Current Events > Taylor Swift seems like a good person

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sandalorn posted...

No I am not. I was pointing out the absurdity of that stance which the other poster I responded to had. That she has some sort of monetary responsibility to every person that works in the music industry because she is successful.

How about the 120+ people who work for her production company? Or the 50+ people who work for the merch company she works with, or the studio musicians at the 7+ recording studios she uses who won't get residuals even though it's their instrument on the album, or all the dozens of companies that she contracts out to for advertising, PR, filming, transport, etc of her and her works?

You're the one who came up with the dumb "she went to a restaurant" analogy. Not me. I'm talking about all the 9-5 employees at the companies who directly impact her success.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Keanu Reeves may have given the stunt team on The Matrix motorcycles.

But I asked the guy I bought my Matrix ticket from and he said he never got a motocycle. What the hell? Keanu preferencing his inner circle?

I'm pretty the concessions guy that gave me my popcorn didn't either. What an snob he is....

s0nicfan posted...

How about the 120+ people who work for her production company? Or the 50+ people who work for the merch company she works with, or the studio musicians at the 7+ recording studios she uses who won't get residuals even though it's their instrument on the album, or all the dozens of companies that she contracts out to for advertising, PR, filming, transport, etc of her and her works?

You're the one who came up with the dumb "she went to a restaurant" analogy. Not me. I'm talking about all the 9-5 employees at the companies who directly impact her success.

These people are all making a living because of Taylor Swift's songwriting ability.

s0nicfan posted...

How about the 120+ people who work for her production company? Or the 50+ people who work for the merch company she works with, or the studio musicians at the 7+ recording studios she uses who won't get residuals even though it's their instrument on the album, or all the dozens of companies that she contracts out to for advertising, PR, filming, transport, etc of her and her works?

You're the one who came up with the dumb "she went to a restaurant" analogy. Not me. I'm talking about all the 9-5 employees at the companies who directly impact her success.

You're flat out absurd. This is batshit crazy levels of hatred/jealously for successful people.

s0nicfan posted...

I'm not saying she's a bad person. I'm saying she's a billionaire and token gestures don't absolve her of that fact. The Eras tour made over a billion dollars. 500K in bonuses to a trucking company is amazing. It's also 0.05% the amount the tour made. Granted, she didn't personally make all that money, but the point is celebrities and artists who become billionaires aren't exempt from the claim that billionaires only get that rich off the backs of people who won't see a share of that profit.

It's still not a particularly apt comparison.

People generally don't use the product of a corporation because they like the CEO or investor who bought the company. They like the product made and sold by the employees.

In this case Taylor Swift is the product. She's the music. She's the concert. She's the merch. She's the marketing. She's the commodity. It's all on her. If people stopped liking her the business is dead. There's no Eras Tour without the Taylor Swift who has been building up herself as the brand and product for 15 years.

This fact alone makes celebrities like her more accountable than the billionaires you're comparing her to. It doesn't matter that people dislike Elon Musk because ultimately he isn't the product.

s0nicfan posted...

How about the 120+ people who work for her production company? Or the 50+ people who work for the merch company she works with, or the studio musicians at the 7+ recording studios she uses who won't get residuals even though it's their instrument on the album, or all the dozens of companies that she contracts out to for advertising, PR, filming, transport, etc of her and her works?

You're the one who came up with the dumb "she went to a restaurant" analogy. Not me. I'm talking about all the 9-5 employees at the companies who directly impact her success.

I'm just curious here but do you know how much they're paid? It seems like a bit of a reach to say she's not compensating them without some data to back it up.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that the musicians who worked on her album don't get residuals.

Again these are people who have worked with her for a long time or are other established musicians and people in the industry. Who all unanimously praise her. Why would they do that if they felt like she was taking advantage of them? At this point you're making up people and saying they exist. We don't have to look hard for the people who feel burned working for the people you're comparing her to.

i think that sonicfan dude is just mad that people shit on elon musk for being alt right human garbage who benefited from slavery and being a bottom tier human and is trying to same thing both sides taylor swift since the alt right hates her for not worshipping their fuhrer

Tyranthraxus posted...

