"In case you're wondering if this is some exclusive deal like you've seen Apple do with other artists, it's not.
Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) June 25, 2015"
That just shows that it's not exclusive via a contractual obligation keeping it from other streaming services, but it's still the only streaming rental service that will have her content at this point and time.
Only is she's fairly compensated for it. So no free tiers.
The surprising thing about this is that Apple is only paying another 1.5% in royalties over the other streaming services. Meanwhile, most reports are that while Apple negotiated that extra 1.5% instead of paying through the trial period, they are going to keep that rate and pay 0.2 cents for each song during the trial period. Not sure how all the math works, but in the end, even with the extra now being paid in the trial period, it seems like Apple brought Taylor Swift's 1989 into the fold for a minimal amount and makes Spotify look pretty cheap and amateur not being able to negotiate a deal with Tay-Tay.
Actually you can't as Apple music isn't live yet. And I did say you can stream it from Google Play Music if you bought it. As far as exclusivity there is a reason Swift specifically mentioned it so I would expect this album to come to other services shortly after it's on Apple Music.
1989 was released last October. I doubt that even Taylor Swift would have kept it off of streaming forever. It's now almost 9 months out and it is already solidly part of the summer playlists. She probably would have allowed it anyway if any of the other streaming services would have asked.
That just shows that it's exclusive via a contractual obligation keeping it from other streaming services, but it's still the only streaming rental service that will have her content at this point and time.
Glad to see you stop by. I'd noticed you browsing recently but not much in the way of commenting. Did I read you were back in school?
2) I did try to signup for a class this Summer for the hell of it, but the expedited nature (1/3rd the time) means I missed that drop/add cutoff which went from Monday to Wednesday. I guess I can work no trying to learn Swift 2.0 this Summer, but I think that's mostly a lost cause.
Another reason why this is looking more like a PR stunt to me: 1989 is not a new album. It was released last October. It was never available on Google Play music even though up until this past week Google had no "free" tier. To date the album has sold over 4 million copies. Of course Swift can bring it to Apple Music now after it not being available for 6+ months so she could rack up huge album sales. Let's see if her next album shows up on streaming services on day one.
1989 was released last October. I doubt that even Taylor Swift would have kept it off of streaming forever. It's now almost 9 months out and it is already solidly part of the summer playlists. She probably would have allowed it anyway if any of the other streaming services would have asked.
Yep. My guess is more artists will ban new releases from streaming services for a period of time so they force people to buy the album and once they've gotten most of the album sales they're going to get then they put it up on streaming services.
The intersting thing about all of this is that it's probably , in the end, not all that important economically to her. I mean, "1989" sold over 1M copies in the first week (the first to do so since 2002 -- Eminem). But more to the point, artists make the vast majority of their revenue from touring. And she's selling out everywhere, while playing football and soccer stadiums.
And man, I was thinking about seeing her when she played here at Ford Field where the Lions play. By the time I checked, there were hardly any tickets left. But oh my god, the prices! Even the cheapest ones, the worst seats, cost nearly $200. There were suites that went for thousands. The seats near the stage cost like $4000. And we're talking about something like 40,000 people. It's totally nuts.
There's something like 80 dates. And I read that the tour had pulled in ~$17M from the first 5 alone. Now, obviously, it's not like that money goes straight into T-Swizzle's pocket. But a decent portion does. I can't wait until the tour's over to see how much it pulled in total.
Her last tour for "Red" made over $150M.
Add all of that stuff to over 40M albums sold, 100M digital downloads (over her career), all the endorsements -- I wonder if the streaming stuff would even make a blip on the balance sheet.
I wonder if the streaming stuff would even make a blip on the balance sheet.
Probably not, which is why some say that she is being greedy and not thinking about any other artist but herself, but they should consider that no one should cheapen their brand for no reason.
