The Case of Taylor Swift vs. Spotify

On November 3rd, 2014 Taylor Swift removed her entire music catalog from Spotify. After many heated debates over the entitlement of select mainstream artists and the rapidly changing culture of consumption in the music industry, we decided to ask a handful of digital anthropologists, strategists, and musicians what they thought about the songstress’ most recent audacious move.

Is Spotify a force for good? Does adapting to an internet culture mean that musicians should share music on Spotify (and the like) or are these services compromising artistic integrity by controlling pricing and listening?

Jordan Walker, Co-founder Kindly App, Former Label Relations at Spotify
I think the writing is on the wall that music downloads will one day become obsolete in favor of subscription, regardless of Spotify’s existence. Spotify has a wonderful product and it’s already a low margin business. The only solution for increasing artist royalties is to increase subscription fees and remove the free tier for consumers. Their freemium model works at converting subscribers so it would be a huge loss, and $10/month is market. A question to ask is whether Subscription cannibalizes download revenue enough to justify losing it in the short term. Data is showing that it’s actually not cannibalizing at all in aggregate, so the whole argument is off.

Wesley Verhoeve Founder of GNTLMN and OneofMany.co
Spotify is a business. It’s not a force for good, or evil. They’re just responding to changing music consumption behavior by offering a product that plays into what is possible technically.

[Musicians] can do what they want and feel is best for them. I feel it’s best to have music available on Spotify if you want to reach a lot of people with it.

Lyle Friedman, Writer/Actress, co-creator of HotMessMoves
I have a feeling that if there were a better system for music sharing, it would be out there. T-Swift is just fortunate enough that her general celebrity and fandom have allowed her to make more money off of Spotify. Less well known artists benefit from Spotify’s exposure and radio algorithms, but ol’ Swifty is so famous she doesn’t need to take a cut on her music. Technically, her music is of higher value than other lesser known musicians. Yikes.

Mara Dixon, Digital strategist at Sew/ DJ EggsBenedixon
Yes, in the sense that they give lesser musicians a bigger chance at being discovered. That said, their ultimate goal isn’t exactly altruistic, they’re really just scrambling to figure out some way to monetize digital music.

The most logical resolution I’ve come across for the T. Swift situation is relegating certain music to paid users — which I think could potentially push “Free” subscribers to discover new artists they don’t have to pay to listen to, making it very advantageous for musicians to be on there. Maybe this is short-sighted of me, but from the musician’s viewpoint — I don’t exactly see how exposing more people to your music could be construed as compromising artistic integrity.

Matt Daniels, Digital Strategist at Undercurrent/Hip Hop Data Analyst at MDaniels.com
Is Spotify a force for good? Absolutely. This is really an argument for all-you-can-eat streaming services. IMO, Spotify (and other streaming services) are growing the market (i.e., the pie) of # of passionate music listeners.

I do think that artists could have a larger role in pricing and listening, but that might compromise the listening experience (i.e., a dynamic monthly fee based on what you listen to…). Also, there’s nothing stopping artists from creating a more open platform for streaming. Spotify/Rdio (and remember Grooveshark) are just so fucking good – good enough that users will pay for it.

Virginia Alber-Glanstaetten, VP of Planning at HUGE
I buy my music, plain and simple. Artists should be paid for their work, Spotify doesn’t compensate them for their worth. Back in the day, Willie Nelson sold the song Nightlife for $500, over the years millions of airplays and many artists covering, he never has received royalties for his work. We’re seeing the same thing happening again, artists writing songs and getting less and less for their work.

Derek Bradley, Experience Designer at AirBnB
Wish I could help here, but I’m the worst and I just don’t care that much about Spotify or how the music industry is changing. I mean, I guess it’s always changing. And that’s hard. For everyone. Especially artists. Fingers crossed that it just magically works itself out! :P

In other (somewhat related) news, I have made it my personal goal to go out on a date with Taylor Swift.

Kent Odessa, Singer-Songwriter
For better or for worse, Taylor Swift is probably the only artist on the planet right now who could remove her entire catalog from Spotify and reap substantial financial benefits from it. Streaming (through Spotify or Soundcloud or whatever) is here to stay, and beyond getting your music on the radio (which only about 30 major label artists can afford these days) it’s the only way to have your work reach some sort of wide audience. Unfortunately, the current business model in place leaves artists penniless, and the only means of making any (non-laughable) amount of money is through music licensing and advertising deals. What can Spotify do? Pay artists more for their plays. Unfortunately, the only people who have the kind of leveraging power to make those demands are cultural giants like Swift, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Katy Perry, and Rihanna. Spotify isn’t going to blink if Ariel Pink decides to remove his entire catalog in the name of “artistic integrity.”

Creatively, however, I think Spotify is a huge force for good. I use it all the time to make playlists and to discover artists that I never would have encountered otherwise, some of whom have become big influences on me. I’ve grown as an artist from the music that I’ve found on Spotify. It just blows that having my own music on there (some of which has seen a significant amount of streaming) barely allows me to afford a couple Big Macs a month.

Lucy Blair Chung, Founder Member at NOBL Collective
Is Spotify a force for good? I’m not sure a tool or an application (like Spotify or Uber or AirBnB), in and of itself, can be a force for good or bad. It can be a force. But its users, employees and creators are the ones who dictate whether or not it’s good or bad. For example, Uber is a force — it’s changed transportation in many cities. Some would say that the way that Uber treats its drivers or takes over the existing taxi market means it’s a force for bad. I would say that the fact that Uber gives a sexist CEO more power and influence means it’s, in part, a force for bad. I don’t think the users, employees or creators make Spotify a force for bad. Not for now, anyway.

Taylor Swift’s decision to move off Spotify says more about her as an artist than it does about Spotify as a tool or force for good or bad. With her 1989 secret sessions, her transition from country to pop (even rapping on 1989), and her ability to mobilize fans to purchase over 1.2 million copies of

1989 (Forbes went as far as to say it might be the last platinum album ever), Swift is an innovator. Say what you will about her music (personally, I love it — “Blank Space” is a fantastic car singing song and “Bad Blood” is incredible for working out), but she is a brilliant business woman. To me, her move off Spotify is more about that. It’s one in a series of disruptive moves.

Does adapting to an internet culture mean that musicians should share music on Spotify (and the like) or are these services compromising artistic integrity by controlling pricing and listening?

I would never make a blanket statement like “all musicians should share music on Spotify (or similar services).” Musicians are artists and they should use whatever medium, tool or service best serves their art. I’m not sure that the internet culture aspect of Spotify (and the like) makes it any more likely to compromise artistic integrity than record labels pre-internet culture.

If you enjoyed this debate, we suggest you check out Sharky Laguana’s article, How To Make Streaming Royalties Fair(er).

Have an opinion you’d like to share? Tell us in the comments.

We are Little House.
Helping brands tell stories, solve problems, and make cool things on the internet.