The Business of Feminism: Taylor Swift, Capitalism and big bucks
When capitalism and feminism wanted a team up, only one woman could do it.
Photo by Stephen Mease on Unsplash
“Oh god! He’s going after Taylor Swift! Quick! Kill him!!!”
Ok, I should start by saying, you can relax.
You don’t need to immediately pick up your pitch forks and torches. This isn’t really all about Taylor Swift.
Well, ok, it is about Taylor Swift and yes, I’m going to be critical. But really, I’m just using her as an example.
What I’m actually talking about is a much bigger thing.
That bigger thing being capitalism and how it captures and corrupts, particularly in music. But also art more widely.
But let's start off on music in general, the history of recorded music and my thoughts on it as these will frame some of my later opinions perhaps.
All the gear and no idea
I should start by saying, I “do” music.
I love it.
I’ve played guitar and keyboards since I was 16 years old - so well over 20 years. I’ve found that there are things you can say with a piece of music that you can never say with words or express in other ways.
And I don’t just mean lyrics.
The music also conveys things you cannot “explain” otherwise. I’m not a great musician – in fact for the amount of time I’ve done music, I’ve not progressed much at all. I don’t understand very much of the “science” (music theory) and my abilities are quite limited in the grand scheme of things.
However, I do it purely for my own enjoyment and my own expression. And so I have made my own music and I have also played with others. I have (and this is important), ZERO interest in doing music as a job.
It really is just an expression thing for me and an interest. But it’s something I feel quite passionate about regardless. And I suppose, quite protective of?
I know, I likely sound pretentious. But I think this is what music is and should be?
Expression.
And it should be as pure and authentic as possible. This means, it should be the artists own work and talent and it should be what they actually, REALLY think, feel and believe about something.
I also think that whilst it is “ok to like what you like”, I believe strongly that art CAN be judged subjectively.
There. I said it.
I know how many people don’t like this idea.
But I maintain, you CAN judge art, especially music, on the basis of technical brilliance, but also, perhaps more importantly, on authenticity?
You can ask, did the artist really MEAN what they were showing you?
Have they conveyed it well? Does it clearly, really matter to them? And are they telling us something meaningful about their experience? Is it REAL? Or did they make this just to make some quick money?
A lot of people don’t understand this or don’t agree with it. But I am adamant it’s the truth.
There's a reason Rembrandt has paintings still displayed in art galleries around the world and your 6 year old son Nathan doesn’t.
Rembrandt's technical skill at painting was highly developed and the paintings he made really meant something to him. Nathan on the other hand, just scribbles in circles in a vain attempt to impress his friends. Whilst there's no doubt a lot of passion, there isn’t much technical ability or meaning.
This is an extreme and somewhat silly example, yes, but it demonstrates my point?
We can say, subjectively (and regularly do), that one piece of art is better than another. It isn’t “just an opinion” – there is a layer of factual examination to it.
It doesn’t of course automatically mean you like one painting more than another. Or want to have it hung in your living room wall above a different piece. It’s perfectly fine to find Nathan’s scribble drawing more aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to YOU than Rembrandts “The Storm on the Sea of Galilee.”
But you can make the judgement on quality and authenticity. And furthermore, I believe you SHOULD make that judgement.
And so it’s exactly the same with music.
Whilst you might not like to listen to “Imagine” by John Lennon above another record, you should be able to still accept that it has more artistic merit (technical skill and authenticity) than a piece of throw away, built for a quick sale trash – like “Chacaron” by El Chombo for example.
Unfortunately though in music, people get things very twisted. This, for a large part, is thanks to the interference of capitalism.
When the people in suits met the people with guitars
Back in the 1950’s, in the earlier days of mass recorded music, a group of marketing suits realised that you could do far more than just sell someone a piece of vinyl with some recorded music on.
Or more accurately, you could make people view it as something more than just “something to listen to.”
The marketing people realised, the trick was to not just sell music, but also sell a social-demographic ideal to consumers.
In doing this they could make you more invested in what you were buying and that would likely make you, as a consumer, more loyal. It might also make you more inclined to buy more.
And so, the “music industry” was born and with it, capitalism began it’s slow and steady co-option and corruption of one of the most critical pieces of human artistic expression.
Since that moment, musicians no longer really needed to be musicians within the main stream music industry. It helped if they were of course!
But what mattered most was that they could be a good “product.” Something that people (mostly, but not limited to teens and pre-teens) could buy into.
