taylor swift
- Thread starter Brian
- Start date
:endorse: :feelin_it: :face_melt: 
:game_over: :hard_as_fuck: :necessary: :next_level:because it's much easier to work directly with apple to achieve what she wanted vs thousands of labels out there? bad publicity for apple > x random labels pulling their music. it's not that hard. there is no other music platform out there that subsidized free trials on the backs of the artists. emphasizing that is a much more compelling argument than getting into specifics on label agreements that a majority of people do not know or care about.
and yeah, taylor swift really needs the PR guy. please be serious
and yeah, taylor swift really needs the PR guy. please be serious
the industry built her (team) up and foisted her on the public and now her team is using that clout for leverage. her rise in importance and credibility is baffling to me, but I'm an oldster. nothing that swift's team does is not a publicity stunt. her team feeds on publicity like a vampire and it has worked. overexposure does not seem to be any kind of issue.
crabmongerfunk said:the industry built her (team) up now she (aka her team) is using that clout for leverage. her rise in importance and credibility is baffling to me, but I'm an oldster. nothing that swift's team does is not a publicity stunt. she feeds on publicity like a vampire and it has worked for her. overexposure does not seem like any kind of issue with her.
$$$s paid out to artists over these three months > $$$s swift will derive from any publicity associated with this
$$$s paid out to artists over these three months > $$$s swift will derive from any publicity associated with this
Maybe. it seems like this is a good result for artists but it doesn't hurt swift's brand that her team has made apple bow down and kiss zod's ring...it cements her industry-wide clout.
i mean compared to the rest of the communists here, i'm about as pro-business as you can get but i can only see it as a good thing to have the most popular artist right now advocating on the behalf of all musicians. i'm all about calling out stunts but feel like that pales in comparison to the impact this will have
God forbid Apple works with rights holders in good faith and work out a deal where promotion is involved.
Meanwhile, here is her release if you want to shoot at one of her concerts.
https://junction10.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/2011-concert-photo-authorization-form-firefly-rev-1-26-1100055994-21.jpg?w=927&h=1200
I love #3. Granting herself and any 3rd party she wants with worldwide lifetime rights for promotion and publicity.
On a side note Brian. What do you think of this guys comments on anti-competitive behaviour. Hold any weight?
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3am7w5/why_taylor_swift_is_dead_wrong_about_apple_music/
Meanwhile, here is her release if you want to shoot at one of her concerts.
https://junction10.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/2011-concert-photo-authorization-form-firefly-rev-1-26-1100055994-21.jpg?w=927&h=1200
I love #3. Granting herself and any 3rd party she wants with worldwide lifetime rights for promotion and publicity.
On a side note Brian. What do you think of this guys comments on anti-competitive behaviour. Hold any weight?
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3am7w5/why_taylor_swift_is_dead_wrong_about_apple_music/
in any other industry, if you want to do promo, you usually have to pay for it. if i open up a burger joint and want to have a promotion that will stomp out the competition, it's unlikely that my suppliers will supply me with free buns, beef, cheese, vegetables, condiments, and utensils until my abnormally long promo period is finished. apple was trying to take full advantage of their size in the market with this, no way possible any other service would be able to pull anything like this.
the photographer comparison is like apples and watermelons. come on
i'm not reading random reddit hypotheses
the photographer comparison is like apples and watermelons. come on
i'm not reading random reddit hypotheses
Like I said elsewhere, certain world leaders need to work on getting Taylor Swift on the payroll as a consultant, because if you've got a regime change project on the slate, or a bombing campaign or some other bullshit policy that's equally controversial and divisive, it's clear T-Swizzy is pretty much the go-to girl if it's a positive spin you're after. Get her on your side and you can probably go ahead and ethnic-cleanse anywhere you damn well want, or frack away to your heart's content, secure in the knowledge that Swiftimus Caesar has publicly given you the thumbs up via the voguish medium of the open letter.
The first thing that struck me about this story was the absence of all that "bwahaha who gives a shit about rich pop stars LOL" chatter you saw surrounding the (re)launch of TIDAL. Suddenly it's OK to be concerned about whether or not a streaming service leaves its principal content providers arse-out, or for people who make their living at the sharp end of the recorded music industry to express public concern over the broader inequities of the game. It's no longer an issue precisely how wealthy Taylor Swift is, or even if she deigns to give with one hand whilst taking away with the other - it's the selfless (yet very visible) "Nice Girl" gesture of altruism that's important here (although I get more of a Regina George vibe from her than a Cady Heron one - "Stop trying to make No Royalties happen!"). Taylor Swift thinks - nay, [em]believes in her heart[/em] - that you, we and all the tech-bro corps the music industry continues to sell itself out to should spare a thought for the little guy, not the people who've already made it, and if she has to bring Apple to its knees in the process...well, gosh darn it, I guess that's the way it's gonna haveta be.
