A few weeks ago, over Twitter, I had a slightly tempestuous series of exchanges with the music streaming company Spotify. Its services, which can be accessed by either paying directly or agreeing to listen to advertisements intermittently between songs, are available for both computers and phones.
The experience of the computer software is not drastically different between the ad sponsored version and the paid version, meaning having to listen to advertisements tends to be an acceptable alternative to coughing up however much it costs to listen to music uninterrupted. When it comes to the phone app, though, it’s a wholly different story. As a means to incentivize moving to the paid version of their services, Spotify has designed their app so as to create an extremely unpleasant and frustrating experience. One doesn’t have the option of choosing individual songs but rather has to listen to songs in a random order.
Moreover, it will indiscriminately throw in songs that weren’t among those the user chose to listen to. Spotify ostensibly does this under the guise of helping users discover new music (in the same vein as Pandora). However, when I first used the app it immediately struck me as a blatant attempt to annoy users and prod them into upgrading to the premium, paid service.
Angered by the inadequacy of their app, I took to Twitter and remarked, “Hey @Spotify, maybe making your app so shitty and limited that I’ll never upgrade to premium is itself a shitty, limited business model.” In an act of obliviousness Spotify replied, “Hi there, please let us know what the issue is and we’ll do our best to assist you!” To this I promptly responded, “The issues are implicit in the app. It’s intentionally limited to incentivize upgrading. It’s like a belligerent Pandora.”
It was clear to me that Spotify was in no position to remedy my situation because they had intentionally designed their app to elicit a negative response from me, in the hope that my frustration would cause me to upgrade. I can’t necessarily fault Spotify for acting on its obligation to generate a profit. As annoying as it is, companies like Spotify exist to make money, not to deliver services out of some devotion to charity.
The fundamental issue at work here, and the reason I mention my experiences with Spotify at all, is the way capitalism legitimizes treating people disrespectfully. This is not a diatribe against the philosphy in general, because the concept is far too large and complex to be dismissed outright solely by some of its uglier aspects. However, because capitalism implicitly entails the maximization of profit, capitalists are primed from the outset to view people not for their humanity but for their potential to generate revenue.
That’s not to say that companies and corporations will invariably treat customers poorly, but the fact remains that within capitalism there’s no explicit incentive to see people for more than their economic potential. This configuration breeds situations like the one I found myself in on Twitter. The nature of capitalism means that Spotify is arguably right in making its app as shitty as it is, but at the end of the day a shitty app makes for unhappy people.
Advertisements will never tell you that you don’t need to buy the services being advertised. Shareholders don’t hold meetings to recommend giving out their companies’ products for free. Corporations undoubtedly need to make money, and societies need robust economic activity to flourish.
It’s delusional to suggest that capitalism has not produced a great deal of economic advancement and progress in the U.S., however skewed and unequal. At the heart of this situation, though, is the tension between the very real need to foster economic activity in a society and the basic expectation that people won’t treat others poorly.
If we accept that capitalism in the U.S. is here to stay, it’s worth having a discussion about how the system valorizes profit maximization at the expense of granting people a modicum of dignity. If corporations could make a profit while simultaneously providing for the well-being, financial security, health and happiness of its customers, there wouldn’t be the need for charities and nonprofits as exists currently.
I don’t profess to know how to most effectively compensate for the shortcomings of capitalism. At the very least, however, I urge that we temper our embrace of it with an understanding that, despite the legitimate need to foster growth, there exists a more fundamental obligation to treat others kindly and respectfully. Just think of how many tedious Twitter feuds could have been avoided if corporations took this to heart.
Does this business model serve as an example of the flaws within our capitalist economic structure? What do you believe is a better economic system for the United States to adopt in order to help improve our overall quality of life for all U.S. citizens? Would you be willing to pay more in order for companies to help improve the common good? How do you think that Spotify could improve their service? Tell us how you feel about Spotify and capitalism as a whole and please send all of your feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