They ideally needed to be photogenic or have an “image.” They needed to be good at interviews, or else have an “attitude” that fit the “idea” they were selling. They needed to be good “performers.”
The concept of the “pop star” arrived.
The music mattered less.
What was now being sold was product.
No longer was it a case of selling just a nice piece of music alone - but something that would appeal to your view of the world and be a badge/symbol of what you believed in and the ideals you lived for and who you were? Or how you wanted others to see you?
The music itself, usually needed to fit with this image, which had usually been developed for them by a marketing team. If the “artist” couldn’t do this themselves, reliably and regularly, a producer or co-writer would be drafted in behind the scenes to do so.
There were exceptions of course to this approach. But for the most part, with record labels paying for the production and distribution, the marketing people at said label got to heavily impact and influence what artists produced musically. They also heavily influenced what got played on the radio and what consumers got to hear, thus helping to shape consumers desires at the same time.
Gradually, the marketing experts made people think the “show” and “the product” was more important than the music itself (or at least AS important).
And by goodness, were they successful with it. It became culturally accepted in most of the world.
And as time went by, with better technology, it only got more prolific. The music video arriving in the 60’s (and then later really driven by MTV in the 80’s) was huge in pushing this even further.
People expected musical artists to “have vision” or “belief.”
The records you bought and the music you listened to, became part of your identity. Part of how you explained to other people who you were. It might even influence the clothes you wore, the way you talked and the people you spent time with.
Mods, Rockers, Punks and Emo kids all pay testament to this.
In the music video area, musicianship was less and less important and it became more and more about being a performer. Being good at dancing or performing but with little to no musical ability at all. Many could get through “live performances” by miming to a backing track.
Something that of course, still happens today.
With the move towards commercialisation and with a particular “artist” becoming a product and a demographic ideal, any notion or ability people had to judge music subjectively, became totally lost.
Instead, the value and merit of a piece of music would become judged by how much it sold.
“Chart shows” helped to encourage this also.
The concept of a chart gave us faux competitions whereby products compete with each other for “who is the best” – based solely on number of units sold.
Of course, if you made someone tie their personal identity to a particular product, they would have a vested interest in making sure theirs was the “winner” in any sort of competition? In such a scenario they might even be willing to buy TWO units of exactly the same thing, rather than the one they needed/originally wanted to prove their “choice” was the right one.
From the “music charts” concept, the cultural belief arose that, only “successful musicians” made “good music” – where “success” really meant, number of units sold.
If a “performer” had a number 1 record, they were “good”
“Must be good! It got to number 1” people would say.
“You criticise him but hes sold over 600,000 albums!” someone else might say.
“Must be doing something right! Look at how many records shes sold” you’d hear.
Money, money, money, money. All about the money and not about the art.
And by the time we arrived at the mid 2000’s, this was the scene.
Music didn’t have to be judged as authentic. Any given average person would consider a piece of music “good” if it sold a lot and if the music (or more likely the artist) represented opinions/values and an image they aspired to or wanted to be attached too.
Oh and if they were “a good dancer” , that was important too in many cases (which always confused me, dance and music were two related but actually very different disciplines in art? Being good at one was not necessary to the other?)
Like it or not then, capitalism totally and utterly succeeded in changing the entire way your average person in the street, not just bought and listened to music but also how they viewed their attitudes, beliefs and judgement around it – within the space of less than 100 years.
“Ladies always rise above”
And so we arrive at 2024 and at the door step of Taylor Swift.
I should say, I know absolutely nothing about Taylor Swift personally. NOTHING.
I therefore cannot attack her personally. For all I know, she is a nice person, a good friend/mother/wife/girlfriend and pillar of the community.
What I do know of her though is from the music I hear, the news articles I read and the comments from my girlfriend who is, by all accounts, a fan.
The point is, I have no personal feelings towards Taylor Swift whatsoever because I know nothing about her.
I have done some reading up/research on her back catalog as part of writing this article – but again, my approach here is entirely professional, not personal.
Having done that though, I believe, Taylor Swift is, the pinnacle of the capitalist game with music and its “crowing glory” when it comes to making a music product link up with a socio-economic idea.
Swift is a musician. She can play guitar (well in my opinion) and she does write, at least partly, her own art. The use of “co-writers” is heavy at times and it’s not always clear what is hers and what is someone elses input.
But as above, this is somewhat standard in the music industry and she is not exceptional compared to the other “products” out there in this regard.
It simply means the men in suits can get a clean “product fit” and something the “market” really wants (in other words, what they’ve programmed people to expect) rather than, just what she wanted to say.
