Siding with a brand may put money in your pocket, but how does it benefit fans?
When Chris Cornell premiered the lead single from his upcoming solo record Higher Truth yesterday, the internet was rightfully abuzz. Despite lukewarm reception to previous outing Scream, this is the first solo studio record by one of our generation's leading rock vocalists in six years. Of course curious ears were leaned toward Nearly Forgot My Broken Heart; when I heard it had been released, my first instinct was to drop what I was doing and give it a listen.
The problem was, Cornell's single had premiered on Zane Lowe's show for Beats 1 Radio, and every tweet and article about the song made mention of the fact that it was on Apple Music, the recently launched streaming service that I paid no mind to because I'm more than happy with my Google Play Music subscription.
Today, Nearly Forgot My Broken Heart is readily available (as evidenced by the YouTube embed above). However, for a handful of hours yesterday, the only fans deemed worthy of hearing the tune were the ones who also happened to be Apple Music subscribers. By getting the proverbial leg up on other outlets, and even with such a short window of exclusivity, Apple Music got the benefit of being mentioned in all the articles, drawing as much promotion out of the premiere as Cornell. Meanwhile, many fans were left empty handed, cursed for choosing the "wrong" music service until the tune's wide release.
While it's certainly not the most heinous example of an artist giving a corporation exclusive access, it's an example all the same; and I don't mean to single out Cornell, as scores and scores of artists have done much worse (as we'll discuss soon). This is, however, the example that finally prompted me to write this article, the digital straw that broke the music lover's back. I can only imagine the sting non-subscribing Dr. Dre fans who waited sixteen years for a 2001 follow-up only to have Compton brickwalled behind Apple Music's exclusive streaming rights must feel; granted, Dre is pretty heavily invested in Apple Music, so the move had to make perfect sense from his biased point of view.
There have been all kinds of these cases popping up since the launch of Apple Music about six weeks back, with all kinds of artists giving Apple first crack at new songs and/or videos. It's a tactic designed to muscle fans into subscribing, and it must be largely effective considering how often it seems to be utilized. This isn't just on Apple, either; think back to earlier in the year when the billionaires at Tidal relaunched their service, bringing with it exclusive offers from their investors and friends.
via GIPHY
The common thread there is money, more to the point the willingness of the streaming services to throw it at artists in exchange for exclusive content and/or exclusive rights for a time period. It's too tempting an offer for most to refuse, too; with the industry in the state it's in, why wouldn't you take a little upfront cash? The more commonplace it becomes, the less douchey it seems; and yet, when you boil it down to its essence, the practice remains a means by which to alienate a chunk of your fan base in exchange for a quick buck.
It's also a natural progression of the shenanigans big box retailers were pulling over in the '00s. Wal-Mart used to be the worst offender, roping in exclusive US distribution for artists like the Eagles, Garth Brooks and Kiss, all artists who took home a paycheck without regard for fans who didn't live close to a Wal-Mart. In 2008, Best Buy shelled out an ungodly sum for exclusive American rights to Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy, only to have the move backfire in their face; for a while, they famously marked the CD down to $1.99 in an attempt to move units. Hell, even my beloved Pearl Jam drew ire when they signed a deal with Target to release Backspacer in 2009 (although indie stores weren't affected, making the deal less about keeping it out of competing stores and more about keeping it out of Wal-Mart).
Here's the thing, though; as good as these deals can be for the bank accounts of those involved, whose career ever got a boost from excluding retailers/fans from selling/buying their music? I challenge you to find a single example of an artist whose record sales saw a boost after willfully preventing them from being sold at most retailers. Furthermore, I seriously doubt anyone out there thought at any time, "I wasn't so big on Dr. Dre until he made me sign up for a streaming service I didn't want so I could listen to his new album".
It seriously baffles me that this has become an accepted way of doing business, considering how offputting it can be for fans. Consider the top tier, card carrying fan club member, hell bent on having everything there is to have by their favourite artist. Now, consider Billy Corgan, who made that fan buy Zeitgeist six times from five different sources in 2007 because they wanted all the bonus tracks. Recent history is hopelessly littered with examples of artists being courted by corporate entities, deals being struck, and fans left with no option but to go where they're told and buy what they're allowed to be sold.
Why is it so difficult for some artists to make their art readily available to all of their fans in the same capacity at the same time? Why must fans like me feel punished for our choice of store or streaming service? When did the music business become so segregated? When you divide everything up among competing platforms and corporations, the end consumer eventually figures out that YouTube or torrent sites are the place to go for the best selection. Assuming that the music industry isn't a fan of losing out to those guys, maybe it's time we had a little more parity in our streaming services.
Comments
Post a Comment