Did Kanye West delete his Tidal tweets in the wake of Tidal’s massive failure?

Jay-Z and many of his rich, famous friends launched Tidal, a music streaming service, in late March. They did a big launch party/announcement which Gawker described as “bonkers,” in which some of the richest musical artists in the world stood together and asked for even more money from their fans. The thing is, I’m pretty sure Tidal might have worked out long-term if the app worked like it was supposed to and they actually had exclusive content. But that didn’t happen. Less than a month after the big launch, Tidal has “fallen out of the Top 750 on the Apple App Store.” Music sites are already writing obituaries for this rare financial fail from Jay-Z. So is it significant that Kanye West – arguably one of Jay’s closest business associates and friends – is acting like a rat jumping from a sinking ship?

Jay Z’s streaming service Tidal isn’t doing so well. It already bricked on the Apple app store, and it appears that the service has lost the social support of one of its biggest supporters yet: Kanye West has deleted his tweets about the company. Ye, who appears in the multiple commercials for the service and stood on stage next to Jay during the weird press conference, has erased any mention of the company on his Twitter feed. Not only that, but he changed his profile picture back from the Tidal logo to the George Condo, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy picture.

[From Complex]

So much for innovation, eh? It does sound like Kanye is done. And it sounds like Jay-Z won’t even be able to unload Tidal for a tidy profit. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure Jay will sell it, but he won’t ever get back the $56 million he put into it.

This is Kanye’s deleted tweet:

yeezus tweet

wenn22408550

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

96 Responses to “Did Kanye West delete his Tidal tweets in the wake of Tidal’s massive failure?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. kri says:

    Super fail. And I wonder how Jay will feel about The Greatest Artist Of All Time jumping off the ship. Thank god Kanye has his wife-she can keep him afloat for years-all that buoyancy…

    • Mylene - Montreal says:

      The illuminati have a major blackout !

    • word says:

      Kanye thinks he can just erase his failures. What’s he going to do when his marriage to Kim fails? Doesn’t Kanye know once you tweet something, it’s on the web forever? This must have been such a huge blow to his ego. How dare something he put his name on not be super successful? How dare us peasants not flock to his revolutionary creations? How dare we ?!

    • alicegrey12 says:

      Oh well easy come easy go. Tidal was a big loss to begin with.

    • fhadddw says:

      Epic fail, you r a cist, no-talent do uche.

  2. Kiddo says:

    The launch was ridiculous. They paraded out the wealthiest, most well known artists, and tried to frame the venture as some struggling artist organization looking to buoy the underdog. They should have just called it Money, Greed, Control, FFS.

    • Snazzy says:

      Yup, I think it had the opposite effect of what they intended – probably made people just see them as greedy and self centered vs supporting music and lesser known artists. It certainly had that effect on me

    • The Other Pinky says:

      Really Kiddo (and others), “greed”? Surely if I make something, I am entitled to cut out those who show up merely to profit from it. Surely I am entitled to maximize profit from my work even though I may be wealthy. Shall you also expect my very loaded uncle who made his fortune manufacturing bathroom fixtures to stand by while some dude dishes out his faucets? Why SHOULDNT my uncle set up an outlet to sell his own work?

      • veronica says:

        Of course, set up a shop that you can sell your wares without having a middleman but when your service costs twice as much as the leading, established product, you can’t expect it to go over well with the masses. Tidal cost $10 a month, the same as Spotify, but charged $20 for a “better quality audio” and had no free, ad based, service. Why are people going to ditch Spotify for something that already works and doesn’t look as stupid and idiotic as that Tidal launch?

      • Kiddo says:

        The Other Pinky, yes greed. Don’t play like you’re struggling because you are put upon by the man, when you are the man. It was the struggling artist angle that was highly offensive and disingenuous. Especially when you are trying to sell it to people who are part of the 99% and you want them to shell out more for your wares. It’s like Exxon Mobile crying that they are misunderstood and that the guy at the gas station makes change on the product.

        AT least be intellectually honest, and sell it as a lux brand of big names, somewhere along the lines of Goop.