But Swift is also very much a performer, as well, as per the standard industry mould. The dancing, fancy outfits and smoke machines are all present and correct as we’d expect. And she has also been repackaged, multiple times by the industry to try and “rework” her product and reach different audiences.
Starting with the country and western audience in 2004, via pre-teen country pop in 2010 and then later teen/adult pop from 2014 onwards - she has been “reinvented” by the industry in order to try and reach bigger and better (read, more lucrative) markets.
And from a bottom line/music industry perspective, she’s been successful at this.
Amassing herself a net-worth of, $1.6 billion (according to Forbes) as of October 2024.
If this figure is anywhere near accurate, you can imagine the amount of money she has generated for record labels and their executives along the way. It must be an astonishing amount most of us mere mortals cannot imagine.
What is most interesting to me about Taylor Swift however, is the way critical social politics, specifically feminism, has become part of her product too.
As I said above, predatory capitalism has a great way of dealing with anything which threatens it or which it thinks it can “use” in order to benefit from (as in the case of Swift).
It co-opts. It metastasizes. It becomes “part of.”
We saw this in the 1980’s when there was fear that tuna fishing was killing dolphins.
Marketeers saw this was just an opportunity to launch a new product line - “dolphin friendly tuna.”
They charged more for it. So the cost of catching with a line rather than a net was covered by the consumer (and they probably got a bit more of a markup too). After all, they aren’t going to lose money. If you want a product feature, you are going to pay for it?
And in doing this, they also got to associate themselves with something the consumer really cared about. Buying dolphin friendly tuna was purely, buying a socio-economic idea. There was zero difference in terms of flavour, nutritional value or anything else.
But it gave people what they wanted and simultaneously, the brand were seen to “care.” That was worth marketing budget to achieve anyway.
And so it was a similar sort of story with feminism and the music industry.
A non-choice feminist could well ask the question - “why do you need to put this woman on stage in short dresses and high heels to sell her music?” - but non-choice/sex work critical feminism has not really posed a huge threat to the music industry so far. And the pro-choice feminists always seem stronger in that debate anyway.
Feminism does however present an opportunity in sales. A MASSIVE one.
Taylor Swift isn’t the first “product” of course to use ideas of “womens rights” as a selling point.
If you want to go back far enough, arguably, Nancy Sinatra in 1966 may have been the first “product” to attempt it with her walkin’ boots? :-
You keep playin' where you shouldn't be playin'
And you keep thinkin' that you'll never get burnt (ha)
I just found me a brand new box of matches, yeah
And what he knows you ain't had time to learn
These boots are made for walkin'
And that's just what they'll do
One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over youMore recently, The Spice Girls tried something similar, at least proving the market viability in a more recent setting.
Take it from us (It's girl power!)
Take it from us (It's the power of 5!)
It's the power of 5!Whilst not the first then, the music industry, I believe, has absolutely perfected the confection of feminism with a music product (as a socio-economic idea) in the form of Taylor Swift.
They read the room in terms of the political undercurrent in the late 2000’s perfectly.
The rise of far left and critical social, post modernist inspired beliefs among younger people were the latest “thing” and something they wanted to associate their products with.
Again, remember, they aren’t just selling music now, they are selling a socio-economic idea? A product. A package. One which must appeal to a consumer segment of a market. If you can get a product to match up with a trend or a “want” at just the right time, you’ll make bank.
And so just like when youngsters wanted romances with nice clean boys in sharp suits (The Beatles) or loud, noisy and agitated anarchists (The Sex Pistols) so too by 2012, the market wanted the “normal” young girl who struggles against the patriarchy.
And the Taylor Swift product was the thing to give it to them.
Carefully constructing a back catalog, which tackled feminist talking points specifically (“I’d get there quicker if I was a man”) and heavy on the themes of breakups, difficult relationships and revenge (arguably, at least 63 songs deal with these topics in her output) - her product has perhaps owned the angry, wronged feminist woman position perfectly. I would argue nobody since Alanis Morrisette perhaps has done it better?
And as we know, it’s a tiny hop, skip and jump from the “I had a bad relationship” experience to the ideologies of patriarchy and “all men are scum” feminism.
Boys only want love if its torture. Don’t say I didn’t warn ya…
The pipeline from “woman having an unhappy break up” to “attending a feminist lecture” is definitely a thing (as much as it is for men and things like MGTOW to be fair) and so the connection between Swifts endless songs about breakups and relationships and feminism/womens rights was perfect.
