Public policy analyst Matt Bruenig’s Twitter feed is filled with political headlines, discourse on the economics behind student loans, and a link to an article about Taylor Swift’s decision to leave her old record label, Big Machine Records, for major label Universal Music Group. His tweet is short: “Taylor Swift is a labor radical.”
What seemingly comes off as a slightly sarcastic comment has a considerable amount of truth behind it. Swift has made headlines defending the rights of fellow singers before, such as a stint where she refused to put her music on Spotify to protest the low pay cuts that artists took home from streaming services. Swift’s music stayed off the streaming platform for years before she released her music on it last year. In a more successful protest, Swift wrote a Tumblr post addressing the fact that Apple Music didn’t pay its artists during an offering for a free 3-month trial. The backlash to Apple caused them to begin paying artists during the free trials, marking the start of Swift’s fight for the power of collectivized labor.
Perhaps she anticipated that she would be changing labels, and that she’d have the opportunity to make change. Part of her deal with UMG is securing revenue for artists through Spotify without affecting the status of their advance. When Spotify first started, a few major labels were given stakes in the company. Many of the labels sold their stakes when Spotify went public, and some, such as Warner Music Group, kept most of their money by paying artists only what they made after factoring in their advance payment. But most artists wouldn’t make up their advances, and this left many at a disadvantage. On the other hand, Sony paid artists separate from the money owed for their advances, and Swift secured this right for all artists at UMG by signing with the label.
Swift had the clout to make the music industry better for artists, and she took advantage of it, helping both herself and her peers. It’s an action that not many artists in her same position would take, and that is what distinguishes her as a true “labor radical.”
Source:
This is a really interesting topic! Taylor Swift is a topic most people are very aware about but we don't associate her and economics at all. I like how you used her stance against Spotify and Apple Music to talk about how these music labels are taking advantage of artists. You related it to the labor markets and how the labels are trying to get the best quality labor (the artists) for a lower price because they don't have to pay them royalties during the users free three months. This is a really cool example and I didn't realize how much it could relate to monopsonies and the labor market!
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your insight in this topic. Celebrities do indeed have an advantage of spreading the word due to their notable platforms in society. It is inspiring to people to hear that after she stuck up for what she believed in when it came to her protest against apple music, she was successfully able to enact the change she wanted. Understandably, Taylor and other artists want to ensure that they get paid the proper compensation for their labor. Seeing as that was not indeed happening with Spotify and Apple Music, Taylor took a step in the right directions when she held her ground and hopefully has demonstrated to other artist’s the power of will.
ReplyDelete