I

t’s no secret that some-
one presented with both 
a sweater on sale and the 

same sweat-
er 
at 
full 

price 
will 

pounce 
on 

the cheaper 
sweater. No 
one likes to 
pay a lot for something they can 
get for less, especially if it’s not 
against the law. This seems to 
be a major contributor to why so 
many people love streaming ser-
vices such as Spotify, Pandora 
and Netflix.

The recent release of Apple 

Music on June 30 adds to the 
discussion about music stream-
ing services and how streaming 
services add to the deterioration 
of the artist’s position. These 
services have become widely 
used because they’re cheaper 
than buying individual episodes 
or songs on iTunes or DVDs 
from Barnes & Noble. Yet, more 
recently, we’re learning just 
how low the royalties artists 
 

receive are.

If we have annual award 

shows to honor our favorite 
singers and actors, don’t they 
deserve to be paid fairly? Per-
formers spend years of their lives 
making albums and movies, and 
streaming services, such as Spo-
tify, Apple Music and Pandora 
are known for often underpay-
ing their artists, sometimes only 
paying them less than one cent 
per play. They deserve more.

Before the release of Apple 

Music, Apple was set on with-
holding royalties to artists dur-
ing the three-month free trial 
period for customers.

On Pandora, for example, a 

song with one million plays means 
that the songwriter (or writers), 
make only $90. “Wake Me Up!” by 
Avicii, despite the fact that people 
streamed it more than 168 mil-
lion times, only yielded $12,359 in 
domestic royalties from Pandora. 
That money was then divided 
amongst three songwriters and 
Avicii’s publishers. Less popular 
artists (in terms of number of lis-
teners, stand to make much less).

Pandora 
isn’t 
the 
only 

problematic streaming service. 
Spotify pays artists less than one 
cent for each time their song is 
played. To be more precise, they 
pay their artists between $0.006 
and $0.0084 per play.

According to its website, Spoti-

fy says that its purpose is to allow 
people to listen to content legally, 
without having to pay as much as 
they normally would when one 
purchases individual songs. It 
purports that streaming services 
reduce piracy.

As of July 14, its website 

claims there are 20 million paid 
subscribers with over 75 million 
active (free) users on Spotify. 
So there’s no doubt that more 
and more people — who might 
otherwise use pirated copies of 
songs — are using these services. 
Yet, that still doesn’t take away 
from the fact that these sites 
are cheap and free because they 
don’t pay their artists enough. 
In fact, a change in the way that 
these services operate would not 
only benefit artists, but also the 
streaming sites themselves.

There’s always the argument 

that these artists — Taylor Swift 
included — make so much money 
in sales every year that they 
shouldn’t need to worry about 
streaming sites profits. After all, 
Swift made $80 million in 2015.

But that’s just the paradox. She 

is making that 
much money 
because 
she 

has fans who 
are 
willing 

to pay for her 
music, go to 
her concerts, 
read 
maga-

zines that put 
her 
on 
the 

cover and buy 
clothing because she endorsed 
the brand. People idolize her, and 
as a result, companies hire her to 
do ads and cover their magazines 
because she’ll bring in sales and 
draw in readers. If we, as fans and 
consumers, idolize artists for their 
music, movies and TV shows, buy 
magazines where our favorites 
landed the covers, watch them on 
Jimmy Kimmel, put them under 
a microscope in the tabloids, they 
have a certain level of fame and 
deserve the reward that comes 
with it. We shouldn’t expect them 
to be okay with giving us their 
work for almost nothing.

That being said, to provide 

artists with what they deserve 
from 
the 
public 
and 
from 

streaming sites, we must work 
collectively. Every party involved 
can help in various ways. Until 
it’s a collective effort, we cannot 

expect much change. Artists can 
take a page from Swift’s book and 
pull their music off of Spotify, 
which will increase pressure on 
streaming sites to give artists 
what they deserve.

But not every artist has the 

ability to do so, and not every 
artist has the popularity behind 
their movement to make a similar 
impact. Services, such as Spotify 
and Pandora, should rework their 
models so that they’re no longer 
free, but still allow for a free-trial 
period. This would bring in money 
to pay the artists on those sites 
better royalties.

In fact, Premium subscribers 

bring in even higher royalties 
to Spotify artists, so introduc-
ing users as paying subscribers 
is a start to changing the cul-
ture around the entertainment 
industry 
that 
is 
gravitating 

away from adequately compen-
sating its artists. This would 
benefit both these streaming 
services and artists. If these 
streaming services paid their 
artists more, these services’ rev-
enues would also increase from 
 

new subscribers.

Fortu-

nately, there 
has been a 
good 
deal 

of 
research 

done 
that 

shows 
that 

these stream-
ing sites busi-
ness 
models 

are not prof-
itable in the 

long run, so a change would help 
both parties.

Finally, it’s up to the users of 

these services to force them to 
pay artists more, whether it’s 
not using Spotify, or agreeing to 
pay for a premium subscription. 
It’s time something changed. 
Although it would mean pay-
ing a little extra a month for 
a subscription, or paying for 
songs on iTunes, it’s important 
to think about the value of the 
content. Do you go into a cof-
fee shop and expect free coffee? 
When it comes down to it, art-
ists and actors are no different 
from the store owners that you 
buy merchandise from. Artists, 
as anyone else, deserve to be 
 

paid fairly.

— Anna Polumbo-Levy can be 
reached at annapl@umich.edu.

5

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com OPINION

 
 

— U.S. President Barack Obama said after announcing 

the Iran nuclear weapons deal in Washington D.C. on Tuesday.
“

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

This deal offers an 
opportunity to move 
in a new direction. We 

should seize it.”

and gave a glass to the 12-year-old. 
Who can deny a kid?

I watched my boss chase five 

people down when they tried to 
use the bathroom without making 
a 
purchase. 

She’s 
maybe 

5’2”, with a tiny 
frame 
and 
a 

demanding, but 
well-meaning, 
demeanor. 
Some 
pedestrians 
snuck by her 
without 
a 

second glance, 
freely 
using 

the restrooms and tables at their 
convenience.

The worst, of course, is the 

rude customers — the people who 
believe everything is about them 
and everyone else should realize 
that. They exhibit disgusting 
behavior and make the transaction 
a living hell for everyone involved. 
Luckily, there are usually only a 
few of them.

I finish my shift around 6 p.m. 

and find the streets have begun to 

empty. I walk tiredly back to my 
car, preparing myself mentally for 
the next three days.

The Art Fair, with its highly 

annoying hoards of people and 

parking 
nightmare, 
has its charm. 
It’s an annual 
tradition and 
a 
celebration 

of 
art. 
The 

original 
Art 

Fair’s 
goal, 

after 
all, 
is 

to 
“increase 

public 
knowledge 

and appreciation for contemporary 
fine arts and fine crafts by creating 
opportunities that connect artists, 
the Ann Arbor community and 
the general public to their mutual 
benefit, culminating in a top 
quality juried street art fair.”

In the end, how can any 

celebration of art, no matter how 
pretentious, really be that bad?

— Aarica Marsh can be reached 

at aaricama@umich.edu.

“Sometimes you have to 

see the outrageous and 

disgusting to understand 

and reject the outrageous 

and disgusting.”

ANNA
POLUMBO-
LEVY

Singling out streaming services

Tired of the Art Fair already? 

Infuriated by the pedestrians 

taking over your sidewalks for the 

sake of culture? Send your 550-800 

word viewpoint to us today! E-mail 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com 

for more information!

How can any 

celebration of art, 

no matter how 

pretentious, really be 

that bad? 

