Time Magazine’s Person of the Year: Taylor Swift

Time magazine named the singer Taylor Swift as its person of the year for 2023. Such a force of nature were her stadium-filled concerts during that summer that they triggered economic booms in the respective host cities. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for example, hotel rooms went for as much as $2,500 downtown on the night of the concert. In terms of American culture, the analogy of gravity waves may fit. During an interview for television at her home (or one of her homes), Swift’s savvy business acumen was very evident; her marketing prowess was extraordinary. She even re-released her own songs, resulting in a huge financial windfall for what are really the same songs merely re-sung. It is not as if she had grown a new voice. Swift personifies American culture, whose “movers and shakers” seem “happy go lucky” on stage yet, behind the scenes, they tend to be lazar-focused on the business end. In short, considerable distance may exist between the societal image and the private business practitioner, and the ethical element can get lost in the shuffle and excitement.

To be sure, economics was evident in the “Swiftie” phenomenon during the summer of 2023. According to Time, Swift “achieved a kind of nuclear fusion: shooting art and commerce together to release an energy of historic force.”[1] Her Eras concert tour "brought in a whopping $1.04 billion with 4.35 million tickets sold across 60 tour dates."[2] Not just any singer can make such a haul and even trigger municipal economic booms and saturate the media’s attention worldwide simply by going on tour. Also, the magazine is clear that such a gargantuan amount of money brought in is not “something we often chalk up to the alignments of planets and fates,” for “giving too much credit to the stars ignores [Swift’s] skill and her power.”[3] In particular, her intense and sustained focus on every conceivable way, such as by re-recording existing songs and bundling them (admittedly with some songs from her vault) into albums in their own right, attending to merchandise and actively using the media for free publicity, to increase revenue leveraged, or made use of, her tremendous market power that was unrivaled; she dominated the airwaves during the summer of 2023. The “Taylor’s Version” albums provide us with an interesting case study wherein hype, money, and ethics are all in the mix.

According to Time, “Swift began releasing re-recordings of her back catalog in 2021 in an effort to reclaim her original music, after her initial label Big Machine Records sold her masters to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings in 2019. ‘Now Scooter has stripped me of my life’s work, that I wasn’t given an opportunity to buy,’ Swift wrote. . . . ‘Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it.’”[4] I don’t doubt the authenticity of her emotive motivation here. In the vernacular, she was pissed.  Even so, if she had signed a contract with Big Machine Records giving it the unilateral right to sell the masters of her songs, and the purchaser has the legal right of use, then she had no legal or ethical claim to preempt the sale or be sold the masters outright. Of course, if labels write heavily unfair contracts essentially reflecting the commercial interests of the labels, taking advantage of the lack of bargaining power of new signers, ethical critique is fair game.

By its very nature, a contract is a coming together of (at least) two interests, with consideration (money) given by one party to the other. A residential lease, for instance, should reflect both interests. It should not restrict use of premises to be narrowed down to reflect only how the property owner would use the space or would like the space to be used. A property owner might prefer a “no guest” policy, but such as “policy”—the very word being presumptuous—violates reasonable use of premises. Furthermore, the property owner’s personal religious or moral lifestyle, for instance, should not bind the counterparty as long as the property itself is not damaged. “I don’t believe in eating meat, so you are not allowed to use the kitchen of your apartment to cook meat,” for instance, is presumptuous and dogmatic. More to the point, such a clause would violate or nullify the fact that in receiving rent, the property owner is selling the use of the space (as long as the property is not damaged). The mantra, “It’s my house,” taken as an absolute, is circumscribed when use is being sold for consideration (i.e., rent). Having it both ways is selfish and childish.

Whether or not Taylor Swift originally signed a one-sided contract is beyond my ability to investigate, given the information that I have. Her fans did not know either, and so, because of her emotional claim and her “star power,” her ethical cause resonated. Even so, it can be asked whether it is ethical to have hyped “Taylor’s Version” albums to the extent that buyers were willing to pay the full price of an album even if they had most of the songs already. To be sure, the “Taylor’s Versions” included “vault tracks”—songs not on the original albums. She also updated some lyrics. Even so, it can be asked whether the additional work justifies a full price of a new album. It can also be asked whether customers having receipts for the original albums, such as Fearless, should have been able to buy Taylor’s version at a discount. I submit that such a discount would be reasonable, given both the amount of additional work on Taylor’s part and the substance of the product (i.e., the extent to which it differs from the originals). A few songs from the vault and some new lyrics do not render the albums commensurate with albums filled with previously unreleased songs.

