long as the artist can supplement their income from other sources. The problem is that if Spotify becomes more popular, then those others sources dry up as a result.
And maybe Taylor Swift is lucky and she'll have people listening to her music over and over again because it's super catchy. That makes her an outlier. But what about the musicians who do great music on an artistic level, but not so catchy? For instance, I've only ever been interested in watching "Battlestar Galactica" once. It's a great show, but super depressing. I'm sure that there are musical equivalents of this.
Schrodinger on
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
If Swift feels she isn't getting paid enough, she can pull her product. Which she did. If other artists feel like they aren't getting paid enough, they too are free to pull their product. I don't see what the huge controversy is you are trying to drum up here Hedgie. Spotify isn't a monopoly, and artists aren't compelled to use it.
Either they think it is helping them earn money and gain exposure, or they don't, and they make a decision based off of that. This is not the 80's and 90's where if you wanted to get an album produced, you had to play ball with one of the major labels.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
So, again, you view Spotify as an agent for the redistribution of wealth?
The fuck are you talking about?
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
What figures are we talking about here with "cover the decline?" Artists no longer making enough to survive? Or just no longer making seven figures every 2-3 years because they put out an album?
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
Meanwhile, Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify, has a net worth of $300 million.
Next up: We can't have a $15 minimum wage, because if we do, then we're buying into the elitist assumption that Gordon Gecko deserves to be rich.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer". The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends.
Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders. They spotted a big mistmatch between what studios were willing to sell streaming rights for compared to what they could get people to pay for them and they made a huge business out of putting themselves in the middle of that with some neat new technology.
Spotify almost certainly is offering the lowest price they think can get away with, which is not necessarily commensurate with the profit the content brings in.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
haha no, this is never how it was, at least in the radio era. The entire distribution model was based on relentlessly promoting 30-40 artists and marginalizing everything else.
The best argument the Lowery article makes is that under the 'old' model, the recording industry assumed (some of) the risk of creating new music. But they also assumed a much larger share of the reward reaped by a 'mid-tier' artist than the artist can potentially retain today, and also much more creative control.
There is a market for music right now; it's working fine, and taylor swift choosing to withdraw from spotify in favor of other distribution is evidence that it's working.
Yes and no. Swift, along with a mere handful of others, are an exceptional case.
well of course; swift is obviously very popular. Artists with her popularity/sales potential obviously will not have her leverage to extract concessions from (say) spotify, but that doesn't mean the market isn't working.
the 'long tail' phenomenon has been written about forever, and we've seen it play out over the last decade. Music sales on a per-unit basis have steadily increased, while revenue has fallen. The public is buying more music, for less money, than it ever has since the dawn of mass media.
What's happened is that the 'traditional' music industry's leverage over distribution has eroded. They are able to extract less profit from the creation of content. This isn't only because of the reduced cost of media; it's because now I can buy the single I want for two bucks without having to buy a whole (frequently mediocre) album to get it, and I can choose between more artists being distributed in more ways.
media products are worth what the market will pay for them, and it turns out there's a lot of competition in music. I mean, am I supposed to apologize that it's now harder for the music industry to seek rents than it was previously?
New entrants, in any field, are always willing to discount their services for a while in an attempt to establish a base from which they can build. But in media (games, music, film, youtube channels, whatever) many find that it's not sustainable and drop out, only to be replaced by next year's class of new entrants trying the same thing. A few achieve lasting success, and good for them, but given the permanence of media these days consumers can still derive benefit from that work years after the artist has moved on to other things - the "Long Tail" as it were, except since it was given away for practically nothing when it was created the artist still continues not to profit. They're no longer competing for revenue from their current cohort, but last year's cohort, last decade's cohort - hell, when was Trololo released? It's competing within an ever-growing library of content, for fewer and fewer dollars spent on the library as a whole.
I actually sort of agree with you about the phenomenon with owned catalogs; it's one of the main reasons to support short copyright durations.
In general though, the market can only support so many artists in whatever field; painters, classical musicians, sculptors, whatever. How should we decide which those are, if not on the basis of what sells?
When industry chews through labor and treats them like cannon fodder to be discarded for the next desperate intern, it's terrible. When media consumers chew through indie artists and treat their content like cannon fodder to be discarded for the next desperate artist giving content away for practically free trying to get their break, they're worth what the market will pay for them.
