Hobbyists, though I hasten to add that many choose to forego them, can afford platitudes. People living off of what they make working in an industry, whether it’s Borchetta, or Swift, or Barry Mazor or me, can’t; they have to pay attention to specifics and details, make thoughtful assessments and regularly test them against reality. If they don’t, they’re likely to wind up – unless they’re unusually lucky in some form or fashion – becoming hobbyists.

When you pay attention to details, you notice that the differential between what the purchase of a track pays and what a Spotify play pays is so big – the former is at least 140 times bigger than the latter – that *if* windowing results in even a minor (i.e., 1 or 2%) bump in sales, it more than pays for itself. And if it doesn’t, what harm is done in the case of artists already known to millions of listeners and viewers, already reaching the ears of their core audiences with (essentially windowed) single releases to radio, already selling millions of records, already selling millions of dollars worth of concert tickets? These are artists with generally developed audiences, not in great need of exposure – especially to listeners who are already demonstrably more interested in music than the average Joe. Even you acknowledge that for such artists, there “probably isn’t much downside” in windowing a new release.

No, comparing the apparent risk-reward ratios here, I’ll take windowing as a sensible, winning strategy – at least until I’m shown some concrete reason to revise my opinion.

Which a platitude ain’t.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. See Rihanna, whose latest release was withheld from Spotify *after* T-Swizzle’s (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/rihanna-spotify-singer-withholds-unapologetic_n_2198213.html). See Coldplay. See the Black Keys. See Adele. All of whom have been reported as windowing releases at one time or another, leading Spotify execs to complain publicly. Pay attention!

“With an artist like Taylor Swift, there probably isn’t much downside to not releasing the album for streaming.”

Exactly my point, and exactly the opposite of what you originally said. Especially given that you keep leaving out the not irrelevant word “immediately.”

“Can I say that Red not being a streaming release hurt Swift’s sales? No.”

And yet, that’s exactly what you did: “By not throwing out everything you have, you’re done.”

“Can Borchetta and Big Machine say for certain this strategy boosted its sales? Certainly not. U.S. sales of Red are pretty even with Speak Now as of this many weeks in stores.”

In a market where CD sales have noticeably declined between then and now. So what reason is there to think that windowing has hurt? Indeed, it’s thoroughly plausible that the same level of sales now as opposed to 2 years ago is a sign that the strategy is at least marginally successful.

“When the album is available for 24/7 streaming, sales of the entire album and individual singles (and the music videos, etc.) are boosted exponentially.”

This claim has been made – for streaming, for piracy, etc., etc., etc. – for many years now. And, for just that long, it’s been essentally unsubstantiated. It’s getting to the point where one begins to wonder if maybe there isn’t a tiny bit of ignorance, or wishful thinking, or downright dishonesty behind its incessant repetition.

“And I think your grand statement “Big Machine almost certainly made more money from the 1st 10 minutes of sales of Red than it will *ever* make from Spotify” is terribly flawed.”

It’s a bit hyperbolic, I’ll admit, but do the math. The most charitable estimate that I’ve seen suggests that it takes one hundred and forty 140 Spotify plays of a track to generate the SRCO royalty accruing to one (1) sale thereof. The most charitable. By a considerable amount.

“And yes, I do think the music should be on Spotify for “nothing” as you say. It’s on the radio for not much more than those same pennies.”

Ah, that’s wrong – well, to be precise, it’s wrong as far as songwriters like Ms. Swift are concerned; the songwriting royalties she collects from terrestrial radio dwarf those from Spotify. Similarly, the royalties that Big Machine collects from satellite radio dwarf those from Spotify. And in other countries, where terrestrial radio pays royalties to SRCOs, those dwarf those from Spotify.

“Radio/streaming and where the twain shall meet is pointless to this discussion anyway. They’re both the delivery systems to the public.”

I’m sorry, but “delivery systems” covers up more than it reveals. The critical distinction – recognized in law, by the way, when it comes to setting royalty rates for digital transmission – is between services that allow users to select what they want to hear when they want to hear it and those that don’t. Radio – terrestrial, satellite – is the latter, and so are many webcasts. Spotify is the former. (Pandora is something of a hybrid, which is one of the reasons why it’s so controversial from a royalty point of view).

This means that, as long as Spotify has the rights to a record, you can listen to it whenever you want, wherever you want, as many times as you want, as long as you’ve got a data connection (and if you’re a premium subscriber, you don’t even have to have that; you can store it for offline listening). As long as you keep paying your $10 a month, you effectively own a bazillion recordings. And that is hardly pointless (sic) to this discussion.