I'm just curious here but do you know how much they're paid? It seems like a bit of a reach to say she's not compensating them without some data to back it up.

I looked up the average salaries for some of the companies she contracts with as a sanity check (for example: Bravado, a merch company she's used: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Bravado-Salaries-E956454.htm) and nothing looked outside of industry standards:

The average Bravado salary ranges from approximately $48,765 per year (estimate) for a Production Assistant to $210,791 per year (estimate) for a VP Design. The average Bravado hourly pay ranges from approximately $26 per hour (estimate) for a Freelance Graphic Designer to $58 per hour (estimate) for a Legal.

Bravado pays $26/hrfor a freelance graphic designer. According to glassdoor, the average salary for that position is about the same, give or take a dollar: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/freelance-graphic-designer-salary-SRCH_KO0,26.htm

I assume she pays her Taylor Swift Productions Inc folks more since she would have direct control over their pay, but those salaries aren't listed outside of the fact that her company makes $25M a year and employees 34 people.

In terms of pay at the companies she doesn't personally own (like Bravado, as above), obviously she can't force them to pay their employees more than $26/hr to start, but she has the clout to say she'll only work with companies that pay better, and while it's unfair to claim she personally needs to manage the pay of all of the hundreds of people who get paid through contracts with her and her studio, it also doesn't grant her some kind of special "business owner exemption" when it comes to saying billionaires got rich on the backs of workers who don't see a cut.

I still think not laughing or even smiling at that joke at the Golden Globes came off as childish.

s0nicfan posted...

In terms of pay at the companies she doesn't personally own (like Bravado, as above), obviously she can't force them to pay their employees more than $26/hr to start, but she has the clout to say she'll only work with companies that pay better, and while it's unfair to claim she personally needs to manage the pay of all of the hundreds of people who get paid through contracts with her and her studio, it also doesn't grant her some kind of special "business owner exemption" when it comes to saying billionaires got rich on the backs of workers who don't see a cut.

But this still isn't a good comparison. Taylor Swift isn't the employer of Bravado. She and her business is their client and customer and she would be one of many.

Who do you think she should work with instead?

Cant stand her music, but I agree. She does seem like a cool person to meet or hang out with.

s0nicfan posted...

In terms of pay at the companies she doesn't personally own (like Bravado, as above), obviously she can't force them to pay their employees more than $26/hr to start, but she has the clout to say she'll only work with companies that pay better, and while it's unfair to claim she personally needs to manage the pay of all of the hundreds of people who get paid through contracts with her and her studio, it also doesn't grant her some kind of special "business owner exemption" when it comes to saying billionaires got rich on the backs of workers who don't see a cut.

Well like I mentioned earlier. Those are "just" salaries. A company should be giving out generous bonuses based on YOY profits. A year with Swift merch should be exceptionally profitable compared to normal operations. if the employees didn't get fat stacks while they had that merch contract, that's a failure of Bravado management, not Taylor Swift.

I believe Taylor Swift is the kind of person who would stop doing business with someone if they were underpaying their staff.

It's pointless to argue with a socialist. Just wasting your time.

Punished_Blinx posted...

But this still isn't a good comparison. Taylor Swift isn't the employer of Bravado. She and her business is their client and customer and she would be one of many.

Who do you think she should work with instead?

I think she's a billionaire and she could say "double your employee pay or we'll find someone else to work with" and then said business would have to make a judgement call. Nobody is holding her at gunpoint and saying she has to work with these companies. She could stand up her own 50-person merch company if nobody could meet the standard. Even if she stuck with Bravado, she could offer any number of additional incentives at contracting time. Like "the designer who makes the final design gets a 10% cut of poster sales with that design at my concert". Bravado wouldn't turn down more money if it were offered.

In practice, though, Taylor doesn't make those calls. Her agent talks to a person who talks to another person who talks to a law firm who talks to Bravado to draft up a standard industry contract. She's probably completely unaware of what the pay is on the shirt she picks up, or the poster getting hung up, or the shipping company delivering her latest album to Best Buy. Again, I'm not saying she's a horrible person or anything. I'm saying she's a billionaire and the machine that keeps her tours going is big enough that there's no way she got that rich without someone getting stepped on along the way.

