Nice, right?

Subscription business models are based on the idea of selling a product or service to receive monthly or yearly recurring subscription revenue. They focus on customer retention over customer acquisition. In essence, subscription business models focus on the way revenue is made so that a single customer pays multiple payments for prolonged access to a good or service instead of a large upfront one-time price. Now, the economy is trending toward more subscriptions instead of ownership for cars, software, entertainment, and shopping. This increases the lifetime value (LTV) of the customer.
— Investopedia

When you have to call “customer service” and have to endure a Filipino accent when being told what they can’t (or won’t) do, do you feel like a valued customer after they have your money?

Corporations make you pay for monthly subscriptions despite the fact that some of the services provided are those you really don’t want and would never pay for on their own.

You buy a cell phone so you can communicate instantly with others, but you also get a device that spies on you, “free” functionality apps that also sell your data, divulges your location to people you don’t know, and based on your activity online, sends you dozens of annoying ads per month for products you have no intention of buying.

Granted, there are some “free” products that people can obtain like Facebook, Twitter, and their Big Tech subsidiaries. They just sell your personal data to advertisers.

Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly claims Facebook does not sell data. The statement has become a shield in the tumultuous era for the company. But is it true?

“As a data scientist, I am shocked that anyone continues to believe this claim,” wrote Michael Kosinski, assistant professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, in a New York Times opinion piece. “Every time you click on a Facebook ad, Facebook sells data on you to that advertiser.”
— AZCentral, 2/15/19

Multiply that within the estimated 1.9 billion daily users, that’s a good chunk of income from what in essence are just social media websites and after they get user data, they can abuse their customers as they wish. That’s a business model probably not taught at the Wharton School… yet.

Music streaming subscriptions give you access to genres you appreciate, thus there may be two or three channels of music you’d religiously listen to. But as you (and millions of others) are paying for the service on a monthly basis, you’re also paying for genres you may genuinely dislike and artists you really abhor whose music you would never purchase.

Streaming services, like the music companies of old, screw the artists, but that’s another story altogether.

Cable companies charge monthly for hundreds of television channels while there may be less than a handful any given person may watch on a consistent basis. But since millions of viewers are paying (in some cases) close to a hundred bucks a month for bundle packages, consumers are paying for channels that would go belly up if they had to compete in an ‘à la carte’ environment.

Corporations like Amazon, thanks to their “Prime” subscriptions, are in the entertainment business, are actually making product. Some movie companies are in the streaming business. Simply by adding a “plus” on their brand gives you access to new productions of varying quality, old movies and shows you probably viewed years ago and will probably never voluntarily view again. Consistently good product is another thing, but at least Hollywood is getting paid….

But this is the current business model for corporations who want a steady stream of income despite how well their product performs and/or if all the “services” provided are what people really want or will use.

Apple Inc. is working on a subscription service for the iPhone and other hardware products, a move that could make device ownership similar to paying a monthly app fee, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The service would be Apple’s biggest push yet into automatically recurring sales, allowing users to subscribe to hardware for the first time — rather than just digital services.
— Bloomberg, 3/24/22

So now it’s not enough for families to pay outrageous monthly fees to pay for the phone and service but now Apple wants to charge people for the device’s guts every 30 days.

People used to buy physical newspapers because the wanted to be informed of local and national news. But now that the talent pool has degraded the product to the point where people just find the news they want online for free, some companies are putting out introductory hooks that can be as low as a dollar a week.

 
Seriously, if someone is trying to get you to buy something for a dollar a week, just how good is that product? In some cases, all you’re paying for is the privilege of seeing and hearing people blab. On the course of one’s daily activities, paying people (some of whom you may not choose to hear) to talk doesn’t exactly sound like a wise use of the monthly budget.

For the most part, when you pay a subscription you are subsidizing mediocrity. Some companies are making you choose between paying for crap or losing functionality of an expensive device you either bought outright or are making more monthly payments on.

While there are some aspects of subscription services you need or enjoy, you’re also paying for services and/or talent you may truly despise. That’s how they all stay relevant, fed and you get to pay for it. This is the current business model so suck it up.

That is until the Internet goes down.

Meanwhile, the has-been quest for relevance continues unabated.

Joni Mitchell announced Friday that she will join her friend Neil Young in pulling her music off of Spotify.

Mitchell, 78, said in a statement posted to her website, “I’ve decided to remove all my music from Spotify. Irresponsible people are spreading lies that are costing people their lives. I stand in solidarity with Neil Young and the global scientific and medical communities on this issue.”
— Los Angeles Times, 1/28/22

With the political tantrums being led by has-beens like Neil Young and now Joni Mitchell, depriving the public of hearing their music on Spotify, we’re being made to believe this is a moral sacrifice that will also deprive millions of music lovers of their important contributions.

For some unknown reason, several outlets are reporting a strong spike in internet searches for “Who is Neil Young?” With little information about this unknown character available, and with all memory of the man’s existence having been erased from America’s collective memory for decades, many are still being left guessing.
— Babylon Bee, 1/27/22

Let’s be real when it comes to platforms like Spotify, iTunes, Pandora, etc. They are just websites. Like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and the rest, they are solely dependent on the content provided by users. Without content providers, they are just empty servers. The music streaming companies make their money off monthly subscriptions (NOT per unit sales) so like the record companies of old, those running them offer artists the lure of fame, exposure, and compensating peanuts in return.

While offering podcaster Joe Rogan $100 million because he brings in coveted demographic subscribers, artists like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell really won’t be missed which is why Spotify is more than willing to say sayonara to musicians most of today’s consumers don’t know exist.

