Taylor Swift Keeps New Release Off Rhapsody, Streamer Launches #WheresTaylor Campaign
(UPDATED) You won't hear Taylor Swift's new album "Red" on Rhapsody because, according to the paid music streamer, the singer and her management "made a decision not to make her new album available to Rhapsody’s million-plus subscribers for several months". It's not the first time a release has been withheld from music streamers. But Garrett Kamps, Rhapsody's Sr. Director of Content Programming knows that "hundreds of thousands of subscribers" listen to Swift on Rhapsody, so they've launched a campaign to force Swift to stream the album.
Kamps is asking Rhapsody users to "post and Tweet and comment… (and) let Taylor know how much it would mean to all of us to have her latest on Rhapsody". Subscribers are urged to use the hash tag #wherestaylor.
Most who keep releases off music streaming services believe they'll make more money if fans buy the song or album. But Kamps sees it differently. "We pay rights holders for every stream. This means that if you’re still streaming Red a year or even five years from now, the money’s still flowing down the, er, stream," says Kamps. "Doesn’t it seem fair that artists get paid each time you play their song, every time you play their song, rather than a single time when you pay a buck for it?"
if these artists like t swift and the black keys block streaming services at first, and then put it on there after they get their release money, they get paid twice, once for the original purchase, and then again many times going forward on streaming in small amounts.
i really don’t have a problem with these artists making more money in a climate like this. if i had a following like they do, i’d probably do the same.
i imagine louis ck and aziz ansari will have their new for-sale stand up specials on netflix eventually, getting paid for that. i don’t see netflix getting mad at louis ck for releasing a stand up special on his own site or wherever
and oh yeah, that’s what big movies too, in movie theatres, then they release it on netflix or itunes or wherever.
i don’t think it’s great business for rhapsody reps to be going about it like this.
thing is, if you’re a person who streams, you stream. Keeping it off the streaming services is not going to make the majority of people who stream buy. All you’re really doing is missing out of money for a few months because the people who stream are simply going to wait for a few months until its available or get it for free somewhere because thats probably what they did before they signed up for the service.
People who buy, buy. Nobody signs up for a streaming service just because a single artists album is dropping and they want to stream it and then what, cancel the service? Is that what people do? Most people who buy don’t even know about, dont understand or are leery of streaming services
So all the way around its not the smartest move. Making it available to both types of consumers is the best way to go.
The thing is, streaming still doesn’t pay much per stream. The only ones getting rich off of streaming are the streaming companies and the record companies. The artists who create the music get the short end of the deal. So good for Taylor. #dontstreamtaylor
ou won’t hear Taylor Swift’s new album “Red” on Rhapsody because, according to the paid music streamer, the singer and her management “made a decision not to make her new album available to Rhapsody’s million-plus subscribers for several months”. It’s not the first time a release has been withheld from music streamers. But Garrett Kamps, Rhapsody’s Sr. Director of Content Programming knows that “hundreds of thousands of subscribers” listen to Swift on Rhapsody, so they’ve launched a campaign to force Swift to stream the album.
Well, the entire album is available on Grooveshark, BitTorrent and YouTube, so hard to see what they’ve achieved here by keeping it off licensed streaming services, other than driving a bunch of fans to those other sources.
Maximizing your money when you don’t have many fans is one thing. You need to make money. When you are as popular as Taylor, making ten-of-millions a year, maximizing your revenue appears a tiny bit… anti-consumer/anti-fan. As a music consumer, it feels like I am getting flipped the bird. I have no plans on ever buying Taylor’s album. I probably would stream it through once on Rhapsody to see what everyone is talking about, but I am not a big fan of hers. But it shouldn’t matter. This is ridiculous and I support Rhapsody for stepping up. I wish Spotify, Microsoft, Deezer, and Rdio would do the same.
I agree that Taylor should keep doing what she’s doing. I just wanted to say that streaming services make diddly squat. In fact, in 2011, Spotify lost 57 million even though they made a record 236 million. They bring in the revenue and send it right back out to pay royalties. Record companies might make something off of it but it’s very little if anything. You’re right that the artists aren’t making anything either. Streaming services are great but I think the model needs to be reworked. How? I don’t know. Just some food for thought.
I honestly have no problem with what Taylor and her people are doing. I understand that fans are feeling like they’re getting the shaft but it’s just good business. I know that sounds selfish but it’s just the way it is. Taylor creates a good product(that of course is debatable). As fans, we should pay for that product if we deem it good enough. If you’re a true T-Swizzle fan, you should support her. If you’re not, then wait. But PLEASE do NOT illegally download it. You know that it’s wrong. I shouldn’t have to explain it and you shouldn’t try and justify it.
I also don’t think that saying she makes too much money for us to give her any money is the correct way to think about it either. I think music fans are getting the shaft when they pay for a bad product.
And nobody makes any significant amount of money from streaming services. Not even the streaming services themselves make anything. In fact, the streaming services are losing money fast.