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?