Okay, but this isn't really different from any era. It was just as true at the height of the radio era, when acts that some A&R didn't think could play top 40 radio languished in development or never a deal at all. Only now, those people have abundant distribution outlets and the ability to monetize their art themselves.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
+2
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
What figures are we talking about here with "cover the decline?" Artists no longer making enough to survive? Or just no longer making seven figures every 2-3 years because they put out an album?
Think of it like this:
The creative industries have traditionally been one of the best ways for people to jump from poverty (and such) to celebrity/monetary fortune through little more than good looks and excellent effort. The arrival of Napster/the internet has severely curtailed that for the people (primarily artists) in the music business because of the ease/ready availability of nabbing services (stuff that gets you music for free, basically permanently, a la Napster and its progeny). Millennials and Gen Xers are a cheap bunch, and while I can't necessarily fault them for that, their reluctance to buy artist's stuff (and this includes porn fyi, which is also in decline/shifting to differently monetized entertainment models) has directly led to the decline/rejiggering of the culture/economic profit model of the music industry as a whole.
Big ticket musicians, like movie stars, want to get paid well for their work. I can't say I fault them for that sentiment, being as their success ultimately determines the fate of my success in many ways, as well.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
So, again, you view Spotify as an agent for the redistribution of wealth?
The fuck are you talking about?
Shryke, I request that you reconsider the tone and care with which you respond to me in particular but to everyone in general. That's neither a proportionate conversational escalation nor a remotely reasonable paraphrase or consequence of anything I have said.
I have been talking about the language used, arguments deployed and assumptions smuggled by the pro-Swift side. It may be you and your compatriots are correct about your overall points - for example, that the current situations are unsustainable, that it's the streaming and technology sites that are the actual rent-seekers and so on and so forth - I haven't been seeking to interact with those sorts of things.
If I were to summarise my main point it would be - the questions of appropriate compensation are not trivial and the pro-Swift side are using a number of context specific assumptions that are useful for the elite in society and that 2 million dollars a year is a lot for personal income and referring to it as a "pittance" is also dependent upon a lot of assumption and privilege.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
Meanwhile, Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify, has a net worth of $300 million.
Next up: We can't have a $15 minimum wage, because if we do, then we're buying into the elitist assumption that Gordon Gecko deserves to be rich.
As far as I can tell this is either radically incomplete as a rebuttal, entirely disingenuous or entirely absurd.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
This assumes you have any clue how the negotiations went, that they are even concluded or what Taylor Swift's stand on the issue is. All are bad ones.
It's been a matter of weeks. The whole thing is still shaking out. Spotify may not have made a counter offer yet. They may be waiting to see how the album sales pan out. Taylor Swift may view this as a matter of principle and has turned down larger offers. Spotify may not want to make a larger counter-offer because that would indicate to other artists that they could get more if they bargained harder and Spotify may be willing to cut their losses on Taylor Swift so as not to cause issues with other artists on their platform.
You are making alot of very narrow and bad assumptions to make this work.
Posts
And yet, we don't just see the existing content - we see tons of new awesome content being made every year.
This suggests, rather strongly, that artists will continue to create new art even under the Netflix/Spotify/Steam models.
So why would we need to change things, exactly? The whole consequence that keeps being raised here is that artists won't be able create under the current system (this would be a supply shortage.) However, this hasn't happened. There is no evidence of any kind of supply shortage that I can see. Clearly artists are able to create lots of awesome content under the current model, even in a world where Taylor Swift can only make 2 million from putting her songs on Spotify.
So why would we change things to further favor the suppliers, when there's no evidence of any kind of supply problem?
Is there any evidence there's less demand? Cause the only evidence we seem to have is for less profit, which is not the same thing. All the data points to consumers spending less money on music. That does not necessarily indicate a drop in demand and, in fact, the very theory being proposed is that it isn't a drop in demand simply a drop in the ability to make money off that demand.
Ok, where is your evidence there is no supply problem? Cause there certainly seems to be a profitability problem which is related to supply since said profits pay for the supply.
Also, this is a fine point but has nothing to do with your original post so I've no idea why it's written as a reply to my reply to that.
But none of what you mention is relevant to the point the infographic is making. It's a complete non-sequitor. Like, I literally cannot understand wtf you think you are talking about.
