Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

Don’t pay; endure

Collegian+file+photo
Collegian file photo

Collegian file photo

Collegian file photo

By Daniel Riley, Assistant Op-Ed Editor

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






When I need a confidence boost, I just remind myself that Spotify hasn’t coerced me into buying premium yet. Three consecutive O’Reilly Auto Parts commercials? Bring it on. You can’t break me.

I started using Spotify a few years ago, and never once have I considered wasting money on it. As I understand it, the difference between premium and standard is that I have to listen to the occasional advertisement, sometimes paid for by a company promoting their product and sometimes placed there by Spotify in order to convince me to pay for premium. When using my phone as opposed to using my laptop, I am forced to listen on shuffle rather than choose a specific song. However, Spotify on desktop does not have same shuffle limitation, which speaks to the arbitrary nature of those limitations.

My issue is the manner in which Spotify tries to frame purchasing premium in their advertisements. By telling listeners that they will remove the roadblocks for a small fee, they suggest that somehow the ads and forced-shuffle are my fault rather than arbitrary coercive measures to make using non-premium Spotify unpleasant.  Spotify does not need to withhold its full services, it simply chooses to for money. It is their commission, not my omission, which leads to the nuisance of ads and shuffle. I do not accept responsibility.

Further, the advertisements and limitations are just so annoying, and that is clearly by design. The advertisements are meant to be an uninvited interruption, playing at startlingly different volume levels than whatever music you where enjoying with content that is just brutally bothersome. If someone is trying to bully you into doing something, you cannot just give in even if giving in would mean moving to a better alternative. This is not a matter of cost-benefit analysis; I am not operating within the bounds of rationality. I am driven by a bottomless well of spite hidden in the deepest confines of my cold, dead heart.

I concede that premium is clearly the superior way to listen to music; of course I would like to listen to albums in order or listen to any song at any time uninterrupted. I don’t mean to suggest that Spotify should operate without a profit motive; I am certainly not deserving of a product I don’t pay for, nor am I owed free music. However, it is worth noting that Spotify is not owed money for the music either. They don’t create — they are just middlemen between artists and consumers, cashing in on those artists’ hard work by providing a convenient platform.

If Spotify had just played normal commercials instead of trying to guilt me into paying, then maybe I would have paid. But now, I won’t back down—not at this point. I’ve been fighting this war of attrition for too long to just give up. Having to suffer through some guy occasionally trying to sell me a tire is well worth the satisfaction of denying Spotify my money.

Daniel Riley is a Collegian columnist and can be reached at [email protected]

5 Comments

5 Responses to “Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak”

  1. HI DONNIE DON on April 18th, 2018 1:47 pm

    Is this satire?

    [Reply]

    John Reply:

    I sure hope so…

    Not only is he cheap to the artists, trying to make a living for themselves on the platform, he is also dirt cheap to himself.

    $10/month for unlimited music without commercials… come on, spoil yourself a little mate!

    [Reply]

  2. John aimo on April 18th, 2018 2:59 pm

    It’s sadly not satire, this is the high caliber writing from the collegian.

    You can just block the ad servers listening on the browser or download mp3s or use a modified apk if you want to listen without ads.

    The funny thing is Spotify is basically a rip off of a website that was called grooveshark, it offered the exact same thing but for free and before Spotify but it was free. It took Spotify years and while losing money to do the exact same thing.

    Another free option is to just rotate through all the different free trials, there are around 10 different mainstream music streaming options, all offer a free trial.

    Why give evil corporations your money when you can just take what they have to offer without paying for it?

    [Reply]

  3. Aidan on April 19th, 2018 1:05 am

    They still get their money’s worth by you listening to their ads.

    [Reply]

  4. RotisserieDInnerChickenPox on April 19th, 2018 11:45 am

    /r/frugaljerks

    [Reply]

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Navigate Right
Navigate Left
  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    Harvard Law professor examines changing nature of media in Smith lecture

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    Free Spanish-language performances to come to Amherst

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    UMass to start, continue various construction projects in the fall semester

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    UMass Forscher Reduzieren Population Invasiver Falter

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    Season’s toughest weekend approaches for UMass men’s soccer

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    UMass football seeking statement win against Charlotte

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    New talent in the backfield crucial for UMass field hockey during conference play

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    The downfall of late night at Berkshire Dining Commons

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    Handicap inaccessible

  • Point: Spotify Premium is for the weak

    Archives

    Eat, you’ll feel better