Imagine you’re trying to break into a new circle of friends. One of them has taken your fancy, and you want to make a good impression. There’s a current heartthrob in the group who your object of affection is kind of close to. They laugh at their jokes, and think they’re pretty swell. But there’s room for improvement. They can be a little devious at time. Sometimes it feels like they aren’t as generous as they could be. The whole group isn’t necessarily convinced by this person.
You want to curry favour with them, get them to accept you – or better still, advocate you as a new addition to the group. You want to win them over. You want to be their favourite. You want them to trust you. So how are you going to play it? Go on a charm offensive? Or try a more boisterous, badboy approach?
Apple ostensibly chose the latter approach when launching Apple Music and incurring the wrath of thousands of artists, labels and publishers by announcing that they would pay absolutely no royalties whatsoever from use of music during their opening three-month free trial. Major independent label groups such as Beggars and AIM voiced their disapproval, threatening exclusion of their catalogue on the service at launch – with the latter saying the deal “does not meet a standard of commercial fairness that we can endorse”.
Although the effect was no doubt cumulative, it took an open letter from Taylor Swift (who else?) to make Apple change course. It’s a bit like having to call your mum to come and take care of some mean kids who are teasing you. Would it have happened without her Spotify-shirking clout? We will never know. Either way, artists and labels can be thankful that she helped the cause.
#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
It’s been reported that the major labels agreed to this three-month pay blackout in exchange for receiving a higher-than-Spotify royalty rate after the trial period, which would supposedly balance things out. There has been no confirmation on this, no details of what the rate will be, and no relevant calculations to ascertain whether this would indeed have been ‘worth it’ in the long-run. It has now also been revealed that the royalty rate may be lower during the trial than after it – still far from an ‘optimal’ outcome.
The point in all of this is that Apple Music had a genuine opportunity to be a better option for artists in the streaming battle. The only way to topple Spotify – or at least take a decent bite out of it – is to provide a solution that respects both artists and consumers, and does it better than the incumbents. Respecting artists means paying them for use of their music. Respecting consumers means giving them a good product and value-added over the competition.
We saw what a disastrous launch did for TIDAL, which went too far the other way in addressing the concerns of artists and ended up looking like an old boys’ club for out-of-touch megastars. It seems Apple didn’t learn from that debacle, instead coming in with a cack-handed approach that angered many creators and providers.
Some are suggesting the whole thing has been a PR stunt aimed to engender goodwill in the long-run and create mutually beneficial press for both Swift and Apple – but why not just be the good guy in the first place and demonstrate that you are going to do more for artists than your competitors from the off? Apple Music is now on the backfoot, having to drag itself out of the controversy and redeem itself.
WIN and most other major independent label aggregators and trade bodies are now getting behind Apple Music thanks to their revised deal – so perhaps all will be soon forgotten either way. Regardless, they sent the wrong message with their opening gambit.
While TIDAL’s launch was an unmitigated disaster, their intention was at least partly right in deciding to pay a higher royalty rate than the competition. The bottom line is that any creative platform needs to keep its creators happy. We’ve seen increasing number of paying customers, labels and artists leave SoundCloud due to their lack of licensing and the repercussions therein. If you keep annoying the people who create your content, they’ll soon look for the next alternative.