Quote:
Originally posted by Darren
No, you really don't get it.
The only thing Gaga is losing out on is the possibility for EVERY banner for free (which is unnecessary). All the other stuff you mentioned is still 100% possible if Gaga/Apple want it to happen. The only thing that is blocked is for Gaga to give Apple an exclusive windowing period for the single and/or album. And that's actually a positive since most people who stream use Spotify, giving her a bigger audience and bigger streaming numbers.
Please don't talk about what you don't know about it, and don't talk to me like I'm a ****ing idiot.
|
They usually spend millions for these deals. It's a lot more than just windowing and banners. Why spend $5 million on just that? And yeah, maybe the options are always on the table but now they cost.
Also since she's not much of a streaming darling - a sole spotlight on a fast growing platform would've been beneficial in kicking the song off. Now it's just gonna be added to all services and left to build on its own. Which will be fine for those who actively hit the search bar for 'Lady Gaga' and fine for the week of being automatically put into top playlists. After that though? And she's not doing the VMAs, more than likely an asterisk in the original deal, so now that's neither an immediate source of notice to the GP.
So yeah... if the only "good thing" is now it'll be easier to find (on consumer's own intentions - this is Gaga in 2016; 7 years removed from when she was hot and accessible), you guys have a weak case. Drake proved its not just numbers, breaking streaming records only on Apple those first weeks.
You're very right that if it's gonna be a hit, it will be. Apple's deal would've just been great insurance with great incentives. Now there's like.. Nothing. So no, can't argue that being "good".