The infographic is not about Taylor Swift, it's about the difference in the number of units you need to move under different models in order to achieve the same standard of living.
Like, most of your examples are talking about different models interacting and the whole point of the infographic is to give a comparison of those models as replacements for one another. (in part or in total)
Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, and it's a question of the proportion.
It could be argued that there is a qualitative shift, not a quantitative one, in the supply as a result of the changing distribution landscape. For example, it could be that the incentive structures encourage first albums but discourage second ones, leading to an overall landscape of musical groups that form, bet their future on promising but unpolished work, don't find the financial support they need to continue, and dissolve without ever having the chance to release the more mature, accomplished music that comes later in an artist's career.
It could also be argued that distribution methods disfavor the consumer even as they encourage more overall works, because the consumer has limited access or awareness of them. In film, for instance, technological advances have made it more accessible than ever for private individuals to make their own movies, and the result is that more films are made each year than ever before; but the vast majority of these movies are never seen outside the festival circuit, because there is no financially viable way to distribute them--the result being that the vast majority of consumers will never see this flood of independent features, which are crowded out at the multiplexes by blockbuster material. It's possible that a similar effect happens in music, where small bands focus on more lucrative live performances, leaving their music either unstreamable or unnoticed due to the lack of any real marketing or distribution.
I don't know if any of these things are happening in music, but these are at least other possible reasons why the current state of the industry might not be preferred to an alternative set up.
Actually, it does, because it points out that artists have the right to negotiate what they feel is proper compensation for their work. And considering how well her album sold, and that Spotify was asking her to cannibalize sales of it for their benefit, yeah, $2M is a pittance.
It does if we take the only sensible reading of your point.
Cause the only alternative is that you are suggesting that spotify is acting like some sort of wealth redistribution program where it's ok that Taylor Swift is getting stiffed on her compensation because she's already rich.
If I have a good or service that's worth 10 million dollars, and you offer me 2, how am I the greedy one if I say no?
It's worth noting that sales cannibalism is vastly, vastly overrated, because stuff like online only, ad interlaced music is alright, but plenty of people would rather just buy the MP3s if they can.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
Based on current performance of creative output. Taylor isn't pulling stuff from her ass when she thinks she's getting a raw deal, here.
We're talking the only album to go platinum this year, and they were asking her to cannibalize her album sales so they could use it as a draw for their ad-supported service.
$2M was very much a lowball offer.
So you consider two million dollars for X amount of work to be a raw deal.
You're certainly free to think so but I definitely disagree.
Considering the amount of money that amount of work produced? Care to explain why you think it wasn't a raw deal?
I find it amazing that people talk about how artists get ripped off by record companies...then turn around and defend them getting ripped off by tech companies.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
Yes, imagine getting paid 2 million dollars a year from a single content distribution channel but thinking that you could have gotten more if only society and the industry didn't something...
I don't think that anyone, and particularly anyone who has worked as an artist of any kind, would disagree that being an artist is a tough gig. Making millions of dollars is absolutely not the norm, and most artists struggle to make ends meet. As digital distribution has become easier and better tuned, things have become harder for artists in some ways, and easier on others. Previously you were reliant on industry gatekeepers, now you're trying to make your work stand out in a sea of other artists trying to do the same, and every other person's work drives down the value of yours. Creating independent art of any kind is an incredibly difficult and taxing lifestyle, and while it may be easier than it used to be, it still takes skill, luck, and a special kind of obsession to make it work.
What is less clear to me from this thread is what anyone is suggesting be done about it. Go back to an album/publishing model, which screwed over every artist it could reach for decades? Legislate a minimum price for Spotify subscriptions? Scold people and make disappointed scowly faces until everyone who listens to an artist donates $100 a month to finance them?
Lots of people want to make music. Lots of people are good at making music, such that the supply of music outstrips the demand. I think it's always going to be hard to be an indie artist while those things remain true, and I don't see how shuffling around the distribution methods is going to fix that.
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
Wow. You mean a pop star with hundreds of millions of fans doesn't command the same price on their labor as a normal person?
Considerably more than the average singer makes.
Stephen Hawking is technically a teacher. He has a net worth of $20 million. Is that too much money for his labor?
If Taylor Swift is making $2 million, then the average artist would be lucky to make $1000.
