Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#81

Post by extra88 »

candiddevmike wrote: post #74
Shrezzing wrote: post #18

> Taylor Swift doesn’t understand supply and demand: I think that's a poor reading of Swift & her team. They've clearly got a rock-solid understanding of supply & demand, and other economic concepts, to the extent that their behaviour subverts textbook economic thinking. Spotify acts like a textbook perfectly competitive marketplace: all actors have perfect information, there are no monopolies, the market price for a…

> the market price for all items is the same, and all vendors are price-takers (the platform controls the price) Not to detract from your point, but that's not really true: https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/ > Contrary to what you might have heard, Spotify does not pay artist royalties according to a per-play or per-stream rate; the royalty payments that artists receive might vary according to…

Aren't they referring to the price of each track to the consumer? To the consumer, the price to listen to any particular track is the same.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#82

Post by slowmovintarget »

gumby wrote: post #75
TheGRS wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the brands they own that don't have good multipliers seem like they're starting to slow them down. Stuff like Marvel and Star Wars integrate into their system extremely well. ESPN is odd because it is a multiplier on its own, but doesn't really seem to generate any money outside of advertising. The sports teams and their own live events benefit from the ESPN system though. I don't know who would buy that brand,…

> Stuff like Marvel and Star Wars integrate into their system extremely well. The market appears to have reached the fatigue point with those (and Indiana Jones). Either they mismanaged the brands or properly milked them heavily while the market was hot. I suspect the latter, perhaps intentionally. Even the Beatles faded with time. ESPN's big money maker turned out to have been cable carriage fees (I assume the same…

I'd guess that "the market" would be perfectly happy with good movies in the Star Wars and Indiana Jones film franchises. What we've been getting is "deconstructions of the patriarchy" instead. That is, rather than continue the story of beloved characters, or have them become beloved mentors for a new generation, Disney has taken male characters, painted them as weak, stupid, or damaged, then inserted a female that is already completely awesome without any learning or earning. Said female berates the beloved character throughout the movie, then saves the day instead of the male character.

They did this in Indy 5, they did this in the new Star Wars movies, they did this in Marvel's Secret Invasion, and She Hulk... And it's awful.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#83

Post by conception »

Shrezzing wrote: post #18

> Taylor Swift doesn’t understand supply and demand: I think that's a poor reading of Swift & her team. They've clearly got a rock-solid understanding of supply & demand, and other economic concepts, to the extent that their behaviour subverts textbook economic thinking. Spotify acts like a textbook perfectly competitive marketplace: all actors have perfect information, there are no monopolies, the market price for a…

I’m not sure most consumers are choosing Taylors version.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-f...

The Billboard article seems to be saying that when the new album was released people… bought the new album rather than the old one (they probably already had) during the same time period.

And that total streams on new tracks are higher than old tracks that weren’t on streaming for years and (as the OP notes) people had to buy copies.

Certainly hardcore Swifties are staying true but most consumers just don’t care about the morality of their music (see Chris Brown for instance).

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#84

Post by gumby »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #82
gumby wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stuff like Marvel and Star Wars integrate into their system extremely well. The market appears to have reached the fatigue point with those (and Indiana Jones). Either they mismanaged the brands or properly milked them heavily while the market was hot. I suspect the latter, perhaps intentionally. Even the Beatles faded with time. ESPN's big money maker turned out to have been cable carriage fees (I assume the same…

I'd guess that "the market" would be perfectly happy with good movies in the Star Wars and Indiana Jones film franchises. What we've been getting is "deconstructions of the patriarchy" instead. That is, rather than continue the story of beloved characters, or have them become beloved mentors for a new generation, Disney has taken male characters, painted them as weak, stupid, or damaged, then inserted a female that i…

I guess I…don’t see it that way? But I only watched the Star Wars live action material, not the other stuff.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#85

Post by HDThoreaun »

cityofdelusion wrote: post #24
debacle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then perhaps you should read about the inorganic way in which her career started.

That’s still not her “claim to fame”, as the OP phrases it. She’s famous for her music, not her wealth. A better fit for the OP is someone that is “famous for being famous”.

Her music exists because of her parents wealth.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#86

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #58
jsnell wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's being downvoted for the "Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television" energy of it, basically a combination of being an irrelevant tangent to the actual topic and boasting about ignorance of pop culture.

The only person I know who couldn’t recognize a Taylor Swift song is my dad, who is a 70-year old Bangladeshi man who listens to American country and Bangladeshi village music on YouTube.

You should have him listen to “Bistirno Dupare” and “Old Man River” together and see what he thinks

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#87

Post by steve_adams_86 »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #27
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It typically increases the opportunities an individual has in their life; it's reasonable to assume it was a factor in her achieving fame in the first place. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift#Early_life This is the kind of opportunity that less affluent—let alone poor—families don't tend to have.

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing. But that’s not what “claim to fame” means.

Isn't it relevant, though? It seems like a potentially beneficial part of the path to having a claim at all.
Post reply on HN