If Swift’s motivation was indeed to gain control of her songs, she should have agreed to a discount. Fearless (Taylor’s Version) had the biggest debut for any album in 2021, with 722.7 million on-demand streams in the U.S. that year.[5] Surely at least some of those customers already possessed the original album. Of course, the irrational exuberance that would cause such a customer to buy the same songs again can also be criticized, but many of her customers were teenagers and thus easily taken in even by orchestrated hype of good feeling seemingly aloft from the earthly taint of business strategizing. My point is that it is no accident that Taylor Swift made a lot of money essentially recycling songs ready for re-singing. She was not merely trying to regain control over her work. I submit that she was acting as a business woman, and a darn good one at that.  Her true identity—her driving financial ambition—was practically hidden under the blinding glitter of the “nuclear fusion” that Time magazine describes. My point is that the resulting sonic boom was orchestrated to coordinate and max out both the hype and the revenue. Behind the moral cause, behind the curtains, Swift’s financial acumen could be said to be a subterranean force of nature.

Such a force tends to be obscured, obfuscated, or, more often, intentionally hidden in the American entertainment industry. Similarly, elected representatives in Congress or the White House keep both their fowl tongues and their raw desire for power far away from the reach of microphones and cameras. In short, the sheer difference between private personas, including agendas, motivations, and even personalities, and the public images on the societal stage is astounding. Especially in politics in a representative democracy, this differential is a real problem that goes beyond the financial harm to young “Swifties” who have been subtly manipulated into buying (mostly recycled) songs at full price.

---

1. Jordan Valinsky, “Taylor Swift Named Time’s ‘Person of the Year,” CNN.com, December 6, 2023.
2. Maria Sherman, "Taylor Swift's Eras Tour Is the First Tour to Gross Over $1 Billion, Pollster Says," APNews.com, December 8, 2023.

3. Valinsky, “Taylor Swift Named Time’s ‘Person of the Year.”
4. Mariah Espada, “Taylor Swift Is Halfway Through Her Rerecording Project. It’s Paid Off Big Time,” Time, July 6, 2023.
5. Ibid.

Commercial Breaks on TV: Antiquated or Here to Stay?

By the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the impact of computer technology on television was already promising to be nothing short of revolutionary. Yet people seemed only able to grasp the contours of an upcoming basic shift both in how television would come to be delivered and how programming would be financed and presented. Young adults were on the leading crest of the wave. Even by 2012, they typically watched television programming from laptops and even ipads rather than television sets. Meanwhile, an older demographic was learning how to integrate television screens with the internet such that movies could be downloaded on a laptop and shown on a larger screen, completely bypassing commercial television even stored on “tibo” from interlarding the home.

Being somewhat slow, to say the least, in picking up on computer technology, I was afforded a hint in 2012 of what the new technology portended for television as my viewership dwindled down to PBS, movies on dvds, and television news from abroad available on the internet.  Even after just a few years of this new commercial-less habit, I found the occasional television movie with commercials on TNT and TBS to be rather unpalatable on account of all the commercial breaks. Just a few years earlier, I would have thought nothing of the interruptions. They were as though blinks to eyes. The human brain has an amazing ability to “ignore” the banal if it is taken as a given rather than contingent. It is the shift from “necessary” to “contingent” that the advent of computer technology had already by the second decade of the twenty-first century begun to “awaken” in human consciousness regarding television commercial-breaks. That a perceptual change, if shared by many, could impact society so tremendously in terms of changed mores is the real story here.

