It just beats me that her untalented selve can appeal to so many puppets! That's "Music" for you today, it sucks big time

No, it just says that you're 40 -- or more likely -- 50+.

I get your overall distrust of streaming services. But comparing the Taylor Swift sales numbers vs. Mumford and using that as some sort of validation of her non-streaming policy is silly.

You're comparing someone with a string of hit singles and big-selling albums against a group that is just breaking big. Actually, given her success, the Mumford sales comparison os pretty impressive.

I don't believe that Swift's label really believes streaming cannibalizes sales. I suspect it has more to do with her label's efforts to get more money from terrestrial radio. They're using the non-streaming strategy as a financial incentiv: "See, you'll be the only place fans can hear her new music, pony up the money."

"But comparing the Taylor Swift sales numbers vs. Mumford and using that as some sort of validation of her non-streaming policy is silly."

Agreed. Claims like this should be supported by a basic understanding of statistical analysis - e.g. controlling for other factors.

hate to say, get used to this Spotify 

Why is there a Papa Johns pizza box used for this article on the main page? I don't get it. What's the connection?

Google is your friend.

Not if you're an artist...

Haha - made me laugh out loud, and cry a bit inside...

When I think of Taylor Swift, I think more of a poodle than I do of a pizza.  Really crappy product alignment anyway.  Another question, why does Starbucks sell CDs?

Because they can.

The Papa John's inclusion represents such a contrast to Spotify and streaming services in my opinion, which is why I featured it.  The pizza deal is: highly controlled, low volume, but also highly profitable on a per-unit and advertising basis.

Spotify lacks those characteristics: it's access at a low per-track payout, it's not controlled to anywhere near the same extent, and not a substantially direct revenue generator.  Papa John's equals money right now for Swift - upon delivery, so to speak - whereas Spotify often touts soft advantages like downstream sales of merchandise, curbing piracy and creating awareness.  Actually, Rhapsody directly made the case for downstream sales of items like t-shirts in its protest against Swift.

/paul

So the Papa Johns customer is also a Taylor Swift fan?  There are major problems with that assumption.  Starbucks at least tries to make 'lifestyle' choices with the music they offer for sale in their stores.  It's a huge, bad choice committment to align with a single product.  It would be like saying everyone who buys Michelin Tires is a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.  Huh?  That's my point.

But when people called Papa Johns to order a pizza, they were asked "and would you like us to also deliver Taylor Swift's new album with your cheese pizza" (or something like that).  Every single person who call Papa Johns was asked that.  And it seemed to help work the magic.

I'm getting to the point where as soon as I see that an article is by "Paul", I preemtively brace myself for unscientific statistical analysis and a series of strung together partial facts premised on personal bias.

I'm not saying Swift's sales and her label's strategy aren't interesting, but comparing them to Mumford and Sons is not the way to go about it.

No, but comparing Red to The Eminem Show is right on the money!

Her accomplishment is a total sensation.

Show me an artist/label who isn't studying the numbers and the stratey closely right now...

... oh, and let's not forget that other crucial part of her strategy:

She's not on Amazon!

More food for thought.

Good point amy. How about comparing red with speak now? Wouldn't that be more appropriate, since both records were recorded by the same artist? Wait a minute, that would require REPORTING!! God forbid!

For the record red outsold speak now by 200k first week. Much more than a rounding error. But Max Martin didn't cowrite and produce a single on speak now. 

You can argue all you want. The bottom line: no one knows.

But it sure causes a lot of unsatisfied Spotify users when this keeps going on. Maybe there is a "best of both worlds"?

How about this solution?

Release the album on Spotify as a Premium exclusive
Show Free users buttons to buy the album or upgrade to Premium
Reward Taylor with $10 for every user who upgrades to premium because of her album.

Label happy, Spotify happy, Premium users happy, Taylor happy.

This is what it could look like:

I have submitted this idea on the Spotify Community Forum.

If you like it feel free to give it kudos.

http://community.spotify.com/t5/Spotify-Ideas/Option-for-labels-to-release-new-albums-as-Premium-Exclusive-and/idi-p/182650

BTW in Xbox Music the album is available as preview with an option to buy the album. This way you can at least find the album in your favourite service. 

And sorry for crossposting this;)

Here is a much better idea:

Pay artists for their music!

If you don't, they'll have to do something else for a living.