Do any of us here think that Samsung via their partners offer BOGO deals 2 months after a flagship device goes on sale because it's out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, it's because they are trying to maximize their profits for a given product. Unless everyone is deathly afraid of what this gawky looking girl can do their careers I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to support that she sees the value in helping others. I think we forget that just because you're in the public spotlight and successful that you can be both business focused and kind hearted.
PS: I like [@]ThePixelDoc[/@]'s hypothesis that this could have all been part of a larger plan to help stem off potential anti-trust allegations.
Probably not, which is why some say that she is being greedy and not thinking about any other artist but herself, but they should consider that no one should cheapen their brand for no reason.
Do any of us here think that Samsung via their partners offer BOGO deals 2 months after a flagship device goes on sale because it's out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, it's because they are trying to making their profits for a given product. Unless everyone is deathly afraid of what this gawky looking girl can do their careers I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to support that she sees the value in helping others. I think we forget that just because you're in the public spotlight and successful that you can be both business focused and kind hearted.
PS: I like @ThePixelDoc's hypothesis that this could have all been part of a larger plan to help stem off potential anti-trust allegations.
The thing about Taylor (and her team) is that she's pretty much always been like this. I mean, if people don't follow her business experiences, they see her smiling, laughing with her super-model friends, Tweeting about her cat, etc. And that probably is what she's like, from day to day. I mean, I doubt people like Lily Aldridge, Karlie Kloss, Gigi Hadid, etc. would be her BFFs if she were some selfish uber-bitch.
But man, when it comes to business -- she doesn't take crap from anyone, and she is gonna get EVER. SINGLE. CENT. that she thinks is hers. You don't mess with Tay Tay.
The thing about Taylor (and her team) is that she's pretty much always been like this. I mean, if people don't follow her business experiences, they see her smiling, laughing with her super-model friends, Tweeting about her cat, etc. And that probably is what she's like, from day to day. I mean, I doubt people like Lily Aldridge, Karlie Kloss, Gigi Hadid, etc. would be her BFFs if she were some selfish uber-bitch.
But man, when it comes to business -- she doesn't take crap from anyone, and she is gonna get EVER. SINGLE. CENT. that she thinks is hers. You don't mess with Tay Tay.
She does seem to have an unusually high number of power and attention-hungry people that consider her a good friend. Perhaps we need more of that in society, and not look for ulterior motives from the rare individual that does make an effort to be a good person. Lorde doesn't strike me as a kiss ass.
“I mean, [Taylor Swift] definitely brought me into this amazing world of supportive female friendship. For me, someone starts talking about boys and I’m like, ‘I just don’t know what to say.’ I’m useless in that capacity and that was why I thought, ‘Well, I can’t have girlfriends [because] I don’t know how to talk about boys.’ But Taylor just glosses over the fact that I’m terrible at that and she’s just like, ‘It’s OK, I’ll love you for your other qualities.’"
The intersting thing about all of this is that it's probably , in the end, not all that important economically to her. I mean, "1989" sold over 1M copies in the first week (the first to do so since 2002 -- Eminem). But more to the point, artists make the vast majority of their revenue from touring. And she's selling out everywhere, while playing football and soccer stadiums.
And man, I was thinking about seeing her when she played here at Ford Field where the Lions play. By the time I checked, there were hardly any tickets left. But oh my god, the prices! Even the cheapest ones, the worst seats, cost nearly $200. There were suites that went for thousands. The seats near the stage cost like $4000. And we're talking about something like 40,000 people. It's totally nuts.
There's something like 80 dates. And I read that the tour had pulled in ~$17M from the first 5 alone. Now, obviously, it's not like that money goes straight into T-Swizzle's pocket. But a decent portion does. I can't wait until the tour's over to see how much it pulled in total.
Her last tour for "Red" made over $150M.
Add all of that stuff to over 40M albums sold, 100M digital downloads (over her career), all the endorsements -- I wonder if the streaming stuff would even make a blip on the balance sheet.