In my own experience, watching episodes of Downton Abbey on PBS uninterrupted by commercials for up to two hours at a time afforded me a new viewing experience regarding a television serial beginning in 2010. By the last few episodes of the third season, it had dawned on me that by being so ensconced for an uninterrupted hour or even two in the audio-visual story-world of Downton,  I could really get into that world of the story precisely because my perception of it was sustained. This experience, as well as that of Game of Thrones, gave me a new sense of how full the experience of story-telling can be. That is, being absorbed in a story world a lot and especially without interruption can enable a viewer to really "get into" that world as an assumed context for the narrative. From such a basis, the viewer can more fully appreciate the depth of characterization such as the case in Downton Abbey, whether it be Mr. Carson’s struggles with early twentieth-century “modernity” or granny’s Machiavellian nature, which is not so dark because it is for the good of the family. Moreover, a sustained experience of a fine manner of speaking and of manners can make an impression on a viewer’s own manner. Abstractly put, a more complete and richer experience of story-telling is afforded by the viewer being in the story-world as per a sustained perceptual experience. Returning from such an experience to a “chopped up” movie shown on commercial television, one is apt to find a new impatience with the commercial breaks. Were there really this many before? They are ruining the movie.  The flight away from commercial television has undoubtedly been facilitated as a result. In effect, the new experience had already made the old one obsolete even if the networks had not yet reached this insight.

If my experience of shifting from commercial to non-commercial television and dvds is any indication, the further decline in viewership could make commercial television networks even more desperate for quick-cash programming, such as the low-class American “talk shows” and “reality shows” that make such excellent fodder for weight-loss commercials (yes, “ouch”). The perpetuation of this strategy would only facilitate the flight of the more discerning viewers to less unseemly programming that is available at alternatives to commercial television and even the television set. As commercial-television viewership continues to decline, more pressure to add even more commercials for the networks to break even would mean even more “cheap” programming and more “chopping up” of shows and movies with commercial breaks. More people would be just fine passing on cable or satellite altogether and leaving the television set “unconnected.”

As a result, the role of the television set in the typical house or apartment would change fundamentally, including even how it is perceived. The device would go from something that is always on to something that is only used occasionally and for certain purposes, such as to play a dvd or serve as a larger computer screen for internet or movies. There was a time when I would have freaked out had my television set not been able to receive any channels. I remember the sense of panic when a storm would knock out cable. I’m cut off from the outside world! Even as early as 2013, however, I had become just fine with the “box” being left unconnected. I didn’t even bother hooking up my digital box. I had come to perceive the televsion as something that is to be used with my dvd player. I watched Downton Abbey simply by clicking “watch online” at PBS on my laptop. I felt no desire to watch anything on commercial television. Why go through the motions to be connected? Maybe keeping the home a little less connected is not such a bad thing after all.

Viewing the television set as a device to be occasionally used to play a downloaded movie or dvd would mean no longer seeing the set as something that is to be almost always on or even necessarily hooked up to receive broadcast channels. The addiction to constancy can thus perhaps be broken, if only in terms of television. In a sense, the transformation dimly anticipated even as early as 2013 would be one of increasing quiet, and thus privacy in the home as the outside world that is admitted is more closely narrowed to particular story-worlds of interest, absent exogenous “messages” and even programming.

The change being advanced can be viewed as rather positive in nature. Ironically, removing from the television set its constant airing of programming could return the home to its pre-television quietude. Moreover, the addiction to constancy—such as in constantly smoking or constantly having the television on—may come to be viewed as a distinctly twentieth-century cultural phenomenon. Put another way, activities that in other eras would have been indulged in occasionally may in the context of the twentieth century have fed an addiction to constancy—an almost-obsessive desire to keep doing something notwithstanding the decline in its marginal utility. Often the activity or product constant in use is rather insignificant, and thus easily hackneyed into daily use. Rather than viewing a drink or cigarette as indulged in occasionally for social occasions, “cocktail hour” and “a cigarette with coffee in the morning” (and, indeed, having a coffee every morning) were allowed to become part of the popular culture in the twentieth century, at least in America. The resulting dire health impacts should have given people a hint that items geared by their nature to occasional use at best were part of a compulsive desire for constancy. The regular or even constant use of such banal items overstates their significance.

