Once again, Taylor Swift is making headlines. Upon the release of her brand new album, 1989, the young pop star decided to sever her ties with Spotify and remove her entire catalogue off the streaming service. Considering Swift’s clout within pop culture and streaming service’s questionable business models, it comes to no surprise the controversy of streaming has once again received the media’s attention.
It’s no secret Taylor has always been a fan of windowed releases her, saving streaming for last. As the story goes, Spotify initially had the single “Shake it Off” available. She then released her album exclusively for sale. Spotify explained not having the album available for streaming with a message that reads, ““The artist or their representatives have decided not to release this album on Spotify. We are working on it and hope they will change their mind soon.” Taylor didn’t like this shift of blame, so she took all her music off of Spotify. In response, Spotify released a witty blog post essentially begging her to come back along with some “we miss Taylor” themed playlists.
So what drove Swift to make such a statement against streaming? (Let it be noted 1989 is still available on other streaming services like Beats and Rdio where anybody who has access to it is paying.) How will this impact Taylor? How will this impact the future of streaming?
Many believe this is Swift attempting to start a movement. A few months ago Swift explained in the Wall Street Journal, “It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.”
Industry analyst and thought leader Bob Lefsetz offers an original theory suggesting this is a publicity stunt. He suggests that because of her status, she doesn’t need Spotify (at least not right now), because she “owns the news cycle, and he who reaches the most people wins today.”
The Huffington Post put out an article agreeing with Lefsetz stating, “There are few other artists in the world who have the kind of pull and power as Taylor Swift (see: Beyoncé, Kanye and Jay Z, for starters).”
Business Insider adds to the conversation in an article entitled, “A Musician Explains Why Spotify Is Not The Enemy” stating, “Statistically speaking, nobody else is in her position. She’s the only artist going platinum this year. Her making a ‘statement’ about Spotify’s royalties, or trying to get other people to leave the service, would serve only her and a few dozen artists.”
Despite the current short-term benefits of sales, there are still those who don’t believe Swift’s clout makes her invincible. Forbes criticizes her actions saying she should have known better citing her as “a champion of social media”. In light of this, they offered a couple of compromises “that served all and alienated none”. They suggested she only release ten or eleven songs for the digital release, reserving the remaining two or three to be used as bonus tracks offered exclusively on physical CDs. They also suggested she only remove 1989 off Spotify keeping her older material available.
Okay. I’ve stayed silent on my opinion long enough. However, before I share it, I feel it’s imperative for you, the reader, to understand my background. I used to be a long time user of illegal downloading services. (Napster was installed on the family computer when I was at the susceptible age of six years old.) Spotify’s business model of giving me access to all the music I could ever want, wherever I want for $10 a month was all I needed to start paying for my music (as opposed to stealing it). Seeing as how Spotify was what led to my abrupt ending of a fifteen-year period of music piracy, I really don’t why every artist doesn’t welcome streaming with open arms.
And so the question remains… Was her decision to completely remove her catalogue smart? On one hand, streaming services accounted for 27% of revenues in 2014. On the other hand, 1989 is the only platinum selling album of 2014.
Personally, I think it was good business. As much as I love streaming, I don’t think anyone can argue with having the only platinum selling record this year. With societies decreased attention span, she can put her music back if she wants, and the majority won’t think less of her. Streaming services like Spotify’s main utility to an artist is discovery. Taylor Swift doesn’t need help being discovered. She’s one of the biggest names in the business.
All of that being said, her strategy wasn’t perfect. Removing 1989 was understandable because cannibalization of sales is extremely detrimental during it’s biggest sales period (the initial release). That doesn’t justify removing her older releases as well. It’s not like they were flying off the shelves at the rate 1989 was. Personally, I think Business Insider hit the nail on the head describing her actions along with anyone who agrees as “telling 16 million people that their preference for streaming over old-fashioned owning (or not having disposable income to begin with) means nothing to you.”
The New Music Biz 