Not a blip on her balance sheet, which makes her case being about the indies and people starting out more persuasive as it won't mean anything for her economically.
Not a blip on her balance sheet, which makes her case being about the indies and people starting out more persuasive as it won't mean anything for her economically.
Even if it's not on any other service right now, Swift says it's not an Apple Nusic exclusive so she'll have no choice but to bring it to other services.
Another reason I'm coming around to this being a PR stunt is other services do pay during free trials so it's not like Apple is doing something nobody else is doing. As far as we know what they're paying during the trial is similar to what Spotify and others pay.
It won't be on Spotify's free service and still won't be. You can't force an artist to go where he doesn't want to, so not sure what the hell your implying anyway.
Comments
That just shows that it's not exclusive via a contractual obligation keeping it from other streaming services, but it's still the only streaming rental service that will have her content at this point and time.
Only is she's fairly compensated for it. So no free tiers.
The surprising thing about this is that Apple is only paying another 1.5% in royalties over the other streaming services. Meanwhile, most reports are that while Apple negotiated that extra 1.5% instead of paying through the trial period, they are going to keep that rate and pay 0.2 cents for each song during the trial period. Not sure how all the math works, but in the end, even with the extra now being paid in the trial period, it seems like Apple brought Taylor Swift's 1989 into the fold for a minimal amount and makes Spotify look pretty cheap and amateur not being able to negotiate a deal with Tay-Tay.
Actually you can't as Apple music isn't live yet.
1989 was released last October. I doubt that even Taylor Swift would have kept it off of streaming forever. It's now almost 9 months out and it is already solidly part of the summer playlists. She probably would have allowed it anyway if any of the other streaming services would have asked.
1) I think it's unrealistic to think they didn't.
2) It looks like 1989 could have been on streaming music services last year, for its inaugural week, before being pulled by the artist.
1) Thanks. I've been reading and voting up comments the whole time, I just stop posting for several months in the open forum.
2) I did try to signup for a class this Summer for the hell of it, but the expedited nature (1/3rd the time) means I missed that drop/add cutoff which went from Monday to Wednesday. I guess I can work no trying to learn Swift 2.0 this Summer, but I think that's mostly a lost cause.
Yep. My guess is more artists will ban new releases from streaming services for a period of time so they force people to buy the album and once they've gotten most of the album sales they're going to get then they put it up on streaming services.
1) I think it's unrealistic to think they didn't.
2) It looks like 1989 could have been on streaming music services last year, for its inaugural week, before being pulled by the artist.
The intersting thing about all of this is that it's probably , in the end, not all that important economically to her. I mean, "1989" sold over 1M copies in the first week (the first to do so since 2002 -- Eminem). But more to the point, artists make the vast majority of their revenue from touring. And she's selling out everywhere, while playing football and soccer stadiums.
And man, I was thinking about seeing her when she played here at Ford Field where the Lions play. By the time I checked, there were hardly any tickets left. But oh my god, the prices! Even the cheapest ones, the worst seats, cost nearly $200. There were suites that went for thousands. The seats near the stage cost like $4000. And we're talking about something like 40,000 people. It's totally nuts.
There's something like 80 dates. And I read that the tour had pulled in ~$17M from the first 5 alone. Now, obviously, it's not like that money goes straight into T-Swizzle's pocket. But a decent portion does. I can't wait until the tour's over to see how much it pulled in total.
Her last tour for "Red" made over $150M.
Add all of that stuff to over 40M albums sold, 100M digital downloads (over her career), all the endorsements -- I wonder if the streaming stuff would even make a blip on the balance sheet.
If Apple's Ad Agency had any guts, it would cheerfully announce: "Taylor Swift Coming to Apple Music."
Probably not, which is why some say that she is being greedy and not thinking about any other artist but herself, but they should consider that no one should cheapen their brand for no reason.
