In case you missed it, Spotify just removed R Kelly's music from its playlists to kick off its new Hate Content & Hateful Conduct Policy. This is all part of their new marketing strat... Oops! — I mean response to rising levels of gender violence.
I find it a bit opportunistic for the streaming service to publicise its decision to "ban" the singer, in pursuit of the unmissable buzz that #MeToo has created around gender violence. It is actually pretty distasteful that they would choose to leverage a campaign rooted in the suffering of the very people they position as beneficiaries of this move.
Every major media outlet covered the news — you couldn't pay for that type of publicity, and that's what made me wary of their actual intentions. And — thank God — I was not the only one.
Since the announcement on Billboard, many social justice warriors have called them out online, questioning whether Chris Brown, Eminem and Red Hot Chili Peppers' music would also be removed in light of their histories of gender violence and current criminal charges.
The streaming service has yet to respond — and while they have committed to growing their list of sanctioned artists, they have yet to indicate who is set to feature (... or rather, cease to feature).
That Kelly was their first target with this policy didn't particularly impress me. As is, the child molester's career is on a decline; he had to cancel several shows last year because of poor ticket sales. With hardly anything to lose, Kelly was low-hanging fruit.
If you are genuinely trying to be an ally to the cause, the rules are simple: you shut up and stand at the back. And you do not make it about yourself.
Chances are that they didn't anticipate what this decision meant in the greater scheme of things; how quickly the profits gained from a bit of publicity after the announcement could be outweighed by the loss of sales by sanctioned artists.
What would the financial implication be of removing someone like Eminem from its playlist?
Here is an artist who remains one of the most profitable rappers of all time, who has literally killed his ex-wife in the music (several times!). Surely he violates this policy.
I don't see them removing Tupac's music either. His cult following may paint him as a saint, but the deceased rapper served jail time for sexual violence. Shouldn't they turn the volume down on his music too? In light of this policy?
I suppose it would be foolish to do that with all the hype the recent movie and TV show is creating. There's nothing like a TV special to get people nostalgic enough to download "Dear Mama" again for the umpteenth time; in fact, his greatest hits album charted again on the Billboard Top 40 after 10 whole years.
Such is the nature of the corporate machine, where profitability is all that matters — every decision is made by weighing up how much money will be lost against how much is gained.
Everyone knew about Kelly's inappropriate relationships with young girls; his penchant was never a secret — yet nobody cared enough to make an example of him when he had us all "stepping in the name of love". Because for as long as people continued to dance to his music at wedding receptions and at 3am in the club, he was untouchable.
The Kelly ban actually had the converse effect of what they were trying to achieve. The number of people streaming his music on the platform went up after the announcement.
After years of lobbying against him, women's rights groups have finally made it uncomfortable for anyone to listen to this sex predator's music in public (#MuteRKelly). People are out there questioning what listening to Kelly's music says about them and, generally, fold to the pressure. What value was Spotify hoping to add?
It wouldn't be the first corporate trying to capitalise on the social justice bandwagon. Just look at how Kauai jumped on to #StrawsSuck, even though it is practically impossible for you to drink out of their smoothie cup without one, because of the types of cups they use. But luckily for the world, the internet quickly intervenes.
The Kelly ban actually had the converse effect of what they were trying to achieve. The number of people streaming his music on the platformwent up after the announcement — something that would not have happened had they been bold enough to boot him off the streaming service completely.
Attempts by businesses to corrupt and highjack social justice campaigns are simply sickening. It's suddenly fashionable for them go "#MeToo" on every other hashtag that trends online. If you are genuinely trying to be an ally to the cause, the rules are simple: you shut up and stand at the back. And you do not make it about yourself.