Which means you and your children's children will be stuck with your Bach, Beatles & Bieber collection for eternity.

Yawn.

They do every single play.

Yeah, right...

Sorry, I forgot the add the "buy a t-shirt" button ;)

If you print this, I'll buy one:

Bye bye, Spotify!

Deal. I will print "Hello Xbox Music!" on the back

That's a dealbreaker. Xbox is ok, but music streaming is dead.

nope, Hans unfortunately that idea is impractical and financially unworkable - on a number of levels

Why? Educate me please.

Streaming's not dead? :)

Wow!

So, you think artists & labels will say:

"Mm, let's see... Ms. Swift avoided streaming and sold more than anybody else in a decade, let's do the opposite!"

No, I'm saying: do both!

Oh no my friend, it is far from dead. In fact it is being "built in" to windows 8 and will be "built in" to upcoming iphones and mac products. The streaming revolution has just begun. Artists that don't jump on will be burried.

But does Spotify have 'premium exclusives' of this kind?  If they do, they keep quiet about it.  They do claim that in some cases premium subscribers can listen to tracks before they are released (a lot of artists stream some tracks, e.g. on Soundcloud, before release), but they say nothing to suggest that premium users have access to released tracks that free users don't.  According to some reports the reason Adele (or her management) held out against streaming 21 was that she was willing to stream it to premium users only, but Spotify refused this option. 

They do, but I was told for 2 or 3 weeks max. That's their current policy. Maybe that's why they did not comply with Adele's whishes. 

As a label that distributes through the Orchard, it's not possible to request 'premium' anything.  We can't even set the sales price of an .mp3 with this service.  I've had direct conversations with people over there only after posting about the onerous task of dealing with them and then as we go through details, they are merely a digital aggregator that has practically no useful features for their label partners.  It would be great to deal directly with Spotify, but it's just not a reality.

Looks like Premium Exclusive is exclusive for big labels. What a shame.

Spotify should do something to stop this or this won't end well. 

http://www.thiswontendwell.com/2012/10/meek-mills-album-withheld-from-spotify-other-streaming-sites/

This is the beginning of the end... bye, bye Spotify.

I'm really curious how many of those sales came from Papa Johns.  Does Papa Johns even report to Soundscan?

This.

18,000 came from Papa John's

How many were delivered, and how many were pick up orders?

I'm sure there's a study somewhere that says if you order extra cheese, then you're 3 times as likely to also order the CD.

Ha!

Wrong. 

Two answers. Genre-country music and demographic-young teens receiving album from parents/elders. So really one answer. DEMO. This isn't surprising. Let's talk about good music shall we?

I think it's surprising to a lot of people -- and it's definitely relevant for a digital music news site -- that you can sell 1m+ if you don't stream.

This is going to change everything.

Everybody wants to copy a success...

You fools will never be as rich as the superstar Taylor Swift. A REAL musician.

I think you're wrong. Why would anyone use Spotify after this?

This is just the beginning...

There's more "windowing" to come.

If it were still released on Spotify... it still would have sold 1.2 million. There is zero proof withholding music from Spotify had any impact on sales whatsoever. It's Taylor Swift. As if there were any chance the album would tank.

You guess, and you believe, and you think, and you dream.

Here's the fact:

Ms. Swift avoided streaming -- and she sold more the first week than anybody else the past ten years!

This will affect everybody's release strategy from now on.

She sold more because she is Taylor Swift. It has nothing to do with streaming and everything to do with who she is.

Spotify currently has 4,500,000 paying subscribers who pay on average around $110 a month.

And Amazon is in talk with Spotify to purchase it for $3.7 billion USD.

Bezos is a spender, but he's not stupid.  You could build the same thing and even poach a few Spotify engineers for a fraction of that.   Plus Amazon's got the label relationships.

But Spotify is worth something as a brand. The brand itself is easily the most valuable name in streaming.

It's not the first bubble to burst, and it's not the last.

Not of your opinions matter. They did these deals and sold a shit load of albums. Good for them. next!

Is it me or the only products that sell well now are from good looking women singers ?

Seems that it is the only kind i saw here on DMN.

For now this "buy now, stream later" idea may work. But as streaming goes more mainstream and buying continues to go by the wayside, the idea will change to "steal now, stream later."

Artists don't really realize the fire they are playing with. You are dealing with a nre generation of people. These people won't be pushed around and they won't spend more money on you just because you think you deserve it.