Why does Taylor Swift want to own her masters?

By Sarah Montgomery

Taylor Swift’s music has changed in more ways than one. The country-turned-pop singer’s catalog of music recently changed hands, from Scott Borchetta to Scooter Braun.

Taylor Swift
Photo courtesy Taylor Swift’s Instagram account

Borchetta sold Big Machine Records to Braun, a manager for many big-name artists , for $330 million dollars. As part of that deal, Braun acquired the music rights to everything the label owns. Five of Swift’s six albums are now his property. 

Swift was offered the opportunity to buy back her masters (music industry jargon for the first recording of any song)—with a major catch. Under Big Machine, she would have been able to buy back each album with a new one in exchange. In essence, she would have had to sell away her future to buy back her past. She refused, leaving her old art with Big Machine, and moved to Republic Records in 2018.

Swift was one of the biggest artists under Big Machine, which houses lesser-known stars like Thomas Rhett and Lady Antebellum. Allegedly, Borchetta had been looking for a buyer for years. If he had let Swift buy back her music, he would not have gotten nearly as much money as he did in his deal with Braun.  

In most cases, this would not be newsworthy. Many artists don’t have ownership over their own work; it is an accepted reality in the music industry. 

The big deal is that Swift vehemently hates Braun. She has called him a bully, going so far as to say “my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it.” She specifically cites an instance in which he and two of his clients, Justin Bieber and Kanye West (with whom she has legendary drama), got on a FaceTime call and posted a photo of it with a caption that taunted her. She also points out that West used a lookalike of her naked body in a music video, which she amounts to finding Braun complicit in revenge porn. 

Justin Bieber, Kanye West, and Scooter Braun on FaceTime.
Photo courtesy Taylor Swift’s Tumblr Account

Swift does not have many options to better her situation. She plans to re-record the old songs, which she is contractually allowed to do in November 2020. This will devalue her entire catalog, as there will be two copies of one product. Alternatively, according to the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, artists can reclaim ownership after 35 years.

The most she can do is pressure Braun to let her buy back her masters, which is why her social media campaign against him may prove useful. That being said, Swift is worth about $320 million. It’s possible that even if she had the opportunity to buy back her masters, she would not be able to afford it. 

Swift is already feeling the repercussion of a wrathful custodian. Financially, it is in Braun’s best interest to license Swift’s music. But he, a man worth $400 million, could theoretically shoulder a few losses to punish her for lashing out.

Swift, at the 2019 American Music Awards, wearing a jumpsuit emblazoned with the names of albums she recorded under Big Machine. She won Artist of the Decade.
Photo courtesy Getty Images

Her team announced that the record label is not letting her use her old music or performance footage for a few major projects, notably a Netflix documentary and the Alibaba “Double Eleven” event she performed at. She just barely got permission to use her music for a performance at the American Music Awards. Considering the majority of money artists make comes from touring and concert sales, this next year could very well be a financial dry spell for Swift. 

Record labels hold an unbelievable amount of power in the music industry. Whoever owns the masters will always control and benefit from any use or licensing of those songs. For this reason, many artists are going independent these days or are strictly negotiating ownership rights. With the rising popularity of direct-to-consumer distribution platforms, such as Sound Cloud and Youtube, being independent has never been easier.

On the other hand, there are a lot of perks for signing with a label—a massive advance (read: money), access to a strong industry network and other benefits that vary by contract. The most important thing for many artists is that labels will often handle the entire business side, from marketing to brand management. So labels will take a gamble, financially backing and professionally supporting you now—at the cost of owning your music and the majority of your future earnings. 

Braun and client Arian Grande.
Photo courtesy One Love Manchester

Because contracts are usually very private, the financial arrangement between Big Machine and Swift is not entirely clear. Let’s imagine that, through subscription costs or advertising revenue, consumers are ultimately paying Spotify $1.00 per stream to listen to “You Belong With Me.” Typically, about 70 cents of that dollar goes to the rights holder, in this case being Big Machine. If the label were to pay the artist 15% of their share, that would amount to just 10.5 cents to Swift. And remember, that’s just an estimation; labels have total discretion of how much they will pay artists. 

Courtney E. Smith, a writer for Refinery29, notes that labels tend to have shady accounting practices, so trust is an essential aspect of any artist-record label relationship. Braun may drastically reduce her payout from the company for her work or maybe even not pay her at all. As it is now, Swift already claims that the label owes her $8 million in unpaid royalties. 