Do any of us here think that Samsung via their partners offer BOGO deals 2 months after a flagship device goes on sale because it's out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, it's because they are trying to maximize their profits for a given product. Unless everyone is deathly afraid of what this gawky looking girl can do their careers I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to support that she sees the value in helping others. I think we forget that just because you're in the public spotlight and successful that you can be both business focused and kind hearted.
PS: I like [@]ThePixelDoc[/@]'s hypothesis that this could have all been part of a larger plan to help stem off potential anti-trust allegations.
Probably not, which is why some say that she is being greedy and not thinking about any other artist but herself, but they should consider that no one should cheapen their brand for no reason.
Do any of us here think that Samsung via their partners offer BOGO deals 2 months after a flagship device goes on sale because it's out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, it's because they are trying to making their profits for a given product. Unless everyone is deathly afraid of what this gawky looking girl can do their careers I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to support that she sees the value in helping others. I think we forget that just because you're in the public spotlight and successful that you can be both business focused and kind hearted.
PS: I like @ThePixelDoc's hypothesis that this could have all been part of a larger plan to help stem off potential anti-trust allegations.
The thing about Taylor (and her team) is that she's pretty much always been like this. I mean, if people don't follow her business experiences, they see her smiling, laughing with her super-model friends, Tweeting about her cat, etc. And that probably is what she's like, from day to day. I mean, I doubt people like Lily Aldridge, Karlie Kloss, Gigi Hadid, etc. would be her BFFs if she were some selfish uber-bitch.
But man, when it comes to business -- she doesn't take crap from anyone, and she is gonna get EVER. SINGLE. CENT. that she thinks is hers. You don't mess with Tay Tay.
She does seem to have an unusually high number of power and attention-hungry people that consider her a good friend. Perhaps we need more of that in society, and not look for ulterior motives from the rare individual that does make an effort to be a good person. Lorde doesn't strike me as a kiss ass.
Business: she asked something of Apple, they asked something of her in return.
The intersting thing about all of this is that it's probably , in the end, not all that important economically to her. I mean, "1989" sold over 1M copies in the first week (the first to do so since 2002 -- Eminem). But more to the point, artists make the vast majority of their revenue from touring. And she's selling out everywhere, while playing football and soccer stadiums.
And man, I was thinking about seeing her when she played here at Ford Field where the Lions play. By the time I checked, there were hardly any tickets left. But oh my god, the prices! Even the cheapest ones, the worst seats, cost nearly $200. There were suites that went for thousands. The seats near the stage cost like $4000. And we're talking about something like 40,000 people. It's totally nuts.
There's something like 80 dates. And I read that the tour had pulled in ~$17M from the first 5 alone. Now, obviously, it's not like that money goes straight into T-Swizzle's pocket. But a decent portion does. I can't wait until the tour's over to see how much it pulled in total.
Her last tour for "Red" made over $150M.
Add all of that stuff to over 40M albums sold, 100M digital downloads (over her career), all the endorsements -- I wonder if the streaming stuff would even make a blip on the balance sheet.
Not a blip on her balance sheet, which makes her case being about the indies and people starting out more persuasive as it won't mean anything for her economically.
Not a blip on her balance sheet, which makes her case being about the indies and people starting out more persuasive as it won't mean anything for her economically.
Excellent point.
Where would the world be without you highlighting alternatives to Apple? Well done sir, well played.
Well so what?!! I can stream 1989 from my car using her CD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Huh? Can you explain that?
Even if it's not on any other service right now, Swift says it's not an Apple Nusic exclusive so she'll have no choice but to bring it to other services.
Another reason I'm coming around to this being a PR stunt is other services do pay during free trials so it's not like Apple is doing something nobody else is doing. As far as we know what they're paying during the trial is similar to what Spotify and others pay.
It won't be on Spotify's free service and still won't be. You can't force an artist to go where he doesn't want to, so not sure what the hell your implying anyway.