      • Zee says:

        Artists are absolutely entitled to a fair cut of profits for the music they create. And while I feel you on your outrage (I lose my cool when people pronounce they will never pay for music again), this event absolutely invoked a sense of greed. They trotted out people worth millions of dollars to talk about making more money. They should have used up and coming artists or independent musicians. Or heck, any of the thousands of people who work in studios as sound engineers, record musicians, songwriters, etc who are the real people getting screwed with low pay from streaming services.

        *deep breath* I love music…

      • The Other Pinky says:

        Kiddo (continuing to direct this at you because you often have very sensible logic driven posts) and others

        What’s “the man” got to do with this? If I make something, I have every right to cut out the middle men who are eating into my profit. Middle men who have over the decade been instrumental in cutting down my profits, btw. Why should it matter that I am already wealthy? Why should I have to share my creativity in a way that makes middlemen wealthy and sometimes allows consumers free access to my work?

        I love that Jay did this. Not just because it directly challenges the “thug” impression that a lot of people still hold for artists of a certain hue but because artists need to find new creative ways to own their work. It’s a great idea that just needs some tweeking.

      • Kiddo says:

        The Other Pinky, I answered that in my first post. Don’t lie about your motivation through promotion, especially if it is abundantly transparent. They acted like they were freeing the downtrodden. It was beyond ridiculous. I watched a program, a while back on PBS. Before David Geffen really hit the big time, he actually brought really talented, unknown artists, attention. He took the chance/risk there, since money wasn’t a guarantee. No one knew the artists. He was giving them space for their voice.

        This group of artists already hit big time, and to play this out like they were being ‘held down’, not able to get their voice out, was beyond absurd, especially to whom they were marketing, people who have NOTHING compared to them.

        Again, if he rolled it out that they were doing this for a higher quality/lux brand sound, it wouldn’t have come across so insanely tone deaf, trying to pull a fast one on consumers. Marketing mostly plays to emotional buttons and not logic. People don’t ‘need’ most of the products they are being sold, but marketers attempt to appeal to the want and turn it into need on an emotional level.. So ads and strategies are geared toward: relieving (sometimes manufactured) pain, solving a problem, fixing what is inequitable, getting a bargain, appealing to that which is exclusive and makes one feel ‘special’, etc.

        They used the absolutely stupidest strategy, because they are not in sync with the consumer whose emotional buttons they attempted to push. No one is falling for those poor poor artists, for crissakes. So pulling the wool with a con as to the emotional button only pisses people off. What if BP was looking for sympathy after polluting the gulf? DO you think that angle would be successful?

      • MsMercury says:

        @The Other Pinky

        The labels are the ones taking a huge cut from streaming. If Jay and Taylor Swift are so upset they need to go to their label and get a better deal.

      • The Other Pinky says:

        So your problem is the manner it was marketed? That I can live with. If it’s just gripe over wealthy people refusing to roll over so that others can become wealthy based on their work, then NOPE. Equally, if it’s anger over a creative refusing to give his work away (work that is by no means meets a basic need in anybody’s life) to consumers under terms that defeat business logic, then NOPE.

        Music is a luxury, if the people who make it want to profit off of their work and that puts it out of my budget, I don’t bitch about it, I find other things to do with my time or try to do better in life so I can afford the commodity on sale.

      • Kiddo says:

        Okay, but these artists were hardly ‘giving music away’. Like someone said above, start your own record label if your cut is unfair. And to them, stop with all the messianic sacrifice narrative, especially when you are enormously wealthy. If it’s too hard on you, the performing, the stage act, the interviews, etc, then quit. You know what I mean? The benefits must outweigh these sacrifices for you to carry on, you ain’t saving my soul from sin. Invest the money and never work another sacrificial day in your life. It’s not like they are on a tour, caring for Ebola victims, in dead heat, without pay, in the peace corps or something. We will bravely attempt to carry on without them, whether the music is great or not. Come on down off of the cross, we could use the wood. The end.