Spotify, depending on where you look, has between 150-190 million subscribers and at roughly $130 annually per, that’s some serious income to stream music and blabbermouth content they didn’t create.

So, how much will this principled oldhead musician revolt cost?

Spotify complied with the request, which ultimately came from Warner Brothers, Young’s label. Though the loss of Young’s music likely represents a small percentage of overall streams on Spotify, Young pointed out that “Spotify represents 60% of the streaming of my music to listeners around the world.” For Young and his fans, the hit was palpable, and his fans are apparently taking their frustrations out on Spotify. The hashtag #SpotifyDeleted trended on Twitter yesterday, and fans seem to have inundated customer support with so many messages that Spotify has had to take it offline at times.
— ARS Technica, 1/28/22

In the grand scheme of things, this won’t hurt either side a whole helluva lot, which is why the initial connection was made between today’s streaming services and yesterday’s record companies. Ultimately, they screw the artist.

In a tweet sent late Thursday, and later pinned to the top of the official Apple Music Twitter account, Apple called its platform “the home of Neil Young.” Some Apple Music users also reported seeing Young’s albums and playlists promoted front and center in the Apple Music “browse” section with the banner “We Love Neil.”
— CNN, 1/28/22

On Friday, Young announced a special deal with Amazon Music, giving new subscribers four months free of the streamer. The move by the 76-year-old music icon comes two days after he demanded that Spotify pull his tracks off its service in protest of Spotify’s failure to curb COVID misinformation in “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast.
— Yahoo! Entertainment, 1/28/22

So Apple and Amazon will offer Young twice the chump change Spotify paid in royalties. That’s mighty big of them. Neil had better hope those on social media who’ve just discovered him via his newfound, yet superficial relevance, don’t find out what he really thinks of them, and with all the talk of Spotify tanking because of Neil Young, it looks like they’ll survive the #CancelSpotify hissy fit by those who couldn’t tell you who Neil Young was a couple of weeks ago.

Considering Neil Young and Joni Mitchell’s songs may come up in an obscure oldies playlist, it’s not looking like they’re really taking one for the team in the name of medical clarity.

So ignore the attention-relevance-seeking bloviating from artists whose music older people haven’t intentionally opted to hear since before the ’80s. The Spotifys of the world won’t have their back because there’s really nothing for either side to lose.

Today, too many are looking for reasons to be offended about anything; almost to the point of the absurd.

Star 102, WDOK-FM, calls itself “Cleveland’s Christmas station.” But its listeners are discovering that one holiday chestnut has been kicked to the curb. “Baby, It’s Cold Outside,” the duet in which a man tries to dissuade a woman from leaving a party despite her repeated protestations, has been pulled from the station’s Christmas playlist amid concerns about its predatory nature.

Seriously.

Penned by “Guys and Dolls” writer Frank Loesser in 1944, the Christmas song is perceived by some as unworthy for the most wonderful time of the year — particularly in the age of #MeToo.

“The character in the song is saying, ‘No,’ and they’re saying well, ‘Does no really mean yes?’ and I think in 2018, what we know is consent is ‘Yes’ and if you get a ‘No’ it means ‘No’ and you should stop right there,” Sondra Miller, president of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, told WJW-TV. “I’ve asked them to stop and think about the perspective of a survivor who was raped in that type of circumstance.”
— CNN, 12/1/18

Of course, it had to become monkey-see, monkey #MeToo.

More radio stations ban ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ amid #MeToo controversy

Now how many #MeToo activists have publicly objected to the fact that 465.3 million have viewed the following video on the socially-sensitive YouTube platform; a “song” that would clearly be offensive to today’s “survivor” demographic save for the fact it’s probably on many of their Spotify playlists.

Those who look down on and tell us all how we’re supposed to think are also guilty of not seeking out the best while distributing filth because they think so little of the ability of those they employ and the dignity of their consumers.

Earlier this month, Spotify introduced its new Hate Content and Hateful Conduct Policy. Its aim was to minimize their promotion of problematic artists, and led to R. Kelly and XXXTentacion’s music being removed from their curated playlists. Many, including followers of the #MuteRKelly movement, praised Spotify’s new ruling, but plenty others — including Kendrick Lamar — have expressed concern and disapproval over what they believed to be a form of targeted censorship against artists of color.
— Consequence of Sound, 6/1/18

Some of these so-called “artists of color” are downright embarrassing examples of limited talent who squander golden opportunities with creations of questionable aesthetic value. Maybe it’s a generational thing but I’m failing to see the “art”.

With all of the talented musicians and composers in the United States alone who are languishing without any opportunity to produce real music, record companies are more interested in distributing shit like this….

BTW — The previous examples were quickly and randomly found.

I know how hard it is to get any of the so-called artists, record and publishing companies to take a listen to original music; music it took months to compose, produce, perform, and mix to a competitive level. It’s sad watching today’s accepted acts whose music is subdued and lyrics that are narcissistic and depressing.

Contrast that with songs created that were justifiably overplayed on the radio back in the day but when performed with the appropriate professionalism, blows away anything created by shit talkers or the coffee shop snoozers.

When the looking-to-be-offended socially depressed decide to get the courage to take on the clearly sexist, racist, violence-embracing so called “music” assaulting the soundwaves of the general public, we have no time for their finding (what THEY consider) warped messages in songs written a generation-plus earlier hashtags were even contemplated as a vehicle for social awareness.

Until music company executives show any modicum of respect for the craft and continue to elevate the talentless who produce “songs” that aren’t allowed to be played in their own children’s rooms, we’ll have yet another double standard where real music is censored and shit is justified and mainstreamed.

And unappreciated classics will be left out in the cold.