It was fully acceptable, earlier this 12 months, for Billboard to crown Taylor Swift because the strongest determine working within the music business.
Clearly, Swift is the most important megastar of music’s fashionable period. However she’s additionally a gifted entrepreneur with a razor-sharp enterprise mind, who expertly leverages her appreciable business clout.
Previously, on a number of events, Swift has wielded this clout for the direct monetary betterment of different, much less profitable artists.
Most commendably, she has used her platform and recognition to punish Huge Tech for not paying artists a good fee of compensation.
This historical past, nevertheless, has been thrown into stark distinction by Swift’s newest transfer: Bringing her music again to TikTok simply because the ByteDance platform is being extensively accused by music business gamers – not least Common Music Group – of underpaying music rightsholders.
A fast historical past lesson
Simply wanting a decade in the past, in October 2014, Swift declined to launch her uber-successful 1989 album on Spotify.
Explaining that call on the time, Swift stated: “I’m not prepared to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t really feel pretty compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music. [I] simply don’t agree with perpetuating the notion that music has no worth and must be free.”
“I’m not prepared to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t really feel pretty compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music.”
Taylor Swift on Spotify, 2014
A month later, Swift doubled down – pulling her total catalog from Spotify. She indicated that this was primarily in protest in opposition to SPOT’s insistence that each one music on its platform be made accessible on its ‘free’ (i.e. ad-funded) tier.
Swift wrote within the Wall Road Journal: “Music is artwork, and artwork is vital and uncommon. Necessary, uncommon issues are priceless. Precious issues must be paid for.
“It’s my opinion that music shouldn’t be free, and my prediction is that particular person artists and their labels will sometime resolve what an album’s value level is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their artwork.”
‘Please don’t ask us to offer you our music for no compensation’
Half a 12 months after her bust-up with Spotify, Swift instigated a second battle for higher artist compensation with one other tech big: Apple.
In June 2015, Swift publicly admonished Apple Music for refusing to pay music rightsholders royalties when their tracks have been performed on the platform throughout a subscriber’s three-month free trial.
“I discover it to be surprising, disappointing, and utterly in contrast to this traditionally progressive and beneficiant firm,” Swift wrote in an internet letter addressed to Apple.
“This isn’t about me. Fortunately I’m on my fifth album and might assist myself, my band, crew, and full administration crew by taking part in dwell exhibits.
“That is in regards to the new artist or band that has simply launched their first single and won’t be paid for its success. That is in regards to the younger songwriter who simply bought his or her first lower and thought that the royalties from that will get them out of debt. That is in regards to the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create.”
“We don’t ask you free of charge iPhones. Please don’t ask us to offer you our music for no compensation.”
Taylor Swift in letter to Apple, 2015
She added: “We don’t ask you free of charge iPhones. Please don’t ask us to offer you our music for no compensation.”
Apple buckled: Within the wake of Swift’s censuring, Apple Music promptly agreed to pay artists and labels compensation for the usage of their music throughout customers’ free trials.
That, although, was 9 years in the past. Lots has modified since.
The rise and rise of Swift inc.
Since 2015, Taylor Swift has ascended to the standing of unicorn pop megastar – rivaling even the degrees of worldwide recognition that Michael Jackson demanded at his peak.
Alongside the best way, Swift has survived battles with the ugly aspect of the music rights enterprise, having watched the grasp rights to her first six albums traded amongst events with out her approval. (Swift’s crew had the prospect to purchase again these masters from Scooter Braun, MBW revealed final 12 months, however a deal wasn’t agreed; they ended up being bought to funding agency Shamrock Capital, which owns them to today.)
Within the wake of that masters-selling drama, Swift has blazed a path for artists to take care of possession of their rights.
Swift owns the masters to all of her albums since 2019’s Lover. Every of those information is distributed and marketed by Common Music Group, which additionally administers Swift’s publishing.
It’s a body-blow for Common, then, to see the most important artist on its books strike a direct deal with TikTok… simply as UMG’s mission to safe extra good-looking compensation from TikTok wins assist from a number of, typically unlikely, allies.
“For Swift, the issues of those events aren’t influential sufficient to face in the best way of her ambitions for her forthcoming album, The Tortured Poets Division.”