      • Dani2 says:

        @Pink Sorry to pile on you but they were hardly giving music away lol? Jay z and Beyonce alone have a combined net worth of $1 billion, your argument would be great for a lesser known/less successful artist but the people that partnered with Tidal are some of the most successful artists in history. And I am still able to listen to Jay Z, Rihanna, Beyonce, Nicki Minaj, Alicia Keys, and Madonna on spotify so they didn’t exactly follow through on the whole artistic liberation movement they promised. Tidal is a failure from pretty much every angle. *shrugs*

      • MCraw says:

        Hey Pinky. Yeah, the only REAL criticism of the service is that the rollout was a PR disaster. You can’t market Tidal as the liberator of the poor musician being screwed by the record companies and then trot out self-righteous multi-millionaires getting their due for their ahrrt and signing some mysterious pledge. At the end of the day, they signed contracts w those middle men and *continue* to sign those contracts because they benefit from it. They are trying to cut out the middle man AND charge more than the next service to their fans simply because of their celebrity. They are taking their fans for granted. The hubris of this rollout is astounding. That said, if they all stick to their guns, I can see it succeeding. I mean, it hasn’t been a month. If they change the marketing, I could see it rising. But the egos cannot weather the storm of failure, thus Kanye and this story lol.

      • anon33 says:

        So far off the mark here with these comments. Literally EVERYONE I spoke to about this-all music lovers-were turned off and grossed out, consistent with what Kiddo is saying. And I’m sorry but I could care less about these a88holes getting richer or their entitlment to their own $$ or whatever argument it is that you’re making.

      • Leigh says:

        The Other Pinky, no one’s saying they aren’t entitled to set up a service like Tidal. They just aren’t entitled to our business, and it appears we decided not to give it to them.

      • Bobbiesue says:

        Music is a luxury?? Now you’ve lost me. Tell that to Woody Guthrie or Robert Johnson. You can catch more authentic, less auto-tuned musicians/acts for free at small clubs, restaurants, fairs, flea markets and venues all over the United States. I don’t listen to any of these peoples music. And if I love Maroon 5′s new album I can go buy it at Target for 12.49 and listen to it over and over again for the next 40 years. Luxury?? I’m willing to pay for the music I like not be steam-rolled by ego-tastical multi-millionaires.

    • QQ says:

      oh and that revolutionary, civil rights struggle Language while lining up in the most ridiculously expensive ass outfits ??? Bwahahha beyonce actually Invoked Selma Bwahahahahha

      • Amy says:

        Thank you, because those outfits are what I remember till this day. Had everyone lined up looking strange like they were all going to a different party after the announcement.

    • Mylene - Montreal says:

      i think people feel frustrate to see all this $$$$ person want to selll u that …. it was a bad marketing move

    • Dani2 says:

      I mean, the combined worth of the tidal partners on the stage that day was around 2.8 billion. The greed was so obvious.

      • Mylene - Montreal says:

        Exact Dani2 .. when i see the promo i was like : No way i will give them more money ! So a lot of people react the same way !

  3. MCraw says:

    NO shame in his game. Lmao. Is this revenge for being a wedding no-show?

    The hubris of Jay and all these ppl and their “art”, thinking by sheer star power they can dupe their fans. No one knowingly gets gutted for all their pennies. So fans wanted no parts.

    • Kiddo says:

      Yeah, they forgot the first rule of marketing, and that’s, “how does it benefit the consumer?”.
      They rolled out all the reasons why it would benefit them, but they were benefiting very well before this. It just demonstrated how out of touch they are.

  4. Talie says:

    See what greed does? Taylor Swift was smart to avoid posing at that announcement, ditto Bruno Mars, Katy Perry, etc…

    • Susan says:

      I thought it was ‘unusual’ Taylor did not sign on. There were photos with Kanye and Taylor prior to the Tidal wave announcement. Goes to show she’s a thoughtful businesswoman not signing.

    • AcidRock says:

      I don’t understand what this was supposed to be about – Taylor already made headlines for yanking her music from Spotify but I can still find many of these other Tidal artists’ complete albums on Spotify. Where was the exclusivity factor? And if Tidal goes down, does this mean Taylor simply won’t be on any streaming services?