Although not having the health downside of nicotine or caffeine, television too had come by the 1970s to a constancy not justified by the underlying significance of the programming. “Being connected” meant always having the TV on in one’s house, even if this meant giving up too much control over what enters one’s home (e.g., commercials). The “being connected” to the outside world we allowed to become a constancy. Silence eclipsing the “white noise” was as though tantamount to succumbing unconditionally to a void of existential emptiness. How strange this fear would have sounded to a person living in the Victorian world before even phonographs and telephones, not to mention radios and televisions.

If one had looked to the future from 2012 or even further back in 2010, the question might have been whether computers would come to be sucked into the illusion of constancy-as-fullness, essentially replacing the television set as hegemon in the house. Already by 2013, smartphones and ipods had become the new means for constant connectivity (especially for young adults). Is this sort of constant communication really a deterrent to the sort of boredom that comes with an empty sense of being? Ironically, might there be more fullness of being were stillness or quiet to return as the default in the home? Perhaps a hypertrophic desire to constantly be connected externally undercuts one’s connectivity to oneself and one’s family. Severing the television cable permits an opportunity. The question is perhaps whether we moderns have the stamina to tolerate the resulting sense of void in our homes without instinctively filling it with another means of constant connectivity. Put another way, might the twentieth century household be remembered as an aberration rather than as the beginning of the modern world come into our living rooms? At the very least, the eclipse of commercial television means more control for the viewer in terms of what is admitted into the home.

Advertisers Remove Ads on YouTube: Fair to YouTube and Video-Producers?

One day after Thanksgiving in 2017, “a fresh wave of advertisers suspended commercials on Youtube after their ads showed up next to videos that appeared to attract pedophile viewers.”[1] Youtube had removed ads from roughly 3 million videos, but the company’s use of human and AI checkers simply could not keep pace with the number of uploaded videos. Even so, Diageo, maker of Smirnoff and Johnnie Walker (alcohol drinks), announced it would hold off its ads until “appropriate safeguards are in place.”[2] Mars and Adidas took a similar line. The question is whether those advertisers were being fair to Youtube and even the producers of the videos.

After a similar revolt the previous March, YouTube and hired more human reviewers and furnished advertisers with new tools to control where their ads would appear. Did not those companies have some responsibility to keep tabs on their ads, especially given the incentive to do so.  “Advertisers don’t want their brands associated with objectionable content and as well can face criticism if their advertising money goes to support the videos’ creators.”[3] It would not have been prudent to leave it to YouTube to review the ads, especially if the advertisers knew that YouTube was short-staffed. Unlike the advertisers, YouTube’s management had little incentive; the pull-out of certain advertisers in March, 2017 had “little impact” on Alphabet’s (Google’s) overall business. In fact record profits were posted.

Of course, the ability and will to review ads, whether by the advertisers or YouTube, would not in itself have caught the cases in which the videos themselves were salubrious and yet received unsavory comments from viewers. An advertiser could hardly be blamed for placing an ad in such a video; neither would YouTube be culpable in having permitted the video in the first place. So even if sordid comments could be readily removed, the incentives would be lacking. To be sure, YouTube is responsible for removing such comments, and just because blame would not be justified concerning innocent videos does not necessarily mean that such blame would not be exacted anyway.

The nuances of responsibility suggest that the reaction of the advertisers was rather blunt and even impulsive, and not entirely fair to YouTube and the video-producers. Distinguishing between objectionable and proper videos, and then between the latter and disgusting comments would be part of a smarter, more refined approach.

---

[1] Stu Woo and Sam Schehner, “YouTube Deals With Another Advertiser Backlash,” The Wall Street Journal, November 25-26, 2017.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

The Huffington Post Gilds the Lily: Facebook’s IPO Plummets?

On the day of its IPO, Facebook issued at $38 and went to a high of $45 before returning to near its issue price (closing at $38.23). On the next trading day, the price fell to about $34 in the early afternoon. This represents about 10% off the issue price. The Huffington Post headlined “Stock Plummets,” which must have been irresistible to anyone who had bought the stock. The Huff was using the $45 high as its benchmark, from which the $34 price represents a 25% drop. As if that were a plummeting, using the 10% off figure would have made the self-aggrandizing headline too obvious. At the very least, the headline detracts from the credibility of the Huffington Post.