Obviously, she's not expecting [em]you[/em] to put [em]your[/em] money where your mouth is and underwrite Apple's brave new venture in the form of a subscription, because, y'know, torrents. I mean, why would you, right? Speaking of people acting purely out of the goodness of their hearts, I presume there's nothing out there about the ongoing investigation in the US that Apple had tried to collude with labels to strongarm Spotify into abandoning their free tier (which isn't terribly popular with artists anyway, but still...)? That wouldn't really do for a company trying to position itself as the good-guy opposite to Spotify, which of course doesn't pay anyone anything at all and is owned by the big, bad Old music biz rather than the shiny new #content biz. Luckily for them, possibly the world's biggest popstar's on hand to very theatrically "force" them into a very public u-turn. I guess few know nor care that Anton Newcombe (amongst others) was banging on about Apple's tactics just the other week. But just like you don't launch your new streaming service with a press conference featuring Immortal Technique, Barbara Mandrell, Keke Wyatt and dude from Neutral Milk Hotel, you don't mount an assault on the techie sharp practices that dominate the business nowadays with just the frontman of Brian Jonestown Massacre at the vanguard. Not if you want people to write - or more accurately, gush - about it.
The first thing that struck me about this story was the absence of all that "bwahaha who gives a shit about rich pop stars LOL" chatter you saw surrounding the (re)launch of TIDAL. Suddenly it's OK to be concerned about whether or not a streaming service leaves its principal content providers arse-out, or for people who make their living at the sharp end of the recorded music industry to express public concern over the broader inequities of the game. It's no longer an issue precisely how wealthy Taylor Swift is, or even if she deigns to give with one hand whilst taking away with the other - it's the selfless (yet very visible) "Nice Girl" gesture of altruism that's important here (although I get more of a Regina George vibe from her than a Cady Heron one - "Stop trying to make No Royalties happen!"). Taylor Swift thinks - nay, [em]believes in her heart[/em] - that you, we and all the tech-bro corps the music industry continues to sell itself out to should spare a thought for the little guy, not the people who've already made it, and if she has to bring Apple to its knees in the process...well, gosh darn it, I guess that's the way it's gonna haveta be.
Obviously, she's not expecting [em]you[/em] to put [em]your[/em] money where your mouth is and underwrite Apple's brave new venture in the form of a subscription, because, y'know, torrents. I mean, why would you, right? Speaking of people acting purely out of the goodness of their hearts, I presume there's nothing out there about the ongoing investigation in the US that Apple had tried to collude with labels to strongarm Spotify into abandoning their free tier (which isn't terribly popular with artists anyway, but still...)? That wouldn't really do for a company trying to position itself as the good-guy opposite to Spotify, which of course doesn't pay anyone anything at all and is owned by the big, bad Old music biz rather than the shiny new #content biz. Luckily for them, possibly the world's biggest popstar's on hand to very theatrically "force" them into a very public u-turn. I guess few know nor care that Anton Newcombe (amongst others) was banging on about Apple's tactics just the other week. But just like you don't launch your new streaming service with a press conference featuring Immortal Technique, Barbara Mandrell, Keke Wyatt and dude from Neutral Milk Hotel, you don't mount an assault on the techie sharp practices that dominate the business nowadays with just the frontman of Brian Jonestown Massacre at the vanguard. Not if you want people to write - or more accurately, gush - about it.
I find it interesting that it's being positioned that she alone made this decision, as if her record label or publishing company had no say in it whatsoever.
prof_rockwell said:I find it interesting that it's being positioned that she alone made this decision, as if her record label or publishing company had no say in it whatsoever.
I don't think it was done unilaterally either, but... her record company/publisher pressing her to take a stand on a deal point that would end up costing [em]them[/em] money..?
I don't think it was done unilaterally either, but... her record company/publisher pressing her to take a stand on a deal point that would end up costing [em]them[/em] money..?
