The Taylor Swift and Spotify row is still blazing, by all accounts, with the pop star and music service having very different ideas of the amount of money made from streaming her hits.
You might have seen this kicking off earlier this week, when Swift decided she wasn’t going to allow her latest album to be streamed on Spotify as she didn’t believe that she would be paid enough by the service.
Her exact words were that she wasn’t “willing to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music”.
Spotify’s Daniel Ek was predictably infuriated, and in retaliation he loudly proclaimed the fact that his service has generated around $2 billion (£1.25 billion) in royalties for artists. He also claimed that Swift would have benefited from revenue of some $6 million (£3.8 million) if her new album, 1989, was on Spotify.
A Spotify spokesman also told Time that Swift had earned $2 million (£1.25 million) from streaming her songs globally over the past year, a not inconsiderable chunk of change.
However, Scott Borchetta, the chief exec in charge of Swift’s label, also told Time that the pop star has received less than $500,000 (£315,000) for the total domestic streaming of her tunes over the last year. Borchetta isn’t buying the $6 million (£3.8 million) figure Spotify floated for the new album, in other words – and indeed he contends that Swift actually made more from streaming videos on Vevo than music on Spotify.
Swift’s move to ditch Spotify is causing particularly mighty reverberations across the industry because she is currently the most successful pop star out there – and apparently other artists are now considering their position with the streaming service. Obviously if some kind of exodus starts, that could be disastrous for Spotify.
Spotify recently announced a family membership plan which makes it cheaper for multiple family members to sign up to the service and all have their own accounts.