Inspired by recent industry discourse, I wanted to pose an ethical question for once. Are merchants unethical? Are all non-essential sales immoral? (essential being food, shelter, water). You are persuading consumers to spend their limited financial resources on something that is a "want" and not a "need." In this world, is the sale of /any/ product considered exploitation?

Let me know your thoughts, ATRL.

Edited February 18Feb 18 by PoisonedIvy

Consumers ultimately decide how they want to spend their money. No one is forcing them.

Edited February 18Feb 18 by Calvin

Just now, Calvin said:

Why just 2025? poisonedIvymania is going on since August 7, 2015 and it's not going to be over anytime soon.

Edit your post babe, we're doing a different topic now that I accidentally posted in Civics

I mean they get mad at Taylor for selling vinyls meanwhile they all spend money of Grindr and Zara

No, but your threads are

taylor's are

what she's doing is not what other artists did when they were selling albums

she's selling same product in 1000 variants to same people because she has brainwashed fanbase that cares only about charts, her sales and her money. It's so weird.

The way @ugo is right to be confused by you.

2 minutes ago, NoAngelus said:

taylor's are

what she's doing is not what other artists did when they were selling albums

she's selling same product in 1000 variants to same people because she has brainwashed fanbase that cares only about charts, her sales and her money. It's so weird.

My brain doesn't feel washed though, I didn't buy any of these Opalite products. Where exactly does this brainwashing occur? How and when do the classes take place? Also, this thread is not about Taylor Swift

Edited February 18Feb 18 by PoisonedIvy

Sales are unethical when faves faves are flops that can't even sell 100k albums with multiple variants, and it's ethical when my faves sells millions of albums.

Only when the artist I hate does it! Now when my fave does it it's totally fine and normal!

^{well yes where are the fellow members of A(nti-capitalist)TRL}

No. But stock piling them for weeks and then delaying the shipments of them to game the charts for a week using old sales to push a position of a song for a current week isn't exactly the peak of ethics

I mean, it's their job....

Edited February 18Feb 18 by Princess Aurora

6 minutes ago, bad guy said:

No. But stock piling them for weeks and then delaying the shipments of them to game the charts for a week using old sales to push a position of a song for a current week isn't exactly the peak of ethics

Babe keep up, she shipped them a week earlier than the delay. Taygenerous

Edited February 18Feb 18 by PoisonedIvy

Only a stan of a flop artist will think so

28 minutes ago, bad guy said:

No. But stock piling them for weeks and then delaying the shipments of them to game the charts for a week using old sales to push a position of a song for a current week isn't exactly the peak of ethics

sales are never counted til they're shipped. why would it be better to put together a chart strategy and then botch it by not doing it as well as possible? is it ethical when other artists put together a chart strategy that's less effective than it might be? what exactly is ever the point of the remixes, cds, vinyls etc?

i mean, i could care less whether opalite is #1 or whatever but the idea that if taylor swift tries to do something as well as possible - that literally every other pop girl would do if they could - then that's evil has a distinct OTH quality to it (obvs this isn't news but here we are)

They're unethical as long as the artist you hate does it

34 minutes ago, makeawish said:

what exactly is ever the point of the remixes, cds, vinyls etc?

To push a song up on the charts. Like I said it's one thing to do that during the tracking week where the sales will be counted for that week. It's another to acquire sales and sit on them for weeks until the charts are weaker to make them count for a week they weren't even purchased in

The music industry makes money of this type of gaming of the system regardless so it's not like they care but it's still not a real reflection of what people are actually listening to that week. Whether you think that's ethical is up to you.

Edited February 18Feb 18 by bad guy

I think you guys don't realised that while Taylor Swift fans truly cut across all demographics, she also has the largest teenage fanbase. She is this generation teenage popstars. You can argue that she is not forcing them to, but teens are easily exploited and influenced. Like all teenage popstars in history, teens will gladly go at lengths for their favourites, they are the type that will buy multiple copies of the same albums and singles. Taylor knows this and capitalises on it , and that's why what she is doing is highly unethical, greedy and exploitative. Very few if any over 25-year old will buy physical copies of a single that's already on streaming and part of the album.

Actually, according to the Pope all forms of commercial activity is a sin, so yes.

"In the whole world I believe there are no two sins more abominable than

those that prevail among the Florentines," commented Pope Gregory XI

in 1376. "The first is their usury and infidelity," he specified, alluding to

the moneylending activities of international merchant-bankers that had

made Florence one of the most prosperous and important cities in Europe.

not sales per se but exhorbitant prices and multiple variants are

Well, no consumption is ethical under capitalism and all that!

We're just not going to dissect how I actually genuinely believe that and the cognitive dissonance I display by also buying mounds of Taylor Swift products

Of course not.

7 hours ago, PoisonedIvy said:

Inspired by recent industry discourse, I wanted to pose an ethical question for once. Are merchants unethical? Are all non-essential sales immoral? (essential being food, shelter, water). You are persuading consumers to spend their limited financial resources on something that is a "want" and not a "need." In this world, is the sale of /any/ product considered exploitation?

Let me know your thoughts, ATRL.

Yes 💕. Hope this helps, leave me 5 stars on Yelp!