And younger (18-44) , mostly white, women rushed to her product and spent their money on whatever they could get.
The best thing though, from a marketing perspective, about this team-up between modern feminism and capitalism, is that the same ideology used to promote the sale of the product could be used to shield it from criticism.
Where as other artists, run the gambit of the normal criticisms artists suffer, Swift now had a shield. Because she wasn’t just another other artist, trying to sell you a record? She was a political symbol, “flying the flag” for womens rights?
Culture doesn’t chart exactly when the “if you don’t like Taylor Swift you are sexist” moment occurred, but most commentators seem to position it around 2017 and an article by Michelle Ruiz in Vogue :-
The most cynical out there, say this article was part written or funded by marketing execs at Universal. I have no evidence for that, it is merely a conspiracy theory.
However, what I do have evidence for is the fact that this idea took off. And pretty soon, any form of criticism of any sort against Taylor Swift was being quickly defended by a counter claim of sexism.
The internet and media were and still are, full of it.
Some of it, totally wild and dipped in misandry :-
She then picked up on this herself in songs like “The Man” in 2019.
The circle was complete by 2024.
And the marketing guys in suits were absolutely delighted.
Not only did their product have a “hook” that attached to a very current trend (which would drive sales), that trend was also seen as incredibly positive (who wouldn’t want to support women’s rights?!) and was also a tool to defend the product from any and all criticism :-
Listened to a Taylor Swift record but didn’t think it was that well made? - you are just angry that a female artist has done so well.
Went to a Taylor Swift concert and thought the sound quality was poor or the tickets too expensive? - you just hate all women.
Watched a live performance and noticed she was lip syncing and not singing live? - you are just sad your “power” is going away.
Bought a Taylor Swift t-shirt and the fit wasn’t so good? - INCEL!
Writing a blog post about how she is merely a “product” of the record industry and is using modern feminism as a tool to sell more records? - ….well, you’ll have to tell me what correct insult is for this one.
I’ve spoken to at least two men in the last 6 years, who are too afraid to pass any form of negative remark about Taylor Swift publicly, no matter what it is, purely for fear of being labelled a misogynist or woman hater.
It is literally like criticising the Quran or the Israeli government?
Incredibly risky that no matter what your intent, your opinion will be dismissed instantly with a claim of bias against the group (women in this case) and your character smeared as a result.
One man told a first date he was on that he didn’t like Taylor Swift and found her music “sappy.” He was told by text message this was a “red flag” and didn’t get a second date.
Another man I used to work with, two jobs ago, actively pretended to like her music. He had only bought one of her albums but told me (in a quiet voice in the corner of the office) he listens to it in the car and sings along, not because he really likes it (“its, alright” was his glowing report) but because, and I quote - “I want to be an ally.”
I cannot think of ANY other artist, from any other genre who inspires the same behavior?
“We see you over there on the internet comparing all the girls who are killing it”
The absolute check-mate move for Swifts socio-economic marketing linkage to feminism however, came in 2019.
And quite frankly, it was a genius piece of work that I was staggered to hear about.
Like most artists, the copyright of the album and master recording ownership for most of Swifts albums (at least the first six) sat with her record label. She did retain the copyright for the lyrics and music however - which was a smart move and would prove to be key later.
However, she did not own the albums themselves, nor their master recordings.
I should say, I for one, don’t like the way the record industry does this. I don’t think it’s fair artists should sign away copyright or master recordings.
However, it is very common and Swift did the deal knowing this was the case.
She recorded and distributed six albums off the back of the deal, paving the way for much of her success - and making a tidy sum of money from them in the process (as did her father, who owned 6% of the record company).
Like any piece of property though, if the owner decides to sell, they can. And the original creator doesn’t get any say in when, how or who is involved.
The master recordings and copyright were later sold to a man Taylor Swift didn’t like. One whom she made claims of bullying against , in an online back-and-forth drama session, which other celebrities joined in with.
All good marketing of course.
In response, she went on to re-record four of the albums (so far), releasing them again with minor tweaks.
With the linkage with feminism - this was, what in Chess would be called a “brilliant move.”
Where as for any normal artist, re-recording and selling the same 4 albums again would be looked at as a cynical and negative money grab no matter the situation, when Swift did it, it was instead simply perceived as a strident blow for feminism.
It was not a ploy just to make more money off of the same products. It was a “strong independent girl boss, standing up for her rights against a bullying, white cishet male and symbol of the patriarchy.”
It was to be celebrated and supported. Amazing. Empowering. Inspiring. Go girlfriend!