Swift, who signed with Big Machine at age 15, is using this all as a cautionary tale to up-and-coming artists. “Hopefully, young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in negotiation,” Swift writes. “You deserve to own the art you make.”

Women, the new Apple Card, and credit discrimination

By Sarah Montgomery

“The @AppleCard is such a fucking sexist program. My wife and I filed joint tax returns, live in a community-property state, and have been married for a long time. Yet Apple’s black box algorithm thinks I deserve 20x the credit limit she does. No appeals work,” tweeted user @dhh. 

The man behind the Twitter handle is David Heinemeier Hansson, a software developer with a large social media following. When he and his wife, Jamie, applied for the new Apple Card, he received a much higher credit limit, even though his wife has a better credit score and they share assets. 

Steve Wozniak, a co-founder and current employee of Apple, said that he and his wife face a similarly unfair discrepancy in creditworthiness in terms of the credit card.

The Apple Card, which came out in August, was developed by Apple and Goldman Sachs. According to a support page, the applicant’s credit score, credit report and income level are entered into an algorithm that decidess creditworthiness. 

In response to the media attention that Hansson’s tweet garnered, the New York State Department of Financial Services announced that it will be investigating the algorithm that Apple and Goldman Sachs use.

Courtesy of Apple

How can artificial intelligence share human biases? According to a CNN Business article, artificial intelligence “can quickly learn about a simple concept, but it is dependent on the data that us humans feed it, for better or worse.” 

Gender discrimination in the finance world is nothing new. Only in 1974, not even 50 years ago, did Congress pass the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The act requires that banks, credit card companies, and other lenders make credit equally available to all creditworthy customers. It also outlaws discrimination based on several personal characteristics—sex being one of them— and thus lenders can only decide creditworthiness on income, expenses, debts, and credit history, amongst other limited pieces of information. 

“[I]f you weren’t a white male you were likely to be treated like a potential problem, not a potential customer [by lenders].”

Billy Fay of debt.org

Until ECOA was implemented, women were not allowed to apply for credit. All credit had to be obtained through husbands or fathers, even if the woman in question was gainfully employed. Though the legislation was a major push in the right direction, the National Consumer Law Center argues that unfair credit discrimination is alive and well, particularly against women.

Following up on his original tweet, Hannson writes: “I’m surprised that they even let her apply for a credit card without the signed approval of her spouse? I mean, can you really trust women with a credit card these days??!”

How the retail apocalypse will impact America

By Sarah Montgomery 

Forever 21. Payless. Sears. Toys R Us. These are a few of the many titans who have declared bankruptcy in the wake of the “retail apocalypse.” As retail migrates from brick-and-mortar stores to the internet, it is essential to acknowledge the fundamentally negative impact this will have on America’s future. 

Courtesy deadmalls.com

By 2022, analysts estimate that one out of every four American malls could be wiped out. That contradicts the narrative about the country’s economy— the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and consumers are confident. There are many reasons why traditional American retail is in a death spiral; the primary one being the rising popularity of online commerce, particularly brands dubbed as “e-tailers”. The losses of the brick and mortar market have been offset thus far by the success of online commerce— however, the honeymoon will not last forever. 

Year-to-date, Amazon has reported $117.1 billion in North America sales— and we have not even hit the busy holiday season yet— and has enjoyed an average 26% annual growth rate since 2016. For context, Target reported $75.36 billion in North American revenue for all of 2018 and an average 1.85% annual growth rate since 2016. E-commerce is outpacing traditional retail like a cheetah racing a housecat. 

The middle class is losing ground

Without a doubt, the popularity of online stores is eating at retail’s success. Gabriel Kahn, a journalism professor at USC, likens the situation to bringing a knife to a gunfight. Without the overhead costs of brick-and-mortar stores, online retailers can compete in ways that traditional retailers simply cannot. With the offers of next-day delivery, online price comparison tools, customer ratings, a larger inventory, less of the friction inherent in person-to-person interaction, and more, all accessible from the comfort of the buyers’ couch, there is no way physical retailers stand a chance. Though the e-tailer boom has meant increased convenience for the consumer, the cons certainly outweigh the pros. Convenience cannot be our god in this economy.

According to the Pew Research Center, America’s middle class is falling behind financially after spending four decades as the nation’s economic majority.  According to the study, “the nation’s aggregate household income has substantially shifted from middle-income to upper-income households;” the income held by the American middle earners has shrunk from 61% to 50%. As people work for less money and work more hours to try and overcome income shortfalls, the Average Joe and Average Jane have less time and money to spend in stores. 