      • MCraw says:

        Yes. But Taylor was already against streaming her music. She saw no benefit in it and pulled out the first chance she had. She signed onto tidal simply because she would directly benefit from it. But, she was smart to not be part of that dog and poodle show lol

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        Off topic, sort of, dog and pony show is the idiom, dog and poodle show would be redundant.

  5. Jayna says:

    I defended this venture, which I still don’t have a problem with them all investing. But I did go back and re-watch the way they rolled this out with that stage filled with rich, full of themselves performers on the stage together, and it smacked of massive narcissism and was so out of touch with their message. Nothing jibed in the visuals of this group so self-important in contrast with their message about art and the little man.

    I stand corrected on my original stance, and now agree with the majority of CB posters, on their HUGE self-congratulatory, self-important “artists” announcement. LOL. And the way they rolled it out is what caused backlash and is a big reason for this doing so poorly.

    Totally out of touch for many on that stage considered marketing extraordinaires in the music businessand/or their music careers in staying on top.

    • Kiddo says:

      They thought they could skip all the steps of developing the brand by using big name power. If they had rolled it out slowly, releasing fantastically talented artists who had never been heard of, people wouldn’t mind that they made money by pulling others up the ladder, and for their listening pleasure. But this roll-out was beyond messianic in tone. They deserve more money because they are gods, sacrificing a stage performance and rolling in the dough and no one should stand in the way of them making more cold cash.

    • MaiGirl says:

      Exactly! I was interested when it seemed like it would help new artists break in, but when Joe Camel and Gollum Arms stood in the lineup-of-leisure declaring a revolution, I was totally grossed out. I would pay more for a product that was worth it, but everything about this venture poorly-conceived.

  6. Abbott says:

    Has anyone seen the parody video ‘Tidal: End the Suffering?’

    ‘Jazy-Z can only afford one shower of money a day’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kEsJqtiU-2A

  7. monayandmonet89 says:

    huh, i don’t know…i just went on his twitter and he tweeted something 7 hours ago about tidal so maybe they’re going the route of relentless optimism?

    • Jayna says:

      He invested in it and I’m sure it was no small amount, so there’s no way he is running for the hills in the beginning of this venture. He doesn’t want to lose all of his money he invested. I think going low-key is the best thing for these celebs right now on it.

  8. maeliz says:

    $56 million is pocket change to Jay-Z. This Tidal wave of failure was a ridiculous time when the rich were getting really greedy. I’ll stick to cd’s

    • qwerty says:

      If he has 500 mln that’s 10% of his fortune. It’s a lot of money to all of them, except of the likes of Oprah or Bill Gates (obviously), in other words, billionaires. But Jay…10 more bad decisions like that and goodbye money showers :P

  9. grabbyhands says:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

    This has to have been one of the most poorly thought out launches of a product ever. Parading out a bunch of multi-millionaires to whine about how justified they are in charging twice as much a month than the next biggest streaming service, and then getting into Twitter whine wars with anyone who questions it is a disastrous way to promote. Either they all have the worst business advisers ever, or they have reached the level of fame where their heads are so far up their own asses that they refuse to see sense.

    All they’ve really done is reveal how completely out of touch they are with reality they are-that they didn’t see they the exclusive content making itself available elsewhere online as soon as it appeared on the site is ridiculous.

    • TX says:

      Its the head up the ass thing, I suspect lol

      • me says:

        Yeah these rich and famous effers think they can do no wrong. They truly believe they can keep making lots of money by putting out crap products us “dummies” will eat up. They need to realize the public is a lot smarter than they realize. We are not going to spend money on something just because a bunch of annoying rich effs tell us to.

  10. Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

    Hearing that Tidal has tanked has been the bright spot on an otherwise dreary day.

  11. Dani2 says:

    The funny thing is that Spotify is actually doing better now lol. Tidal is officially the Artpop of the music steaming industry.

  12. Jessica says:

    Why did they think it would work? Because of the star power?

