Taylor Swift’s official move to the pop genre and the subsequent release of fresh tunes on her new album 1989 haven’t been her only noticeable moves as of late—Swift recently decided to remove her music, new and old, from popular free music streaming site, Spotify, a decision that could be detrimental if she hopes to augment her earnings from her new music.

This choice disregards two key details: listeners who previously listened to her music for free are more likely to pursue alternative streaming options than pay for the album, and those who listened to her music casually won’t bother to listen to the album in the first place, decreasing the breadth of her music’s exposure. These undesirable consequences are counterproductive to Swift’s goal to create more profits.

The biggest consequence of taking her music off of Spotify is the multitude of options that listeners will fall back on rather than purchase the album. Popular music easily finds its way onto websites such as SoundCloud and YouTube, and despite their greatest efforts, Swift’s team cannot possibly take down all illicit copies of her songs found online.

Illegally downloading music is a more attractive option for some listeners than caving and buying the album; chances are, if they joined Spotify, they have gotten comfortable with free music and will prefer to pursue a free option rather than buy the album. These options, however unethical, provide even less money for Swift than Spotify did. Swift’s management may not have been pleased with the $500,000 they alleged to have received domestically, but the fact remains that Swift will earn more money from Spotify plays than from pirated plays.

According to The New Yorker, 1989 sold 1.3 million copies in the first week—but there was a 69% drop in sales between 1989’s first and second week, making it clear that Swift’s 71 million Facebook fans did not hop on the album-purchasing bandwagon when they realized they could not listen to it on Spotify.

This clearly illustrates the “casual listeners” demographic and their lack of interest in actually investing in Swift’s music; those who would have stumbled upon Swift’s music on the Spotify charts and listened to it just because they could, rather than because of a passion for Taylor Swift, will not suddenly be moved to spend money on her album.

Isabel Atkinson ’16 says that Spotify encourages listeners to check out new music because “they don’t have to pay for it upfront,” allowing artists to “gain recognition”—if consumers do not have this free music available to them, they just won’t listen to it, or will pursue a different streaming option, as mentioned earlier. This hurts Swift’s reach, as Spotify currently boasts 50 million subscribers (of which 12.5 million hold paying subscriptions).

Every play on Spotify generates revenue, however small, and the would-be revenue generated from listeners’ plays is lost. Regardless of Spotify’s profitability per play compared to iTunes, the money earned would surely exceed the grand total of zero dollars earned now that Spotify users don’t have the option of clicking on the song and listening to it.

Raghav Mathur ’15 comments, “The world of streaming music has only really gained traction in the past few years. It works for some better than it does for others.” Although the disadvantages of Swift’s move are inevitable, only time will tell whether Swift can “shake off” the adverse effects of removing her music from Spotify.