Which, you know, is not nearly enough money to encourage people to keep doing art.
Which might be fine as long as the artist can supplement their income from other sources. The problem is that if Spotify becomes more popular, then those others sources dry up as a result.
And maybe Taylor Swift is lucky and she'll have people listening to her music over and over again because it's super catchy. That makes her an outlier. But what about the musicians who do great music on an artistic level, but not so catchy? For instance, I've only ever been interested in watching "Battlestar Galactica" once. It's a great show, but super depressing. I'm sure that there are musical equivalents of this.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
Either they think it is helping them earn money and gain exposure, or they don't, and they make a decision based off of that. This is not the 80's and 90's where if you wanted to get an album produced, you had to play ball with one of the major labels.
So, again, you view Spotify as an agent for the redistribution of wealth?
The fuck are you talking about?
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
What figures are we talking about here with "cover the decline?" Artists no longer making enough to survive? Or just no longer making seven figures every 2-3 years because they put out an album?
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
Meanwhile, Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify, has a net worth of $300 million.
Next up: We can't have a $15 minimum wage, because if we do, then we're buying into the elitist assumption that Gordon Gecko deserves to be rich.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer". The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends.
Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders. They spotted a big mistmatch between what studios were willing to sell streaming rights for compared to what they could get people to pay for them and they made a huge business out of putting themselves in the middle of that with some neat new technology.
Spotify almost certainly is offering the lowest price they think can get away with, which is not necessarily commensurate with the profit the content brings in.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
I actually sort of agree with you about the phenomenon with owned catalogs; it's one of the main reasons to support short copyright durations.
In general though, the market can only support so many artists in whatever field; painters, classical musicians, sculptors, whatever. How should we decide which those are, if not on the basis of what sells?
Okay, but this isn't really different from any era. It was just as true at the height of the radio era, when acts that some A&R didn't think could play top 40 radio languished in development or never a deal at all. Only now, those people have abundant distribution outlets and the ability to monetize their art themselves.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Think of it like this:
The creative industries have traditionally been one of the best ways for people to jump from poverty (and such) to celebrity/monetary fortune through little more than good looks and excellent effort. The arrival of Napster/the internet has severely curtailed that for the people (primarily artists) in the music business because of the ease/ready availability of nabbing services (stuff that gets you music for free, basically permanently, a la Napster and its progeny). Millennials and Gen Xers are a cheap bunch, and while I can't necessarily fault them for that, their reluctance to buy artist's stuff (and this includes porn fyi, which is also in decline/shifting to differently monetized entertainment models) has directly led to the decline/rejiggering of the culture/economic profit model of the music industry as a whole.
Big ticket musicians, like movie stars, want to get paid well for their work. I can't say I fault them for that sentiment, being as their success ultimately determines the fate of my success in many ways, as well.
Shryke, I request that you reconsider the tone and care with which you respond to me in particular but to everyone in general. That's neither a proportionate conversational escalation nor a remotely reasonable paraphrase or consequence of anything I have said.
I have been talking about the language used, arguments deployed and assumptions smuggled by the pro-Swift side. It may be you and your compatriots are correct about your overall points - for example, that the current situations are unsustainable, that it's the streaming and technology sites that are the actual rent-seekers and so on and so forth - I haven't been seeking to interact with those sorts of things.
If I were to summarise my main point it would be - the questions of appropriate compensation are not trivial and the pro-Swift side are using a number of context specific assumptions that are useful for the elite in society and that 2 million dollars a year is a lot for personal income and referring to it as a "pittance" is also dependent upon a lot of assumption and privilege.
As far as I can tell this is either radically incomplete as a rebuttal, entirely disingenuous or entirely absurd.
This assumes you have any clue how the negotiations went, that they are even concluded or what Taylor Swift's stand on the issue is. All are bad ones.
It's been a matter of weeks. The whole thing is still shaking out. Spotify may not have made a counter offer yet. They may be waiting to see how the album sales pan out. Taylor Swift may view this as a matter of principle and has turned down larger offers. Spotify may not want to make a larger counter-offer because that would indicate to other artists that they could get more if they bargained harder and Spotify may be willing to cut their losses on Taylor Swift so as not to cause issues with other artists on their platform.
You are making alot of very narrow and bad assumptions to make this work.