These allies embody indie labels in each the US (by way of A2IM) and Europe (by way of IMPALA), in addition to music publishers (by way of the NMPA) plus artist rights teams.
UMG’s stance on TikTok has even received public backing from rivals like Hipgnosis, Downtown, and Major Wave. And simply the opposite week Rob Stringer – Chairman of Sony Music Group – gave an interview to the FT during which it was reported that he “‘doesn’t rule out comparable motion to Common” RE: the potential of pulling catalog from TikTok till rightsholder payouts enhance.
For Swift, the issues of those events aren’t influential sufficient to face in the best way of her ambitions for her forthcoming album, The Tortured Poets Division, due for launch subsequent Friday (April 19).
When Swift grappled with Apple in 2015, she famous that the battle was “not about me” – it was about different artists.
Her reunion with TikTok is the precise reverse.
There isn’t any different technique to view it: Swift is debilitating Common’s standing in its deadlock with TikTok – and subsequently wounding its mission to enhance artist compensation on the platform – for her personal acquire.
Swift’s “dedication to her fellow artists”
Now. There isn’t any rule that claims Taylor Swift ought to one way or the other be anticipated to work endlessly for the monetary development of different artists.
She has already accomplished rather more than most main league acts for this trigger – and never all the time within the face of Huge Tech.
Bear in mind 2018, when Swift demanded, as a situation of her new file deal, that UMG ignore its artists’ unrecouped balances when sharing proceeds from a sale of Common’s Spotify inventory? (UMG, which owns 3.27% of Spotify, hasn’t truly but bought any of its inventory in Daniel Ek‘s firm.)
Nonetheless, Swift’s choice to embrace TikTok amid the platform’s high-stakes fallout with UMG and different rightsholders seems to interrupt ranks together with her earlier statements on comparable issues. Again in 2014, keep in mind, she was imploring file labels to not “underestimate themselves or undervalue their artwork”.
Had Swift not made her TikTok transfer this week, UMG would have been capable of deny ByteDance’s platform official involvement in three tentpole album releases from its artists:
- (i) Ariana Grande’s Everlasting Sunshine, launched in March (which didn’t seem on TikTok and nonetheless comfortably landed at No.1 on the Billboard 200);
- (ii) Swift’s Tortured Poets Division, launched in April; and
- (iii) Billie Eilish’s Hit Me Laborious And Gentle, launched in Could.
UMG’s plan was certainly to deprive TikTok of any participation in these releases, whereas rubbing salt into the wound for ByteDance by pumping promotional oxygen/exclusives in direction of rival platforms like YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels.
Now Swift has ‘crossed the picket line’ over TikTok, this plan has been dismantled.
Common’s speedy concern could also be handle the inevitable “so… it’s one rule for Taylor, one other rule for the remainder of us?” headache.
Is it truthful for Billie Eilish, for instance, to forgo the promotional increase of TikTok within the identify of music “having worth” – when Taylor Swift has refused to do the identical?
In the meantime, Swift’s transfer has lent metal to TikTok’s argument, issued in January, that UMG has “chosen to stroll away from the highly effective assist of a platform… that serves as a free promotional and discovery car for his or her expertise”.
The age-old “free promotion” argument from a digital platform isn’t one which wins many followers amongst most artists and music rightsholders.
As A2IM’s Richard James Burgess put it lately: “The folly right here for the music business lies in sacrificing important income from recorded music for the sake of promotion, publicity, or discoverability.”
Again in 2018, asserting a new world cope with the artist, UMG boss, Sir Lucian Grainge, spoke of his “monumental respect” for Taylor Swift, “specifically for her use of her hard-earned affect to advertise constructive change”.
Added Grainge: “Due to her dedication to her fellow artists, not solely did she need to accomplice with an organization that understood her inventive imaginative and prescient and had the sources and experience to execute globally on her behalf, she additionally sought a accomplice whose method to artists was aligned with hers.”
This week, that alignment fell out of whack.
When The Tortured Poets Division arrives on April 19, you’ll be able to count on it to be performed loud throughout the worldwide head workplaces of Common Music Group in Santa Monica and Republic Information in New York.
However you may discover it performed simply as loud – and simply as jubilantly – at ByteDance HQ in Beijing.Music Enterprise Worldwide