I don't think it was done unilaterally either, but... her record company/publisher pressing her to take a stand on a deal point that would end up costing [em]them[/em] money..?
But the bottom line for this stunt was to secure MORE money from Apple for the music they sell/stream on their services.
PatrickCrazy said:in any other industry, if you want to do promo, you usually have to pay for it. if i open up a burger joint and want to have a promotion that will stomp out the competition, it's unlikely that my suppliers will supply me with free buns, beef, cheese, vegetables, condiments, and utensils until my abnormally long promo period is finished. apple was trying to take full advantage of their size in the market with this, no way possible any other service would be able to pull anything like this.
the photographer comparison is like apples and watermelons. come on
i'm not reading random reddit hypotheses
Not sure what you are talking about, but co-op advertising is standard in many industries.
When a store or chain advertises a manufactures product for sale (Pepsi, Nike, Taylor Swift) the manufacture pays for all or part of the ad.
the photographer comparison is like apples and watermelons. come on
i'm not reading random reddit hypotheses
Not sure what you are talking about, but co-op advertising is standard in many industries.
When a store or chain advertises a manufactures product for sale (Pepsi, Nike, Taylor Swift) the manufacture pays for all or part of the ad.
LaserWolf said
atrickCrazy said:in any other industry, if you want to do promo, you usually have to pay for it. if i open up a burger joint and want to have a promotion that will stomp out the competition, it's unlikely that my suppliers will supply me with free buns, beef, cheese, vegetables, condiments, and utensils until my abnormally long promo period is finished. apple was trying to take full advantage of their size in the market with this, no way possible any other service would be able to pull anything like this.
the photographer comparison is like apples and watermelons. come on
i'm not reading random reddit hypotheses
Not sure what you are talking about, but co-op advertising is standard in many industries.
When a store or chain advertises a manufactures product for sale (Pepsi, Nike, Taylor Swift) the manufacture pays for all or part of the ad.
there's slight difference between a company voluntarily either paying for advertising or giving out product and a distributor going "hey we're going to give your shit out for free because we're launching a new service."
atrickCrazy said:in any other industry, if you want to do promo, you usually have to pay for it. if i open up a burger joint and want to have a promotion that will stomp out the competition, it's unlikely that my suppliers will supply me with free buns, beef, cheese, vegetables, condiments, and utensils until my abnormally long promo period is finished. apple was trying to take full advantage of their size in the market with this, no way possible any other service would be able to pull anything like this. the photographer comparison is like apples and watermelons. come on
i'm not reading random reddit hypotheses
Not sure what you are talking about, but co-op advertising is standard in many industries.
When a store or chain advertises a manufactures product for sale (Pepsi, Nike, Taylor Swift) the manufacture pays for all or part of the ad.
there's slight difference between a company voluntarily either paying for advertising or giving out product and a distributor going "hey we're going to give your shit out for free because we're launching a new service."
I don't think it was done unilaterally either, but... her record company/publisher pressing her to take a stand on a deal point that would end up costing [em]them[/em] money..?
But the bottom line for this stunt was to secure MORE money from Apple for the music they sell/stream on their services.
yeah im sure taylor swift did it all for those huge streaming buxxxxx.
is it so hard for you to believe that a young and talented woman decided to fight the good fight against an exploitative corporation?
I don't think it was done unilaterally either, but... her record company/publisher pressing her to take a stand on a deal point that would end up costing [em]them[/em] money..?
But the bottom line for this stunt was to secure MORE money from Apple for the music they sell/stream on their services.
yeah im sure taylor swift did it all for those huge streaming buxxxxx.
is it so hard for you to believe that a young and talented woman decided to fight the good fight against an exploitative corporation?
Talented is subjective, but yes, it is hard for me to believe because I've seen first hand how big pop stars are engineered in the industry, and have had conversations with executives owning up to that.
They don't need to own up to it, it's plain to see. Pop "Icons" are exactly that - temporary imagery to rep a tune, with all the lifespan of a Snapchat post.
Hand on heart, I couldn't name ONE T-Swizzle product, so cannot comment on her musical ability in any way, but I ain't mad that she's looking to make full use of her 15 minutes to create a pension fund.
Plus, fug an apple thun.
Hand on heart, I couldn't name ONE T-Swizzle product, so cannot comment on her musical ability in any way, but I ain't mad that she's looking to make full use of her 15 minutes to create a pension fund.
Plus, fug an apple thun.