Like I said, Spotify’s great for the consumer (that is, any consumer who would otherwise buy an average of one (1) CD or its equivalent or more per month), but terrible for artists, songwriters, record labels and publishers, because its payouts are UNBELIEVABLY LOW, and the purported promotional value is speculative, even for relatively unknown artists. For major ones, like Swift and others on Big Machine (you have heard of Rascal Flatts, haven’t you?) windowing a release in the manner Borchetta described – and don’t forget, you can listen to the current *single* from Red on Spotify right now – has no observable downside.

Which means that your original post, the one that I took exception to, was just wrong.

Since ABC’s Nashville cast members had to prove they could sing prior to being hired, it’s not surprising they could make decent sounding music. Also having top flight songwriters, musicians, and producers involved doesn’t hurt matters any. T-Bone Burnett is doing a fine job and I commend him for it. I will admit I purchased the soundtrack song “I Will Fall” featuring the Gunnar and Scarlett actors. Good stuff!

And yes, I do think the music should be on Spotify for “nothing” as you say. It’s on the radio for not much more than those same pennies. Radio/streaming and where the twain shall meet is pointless to this discussion anyway. They’re both the delivery systems to the public. Why wouldn’t a label head want his artists and their product to be in as many places as possible? And as soon as possible? Services like Spotify are primarily a sampling place for most of us. Out of the last 10 albums I purchased, I’m sure I listened to more than half in their entirety on Spotify before I bought them.

With an artist like Taylor Swift, there probably isn’t much downside to not releasing the album for streaming. She has the selling power to post big number right out with or without ‘traditional’ modern outlets. Can I say that Red not being a streaming release hurt Swift’s sales? No. Can Borchetta and Big Machine say for certain this strategy boosted its sales? Certainly not. U.S. sales of Red are pretty even with Speak Now as of this many weeks in stores. And I think your grand statement “Big Machine almost certainly made more money from the 1st 10 minutes of sales of Red than it will *ever* make from Spotify” is terribly flawed. I’m sure the company recouped its investment several times over in first week physical CD sales alone, but what part of public delivery system do you not understand? When the album is available for 24/7 streaming, sales of the entire album and individual singles (and the music videos, etc.) are boosted exponentially. Yeah, yeah, it’s going to be on there eventually you’ll say …

Here’s where I think this kind of ‘show me the money’ attitude will hurt Big Machine/Valory – and lots of other labels if they follow suit – is with less established artists than Swift. And if a delayed-streaming release business model is deemed to work, you can bet it will trickle right on down to every artist on the label. The record buyers are a lot less likely to buy an act’s album/songs if they can’t hear everything first. Because they can hear everybody else. On every other label.

And the plain fact is that, as far as anyone is able to measure, terrestrial radio is still a much more widely used and effective means of music discovery than Spotify, including with people under 30. In fact, if every single Spotify user were under 30 – which is manifestly untrue – terrestrial radio would *still* be kicking its *ss in raw numbers of listeners in that age group.

Don’t get me wrong, I know what the trend is, just as I know what the trend is with respect to CD sales. But just as there are still hundreds of millions of CDs being sold right now in this country alone, there are still hundreds of millions of radio listeners in this country alone; compared to that, streaming services, including Spotify and Pandora (which, to those with an actual interest in the business, aren’t the same kind of thing), are still pretty puny – and, more importantly for this discussion (which is about a record label’s strategy to MAKE MONEY FROM ITS RELEASES), they, unlike, say, satellite radio, don’t make up for in revenue what they lack in delivery of ears.

With Spotify, the unmistakable high-level assessment is this: great for the user (which is why I’ve been a paying subscriber almost since the day it debuted in the US), terrible for the artist, label, songwriter and publisher. Especially if you’re a high-profile artist on a big label who’s already getting significant terrestrial radio airplay and enjoying significant popularity. Which is kind of a description of Big Machine’s roster, isn’t it?

And since it seems to have passed unnoticed by J.R. and Ben, at least, let me point out – again – that Borchetta did not (N-O-T) say that these artists’ work wouldn’t be available on Spotify; what he did say is that the label would be controlling *when* their latest releases would be made available. Not the same thing.

If you’re going to stick words and phrases like “today” and “in this day and age” and “conventional wisdom” and “old models” into your discussion of a subject, you ought to have some idea of what is actually going on in this day and age and what the models actually are; similarly, if you’re going to talk about business strategies, you ought to have some actual knowledge of the business involved.

So here’s a challenge, phrased with all the diplomacy I can muster: without resorting to platitudes about “old models” or far-fetched propositions (like, for instance, that Spotify subscribers aren’t already familiar with Taylor Swift), can anyone describe exactly what the downside is for Big Machine’s bottom line in following the strategy Borchetta describes?

-Barry ( a loss leader since birth)