It also gave a sense of activism to those young twitter feminist followers, who could also strike a blow against the patriarchy by streaming “taylors version” to show support rather than the originals. “Clicktavism” like this of course, very much the plat-du-jour.
And most importantly, it also had an economic happy side effect.
People bought the “new” albums in their millions. Many of them “repurchases” or people buying two of the product units rather than one basically.
There were also many more people who were curious given the “noise” and bought to hear what the fuss was about who wouldn’t have bothered previously.
Either way, by god, the paper rained down on Republic Records - a division of Universal.
Universal acted as the distributing agent for the albums the first time they were sold and were now, the parent company for the re-issuance.
So from a marketing and finance perspective - which is really the ONLY true important matter to people in the pop music industry - Swift and Universal, were able to double (if not more) their profits from the same 4 products. Winner winner chicken dinner!
These records were reissues with minor tweaks, so no new writing time. The re-recording cost was insignificant compared to what was made in sales, with each achieving gold or platinum status in the US and achieving top ten status in multiple countries globally.
I invite you for a second to imagine any other business, repackaging the exact same four products they sold you ten years ago, with just one or two, tiny adjustments and selling them to you again at the same price?
Your garden shed for example? You already had one, good for life - but heres another, now you have two identical ones in your back yard.
And you bought the duplicate shed, not just willingly, but thinking you were somehow doing a social good? Can you imagine?
You have to admit, it is quite the marketing heist. It duped millions out of their money.
And I feel like my castle's crumbling down
The most distasteful thing to me about Taylor Swift as a product perhaps though, is not the duplication of albums for cash.
It is simply the notion that she is in some way “sticking it to the man” and “fighting back against patriarchy” in her work.
Those who believe this, I think have been fooled and tricked and are, perhaps, dangerously naive.
In reality, if we lift away the red carpets, fancy dresses and mythology, all Swift really is, is a product.
A pawn. A sales unit for a capitalist endeavor.
If I were to appeal to feminism myself for a second, I’d ask you, is capitalism itself not just a product, or at least, purveyor of patriarchy? Are the senior management at Universal not 89% men?
I cannot understand why people cannot see this.
If you can’t see through the smoke screen and mirrors by looking at the sales figures or the change of genres - surely to goodness being lectured to about privilege, by a woman from the comfort of a private jet, who has a staggering net worth, must be a red flag?
Tell me something awful. Like you are a poet trapped inside the body of a finance guy
Ok. I’ve had a real rant at Taylor Swift here. But as I said at the start, it isn’t really personal.
None of this means she is a bad musician or a bad person.
I should also add, I have no doubt at all that she has faced unfair criticism in her life and that she has experienced sexism.
All she (and her marketing teams) have done is follow the game - and been REALLY good at it.
Again, it’s not Swift, herself, personally, I have an issue with. I can disassociate Swift the person, from Swift the product.
It’s more “the game” that has allowed for the way things have been done that I take issue with.
Capitalism like this, I don’t think is healthy. It’s cynical. It’s corrupting. It’s hypocritical and two faced. And I certainly don’t think it belongs anywhere near art.
Art is art.
Post modern ideologies are post modern ideologies.
And capitalism is best saved for producing fridges and washing machines.
I think many of us could do with waking up and realising exactly what we’ve got and what we are looking at when it comes to music.
If we cannot do this, music will forever be a piece of plastic with a label on. Judged purely by how much a teenager is prepared to pay for it - and not the art it is intended to be.
https://www.vulture.com/article/taylor-swift-breakup-songs-ranked.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50763774
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/25-taylor-swift-lyrics-celebrate-035745802.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEW9eNp2BmitLYpUf-0m8uLc-FkpwmlSTUgA-5tgzyYngWJYhdkn4wIHxUTCU-8DBHmtYblGM4qfEMgUrKe_t88K1zZ9FZPj8wLyvEfXQ_-2LA-zGZ6EtrVEi5jsbJAz060jcVjKugE0ttZsKWlq1JtAOFh46s4ug3KXXXAW7w6L
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1416130/share-of-us-respondents-who-consider-themselves-taylor-swift-fans-age/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20results%20of,or%20older%20stated%20the%20same.
https://business.yougov.com/content/48989-7-data-driven-insights-on-taylor-swifts-british-fan-base
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swifties
https://jwa.org/blog/risingvoices/taylor-swifts-feminism-death-thousand-cuts#:~:text=Swift%20first%20declared%20herself%20a,an%20activist%20and%20feminist%20since.