Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Taylor Swift VS. Spotify

No description
by

Katie Landmark

on 12 December 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Taylor Swift VS. Spotify

Overview

T. Swift removed entire catalog from Spotify
Failed negotiations
Insufficient compensation
Intention was to boost profits .
Why this represents a problem
T. Swift & Spotify are both monopolists
Recommendations
REVISE COPYRIGHT LAWS TO:
Accommodate growing industry

Artists able to negotiate contracts

Allows artists to reflect their intentions behind providing music to streaming providers
Harm
Swift believed Spotify was not paying her enough

Utilizes other channels
Album sales, higher paying services

Decision leads to many forms of harm to both sides
Consumer harm
Financial revenue harm
Potential economic harm if other artists follow
Taylor Swift VS. Spotify
Reduction In Value
Lost Earnings for Swift
Paying subscribers are unable to listen to 1989 Album
Reduces consumer value of service
Decrease in amount of people willing to pay for premium service

Other artists follow?
Further reduce membership value
Likely increase in piracy
Utilize other services


Streaming services grew 28% in the first half of 2014

Account for 27% of industry revenue.

Swift loses long-term royalties from Spotify

Many consumers may turn to
piracy services
instead to illegally download her music.

Vs.
Market Failure
Global Digital
Revenues (US Billions)
Results?
Decrease in consumer surplus
Decrease in value for paying customers of Spotify's Premium Membership
Solution?
Revise copyright laws to accommodate continual growth
Consumer Surplus Reduced
Swift only wants music available to paid subscribers
Decrease CS
More Significant because
both
are Monopolistic
1.
Swift
wants to raise prices charged to consumers
2.
Spotify
won't change the price they pay to artists
Change in Consumer Surplus for previous non-paying users

Decrease in Consumer Surplus
CS
Supply
Demand
Quantity
Price
Music Piracy Studies and Statistics
2007 IPI analysis: U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion to piracy
2012 NPD Group Survey: number of files illegally downloaded was 26% less than in 2012 and 2011 due to increasing in stream capabilities.
By: Leah Campbell, Alyssa Lavik, Jason Moore,
Jaclyn Rosenthal & Katie Landmark
Full transcript