Why are we humoring that the CEO and investor billionaires have ever had to work as hard as doing a 3.5 hour live show 151 times within two years anyway? They get stressed and upset over the thought of people working from home.

s0nicfan posted...

I think she's a billionaire and she could say "double your employee pay or we'll find someone else to work with" and then said business would have to make a judgement call. Nobody is holding her at gunpoint and saying she has to work with these companies. She could stand up her own 50-person merch company if nobody could meet the standard. Even if she stuck with Bravado, she could offer any number of additional incentives at contracting time. Like "the designer who makes the final design gets a 10% cut of poster sales with that design at my concert". Bravado wouldn't turn down more money if it were offered.

In practice, though, Taylor doesn't make those calls. Her agent talks to a person who talks to another person who talks to a law firm who talks to Bravado to draft up a standard industry contract. She's probably completely unaware of what the pay is on the shirt she picks up, or the poster getting hung up, or the shipping company delivering her latest album to Best Buy. Again, I'm not saying she's a horrible person or anything. I'm saying she's a billionaire and the machine that keeps her tours going is big enough that there's no way she got that rich without someone getting stepped on along the way.

That still doesn't make any practical sense. Their business doesn't revolve around her and her demands. They have their own costs to manage and work around. You're also completely speculating about what she does and doesn't do.

This isn't comparable to some CEO refusing to give their employees health care or permanent employment or working from home or whatever.

At the end of the day she is still the business and you can't get around that. Nobody is wondering how she is bringing in the money. It doesn't seem like you can even find something that's specifically business related to criticize her on as you're talking purely hypotheticals. No problem doing that with Musk and Zuckerburg.

If you're really curious about the wealth here you just need to look at what makes her wealthy.

Her music catalog is estimated to be worth $400 million. So that's already nearly half of it. Who got stepped on to make her albums popular? Is she ever going to sell this? Doubtful.

She earned $175 million through streaming deals from corporations like Spotify.

She earned $80 million from royalties. So that's money paid from companies like Spotify and other corporations.

We're already at $655 million with just her current catalog of music. All work she has had direct hands on with and leveraging for profit.

Which billionaire are you comparing to with stuff like this? There is no business or product or work base she has invested in outside of herself. These things have value because of her work and the fans that give them value.

A corporation that has to make a return for its CEO and investors is a totally different ballgame to a celebrity musician. Anything focused on specific art from an artist is a different ballgame.

Punished_Blinx posted...

At the end of the day she is still the business and you can't get around that. Nobody is wondering how she is bringing in the money. It doesn't seem like you can even find something that's specifically business related to criticize her on as you're talking purely hypotheticals. No problem doing that with Musk and Zuckerburg.

Fine, then I concede. Taylor Swift is proof that is in fact possible to be a billionaire who made that much money without ever having to take advantage of somebody.

s0nicfan posted...

Fine, then I concede. Taylor Swift is proof that is in fact possible to be a billionaire who made that much money without ever having to take advantage of somebody.

Just childish now. And I'm sure you yourself has NEVER took advantage of people in your entire life.

she takes her private jet from her home to the end of her driveway to get her mail, she's not a good person.

s0nicfan posted...

Fine, then I concede. Taylor Swift is proof that is in fact possible to be a billionaire who made that much money without ever having to take advantage of somebody.

At a certain point you're just on the "You criticize society yet you partake in it?" surface level criticism.

It should be obvious that there are differences in how people claim wealth and how people leverage it.

Even being the most popular musician on the planet today the 1,000th richest person is still three times wealthier than her.

Elon Musk is worth over 200 times more than her. His value shifted 4.2 billion alone today. More than Swift's entire net worth several times over.

and yet all that money can't buy him friends

She makes good music. But she needs to be more responsible with her flights.

Man the arguments on CE are something else lol

some goods songs rofl, I love how CE downplays ppls great achievements lmao