Those who have disposable income are certainly not spending it on food court meals and trinkets from Macy’s, ultimately hurting the businesses that occupy the average mall. The malls that are surviving, like The Grove, cater to a more high-end, luxury market that is increasingly inaccessible to the middle class. The mall where grandmas and goths could all find something they wanted, where the rich and poor could spend time and not feel out of place, where teenagers got their first jobs, where families went to get some Sbarro’s before a showing at the AMC, where millions of Americans ambled away hours of free time— this modern suburban shopping mall will become a nostalgic memory. 


“Advances in technology, such as self-service checkout stands in retail stores and increasing online sales, will reduce the need for cashiers,” says the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 


The problem of retailers dying off is exacerbating the financial plight of the working class. Back in May 2015, retail salespersons and cashiers were the occupations with the highest employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that cashier jobs will have a negative employment change of -138,700 people (4% decline), whereas retail sales workers will likely experience a negative change of -105,200 jobs (2% decline). Stragglers may be sucked into markets related to online commerce, like truck driving or warehouse jobs (which have appalling work conditions), but those jobs are at risk of being automated in the near future. We will lose jobs essential to the wellbeing of the middle class. As reported by NPR’s “Planet Money,” truck driving, retails sales clerks, cashiers, and customer service representatives— all currently impacted by the retail apocalypse— are popular jobs for middle- to lower-income brackets. 

For now, the loss of retail jobs has been offset by the increase in other job sectors, like the aforementioned warehousing, giving off the illusion of a bustling economy. That being said, it is important to keep in mind that those new jobs are not likely to be placed in the same suburbias where those malls once were. Department stores have an incentive to spread their products, and thus staff, throughout the country; e-tailers do not have such an incentive. The regions losing jobs are not seeing that problem mitigated by new jobs. Moreover, as posited by economy researchers Jason Bram and Nicole Gorton, non-retail jobs may demand a more sophisticated skill set than department stores; they liken salary as a proxy to skillset, noting that the average wage for non-store workers exceeded $59,000, whereas the average salary for department store jobs hovers at just $20,500. As obtaining a college education gets more and more expensive, there seems to be no way out for the middle class. Without access to low-skilled jobs, and without the education to secure skilled work, the middle class will be hollowed out. 

But wait: it gets worse. With less money being earned by its citizens, local governments will indubitably suffer. Sales tax and income tax comprise a large part of any city’s government. As malls and the correlated jobs die, so do two major sources of revenue that are nearly impossible to recuperate by other methods. Across the nation, sales tax comprises nearly 33% of state governments’ revenue and about 12% of the local government’s revenue. As malls and retail stores either collapse or flee to more prosperous regions, those localities also see a loss in commercial property taxes. 

Courtesy City of Arcadia

I spoke with Jason Kruckeberg, the Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director of Arcadia, Calif. The city has a thriving Westfield mall thanks to how deftly it serves the large Asian demographic. He says the city reaps many benefits from the mall, considering the sales tax, employment tax, property tax, introduction of money into the local economy, tourism, name-recognition and community events that the Westfield Santa Anita promotes. Just looking at sales tax alone, for the 2017-2018 fiscal year of Arcadia, sales taxes generated $10,670,332 dollars whereas next-door neighbor Monrovia collected $2,404,000 in sales tax that same fiscal year.

Facing reduced tax revenue, governments can provide less social services when relief is needed most, while concurrently raising taxes (further aggravating the problem). Some people, like Alana Semuels of The Atlantic, argue that a viable solution to this problem could be the requiring of online retailers to collect sales tax and redistribute it to the states. Though an interesting solution, it would require an act of Congress, a lengthy and difficult process. Things will get worse before they get better. 

Any competent economist knows that behavior and the economy are closely linked. Displaced workers, shrinking tax bases, widening economic inequality, and reduced money flow is a recipe for disaster. With less consumer confidence, especially in the consumer-driven American economy, the repercussions could be severe. Money is the blood that circulates through the economy, keeping the system alive; without that flowing, the consequences will be grave— economically, politically, and culturally.

Bezos breaks corporate responsibility pledge

Jeff Bezos
Photo courtesy Associated Press

By Sarah Montgomery

Last month, almost 200 major corporations signed a pledge to prioritize their workers, customers, suppliers, and communities over shareholders. Jeff Bezos is already defecting. 

