Why was Taylor Swift removed from Spotify

Why Taylor Swift's Spotify boycott is unbelievable

Ever since the streaming service Spotify existed, it has been subject to sharp criticism: the artists and labels earn almost nothing for each song played, the connection to social networks goes too far for data protectionists and the advertising for those who do not pay 9.99 per month for the pro -Pay version is far too badly tailored to the target groups. All of this is also true - and some artists therefore refuse Spotify access to their works, which is quite legitimate and understandable.

Cheers and protest for Swift

A few days ago one of the most famous pop stars followed suit: Taylor Swift withdrew Spotify's approval for all of her tracks. Cheers and support followed on the one hand, plaintive fans protested on the other. The result: a wonderful PR coup for Taylor Swift.

Spotify brings the most to well-known artists

But it is precisely she who actually has the least reason to complain. Because a service like Spotify still uses popular artists the most: Those who can book millions of plays a day, do not cash in badly even with micropayments and become even better known. If even an "indie artist" like Erlend Oye receives a four-figure sum from Spotify every month, Swift will be able to look forward to a much higher sum.

Planned PR coup?

Of course, this cannot be compared with the sale of the digital album or even the physical product (for the younger generation: it is called a CD) - and this is exactly what Swift is now probably trying to take advantage of. The assumption: with new songs fresh on the market, one refuses to accept the "nasty streaming service" in a way that is suitable for the press, sells as many songs in a more lucrative format as possible and then returns to the streaming service in a manner suitable for the press when sales figures fall.

Advantage: range

Because in the long run, streaming services such as Spotify, Rara or Deezer offer artists two main advantages: availability and distribution. In times when reach is almost the only currency, the refusal of Spotify by musicians is almost the same as the hostility of some German publishers to Google.


Even small artists who would hardly have earned a cent anyway due to their low level of awareness can gain at least a bit of reach with Spotify and legally earn a few euros, keyword longtail. The fame can then hopefully be converted into more substantial sums of money later with concert fees and merchandise. Yes, the music industry is no longer a pony farm.

Hop or drop

If the songs are not available from streaming services with label contracts, many potential fans go to YouTube and listen to the track there for free, uploaded by an anonymous user who has no rights to the music. The only financial beneficiary in this case: YouTube and its advertisers. Most music lovers today do not care where they hear the music. (Lisa Stadler, derStandard.at, November 6, 2014)