The full essay is at "Taking the Face Off Facebook."

Corporate Social Responsibility Countering Rush Limbaugh

On February 29, 2012—Leap Day—Radio political-commentator and entertainer Rush Limbaugh called a female law student at Georgetown a “slut” and “prostitute” simply because she had said that Georgetown’s student health insurance should cover birth-control—a staple for even 98% of sexually-active married and single Catholic women as of 2012. On the following day, Limbaugh went on to offer to pay for aspirin that the women at Georgetown could “put between their knees” in lieu of birth-control. If you are wondering how that even makes sense, I am with you on that one. What strikes me in particular is the extreme to which Limbaugh went in his rhetoric or appeal for a larger audience for his radio show (and attention on himself). That corporate social responsibility would function as the corrective also surprised me, for CSR is typically merely marketing, window-dressing, or for better public relations.

By 2012, birth-control was a taken-for-granted staple in Western civilization. For one person or a group of well-placed individuals to suddenly decide for us all that the default had suddenly become toxic such that it was open season on anyone who merely confirms support for a common practice evinces the sort of power-grab that goes well beyond reason or justification. In other words, it is one thing to challenge the status quo—I do so all the time; it is quite another thing to viciously attack a person personally simply because she advocates something that is typically accepted in society. Limbaugh’s ascription of sordid and lascivious qualities to the law student was utterly unfounded, and yet for days he refused to back down—until his show’s advertisers became to pull out in droves. From the standpoint of the advertisers pulling out, the action represents corporate social responsibility in a civic sense.

David Friend, who runs the online backup company Carbonite, issued a statement on his company's website saying that Carbonite would no longer advertise with Limbaugh despite the host's rare admission of regret. From the website: “No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”[1]

It is in ultimately in contributing to a more civil public discourse that David Friend has drawn on his own experience (i.e., having two daughters) in applying corporate social responsibility at potentially financial cost for a civic purpose. The influence of personal experience goes against Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy wherein the particular incumbent of an office does not matter as well as the corporate duty of fiduciary duty wherein a management acts only in the financial interest of the stockholders. In the case of Carbonite, Friend might have been the owner (or he might have surveyed the owners). Lest it be presumed unobjectionable that Friend could direct his company in terms of his personal experience (i.e., having two daughters) even if some of his employees receive less in compensation due to the loss of advertising, the director of a Catholic hospital could employ similar reasoning to refuse covering contraceptives for employees because of a personal moral (or religious) belief. Friend might have been on firmer ground in confining his objection against Limbaugh to the civic rationale (i.e., Limbaugh had abused his license to the public airwaves). Such a rationale is similar to that which claims that society should not permit employers to impose their personal beliefs on employees.

In other words, both Limbaugh and the employers who presume to impose their personal moralities or beliefs as binding on employees have violated the social contract by overreaching. The overreaching itself can be construed as involving aggression, rather active (Limbaugh) or passive (employers). Ultimately, the sin of self-idolatrous pride undergirds both. As Limbaugh was excoriating the Georgetown student, I was struck by how difficult it would be to provide any sort of accountability on Limbaugh for his invective hyperbole. Reading of corporate social responsibility swooping in to provide some check is impressive even if it raises the issue of how much influence the personal beliefs of an employer should have in the conduct of his or her job. I suppose what goes around comes around.

Even so, one hopes as Hegel did for some progression through human history, even if only in a progressively freeing-up of spirit. Lest this be thought to be a simple matter, it should be noted that the freedom of Limbaugh and the employers, including Friend and Georgetown, are also in the mix, as is that of the law students. If only freedom could be maximized for all of them at once; the best we can do otherwise is perhaps to see that harm is minimized. Yet even here, some would argue that there is harm in keeping a sperm from an egg and that such harm outweighs the freedom of people to use birth control. Such harm seems rather exaggerated because nothing existing is destroyed by forestalling a possibility, whereas the harm to Sandra Fluke from Limbaugh’s invective would have been minimized had it not been for corporate social responsibility. If only more businesses would invoke CSR apart from financial considerations.

1. “LimbaughAdvertiser: We Still Won’t Sponsor Rush Anymore,” The Huffington Post, March 3, 2012.