Bezos is the owner of Amazon, which owns several other companies, notably Whole Foods. This is important because recently Whole Foods announced that, coming Jan. 1, employees working 20-30 hours per week will lose the company health plan. This is contradictory to the pledge. 

Whole Foods told Business Insider that the decision was made in order to improve efficiency within the company. They also claim that they are providing their affected workforce with resources to find alternative healthcare or to explore positions that are healthcare-eligible. 

The Business Roundtable, a large corporate lobbying organization, wanted this pledge to serve as a new approach to the “purpose of the corporation.” The goal was to get rid of the prevailing idea that the maximization of shareholder value is what businesses should strive for. This concept, propagated by conservative economist Milton Friedman, has been the commonplace corporate ideology since the 1970’s. Though this pledge is a welcome change, it is important to know that there is no mechanism in place for supervision or enforcement—nothing is committing these CEOs to the pledge other than their word. 

The pledge from Business Roundtable

Many economists doubted that companies would hold true to the pledge in the first place. Nell Minow pointed to the lack of substance in the pledge and its inherent contradiction to capitalism, amongst other reasons, as to why she does not trust these CEOs. Some pointed out that corporations have a responsibility to pay taxes, which many have avoided— also under the guise of helping their employees, but in reality done in the interest of lining their own pockets. Jack Kelly, Senior Contributor at Forbes, writes “signing the agreement to be better was the perfect public relations stunt to earn kudos for their supposed new ‘woke’ view.” 

Stanley Litow, an expert on corporate social responsibility, argues that corporations do not need to neglect the needs of shareholders in order to produce good behavior. After all, shareholders do not want to be part of an abusive company that will inevitably be burned by regulators. 

This shareholder-first mentality has been so pervasive in the corporate culture for so long that it seems like an essential component. “No one is quite sure how to rebalance corporate priorities so that greater shareholder value is seen as a byproduct of socially responsible behavior rather than the primary goal,” LA Times journalist Michael Hiltzik writes

Other high-profile CEOs include Tim Cook of Apple and Ginni Rometty of IBM, amongst dozens of other influential business leaders. Only time will tell if they follow Bezos’s path.

Pop the bubbly on this unique economic indicator

By Sarah Montgomery

Photo from reservebar.com,

Champagne was discovered by Dom Pérignon, a monk who lived in the Champagne region of France in the 17th century. Upon the creation of this new concoction, he said to his peers, “Come quickly, I am tasting the stars!” Beyond being a delightfully bubbly beverage, champagne also serves as an economic indicator. Because the consumption of champagne often goes hand-in-hand with celebrations, the sales of champagne mirror the ambiance of the market. This relationship offers analysts insight into how the economy is doing. As put by Pascal Férat, the president of a Champagne-producer’s union, “When people are down in the dumps, they don’t feel like drinking [C]hampagne.” 

When people are down in the dumps, they don’t feel like drinking [C]hampagne. 

PASCAL FÉRAT
Image result for champagne pouring
Photo from vinegar.com.

When people are spending money on champagne, it indicates that not only do people have enough money for necessities, but they have enough disposable income to splurge on luxuries—times are good. 

NPR’s Planet Money searched for the most interesting economic indicators. They found that Champagne sales are about 90% accurate in, one year later, anticipating the average American income. The theory is that while good times are ahead, bad times will soon follow. Davidson offered the peak of the Internet and Housing bubbles as examples of times when champagne sales were high in 1999 and 2007 respectively; famously, the years following those were those of a weaker economy. 

Graph from The New York Times Company.

In its annual report, the Comité Champagne, a French community that represents champagne makers, notes an increase of global champagne sales while also having a 1.8% fall in shipments. An interesting place where champagne sales fell was in the U.K, historically the largest export market for the fizzy refreshment.; some suggest that Brexit is the reason. Shipments to the following countries grew: the US, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Russia, and South Africa. 

Graph from the Comité Champagne.

The U.S. Champagne Bureau, a representative of the Comité Champagne, echoed these findings and announced in March that an increase of sales champagne bottles occurred between now and 2017. And according to Beverage Wholesaler, “overall consumption [of champagne and sparkling wine] is up 56% in the past decade, and shows no sign of slowing.” Furthermore, more people are drinking champagne year-round. These are significant developments signaling prosperity, so perhaps the economy will falter in the near future.