    I don’t have a particular problem with the idea, but the execution was awful. If you want people to switch from using something they’re comfortable with (in this case Spotify for most people), you have to offer some sort of innovation. But Tidal’s just a crappier version of what already exists.

    If they had of gotten all the artists involved to release new albums or at least new singles via Tidal on the day of the launch, and managed to keep that content exclusive for even a few days, that would have gotten a lot of people through the door at least. As it was there was zero reason for people to make the leap from their current streaming service.

    • MaiGirl says:

      Good points! Ever thought of going into marketing? You couldn’t possibly do worse than Tidal’s advisors, lol!

  13. Bridget says:

    Jay Z has convinced himself that being a successful rapper and producer also means that he’s a savvy businessman, which he’s not. The success that he achieves is based on his fame and status, not his business acumen. Of course Tidal has been a disaster, they’re selling a more niche product (lossless sound) but packaging it like it’s supposed to take over the world. Sheesh.

    • a cut above says:

      +1000

      I was going to comment that just because you are a successful actor and/or musician, doesn’t mean you’re a great businessman. Business and marketing are totally different skill sets than performing. At the very least, in business, you have to be somewhat interested in the behavior of other people. I imagine that’s completely foreign to a lot of these self-absorbed entertainers.

    • Anne says:

      I may be the odd one out here, but I’m actually surprised Jay made such a stunning miscalculation in the marketing of this. I’ve always seen him as characteristically in touch with his audience. Didn’t expect this from him.

  14. yomamamama says:

    this makes me so very happy

  15. jm says:

    I wonder how kanye is dealing with the fact that something he touched didn’t turn to gold….

  16. OSTONE says:

    For all the narcissists involved, I am so very happy this crap tanked. You cannot fool the consumer.

  17. Wooley says:

    Rihanna initially didn’t release BBHMM on Spotify, maybe because of tidal, but it’d on there now. Madonna never took Rebel Heart off. Maybe they realized it was failing?

    • Jayna says:

      Madonna’s album is a flop saleswise. It needs all the help it can get. She’s no dummy. To take it off of Spotify would be insane for it to get more exposure in as many places as possible.

  18. Coco says:

    I love spotify, there’s no way I would change over to a more expensive, weaker alternative to please a bunch of self entitled, whiny rich people looking for even more money.

    Their refusal to understand the customer and insistence on parading their humungous egos and greed sunk this product. Delighted for them.

  19. Susan says:

    Wow, massive fail on this Unicorn.

  20. DenG says:

    Sandra Bullock said that all actors/actresses are vain and narcissistic, and to me that includes musical Artists. Let these deities take their money and disappear. Be a god, but not a monster.

  21. Amy says:

    One of the best things my Father ever taught me was, “Everyone works for their own interest and sometimes interests don’t match up”

    I’m not shocked a bunch of millionaires lined up eagerly to get more money, just like I’m not shocked that they were annoyed Spotify wasn’t paying them hand over fist. What I always felt about Tidal for how little I looked into it was that that ‘exclusive content’ had better be amazing because once you got past the celebrity jockeys who’ll do anything their fave says I didn’t see this appealing to the majority of people.

    People work for their own interests. If I’m not going to buy your album then I’m not going to buy your album. If I can listen to your album for free in a way that gives you some profit then you’d better be happy with that and run. If you want more of my money then come out with an amazing product I can’t live without. Otherwise…see exhibit Tidal. I like a lot of the artists on that stage but I’m looking out for my interests always.

    • Dani2 says:

      They were so stupid to think that the exclusive content would be a major draw, ALL of the so-called “exclusive content” was on the Internet within minutes of being on Tidal.

      • Amy says:

        Exactly, lol. Furthermore how much more ‘exclusive’ can you get? Behind the scenes video? Already did that with YouTube. Private interviews? The majority of the folks on stage have been interviewed billions of times.

        Unless you’re shipping folks free signed memorabilia from the artist they’re signed onto Tidal for then you’re not offering anything that can’t be seen somewhere else.

    • Anne says:

      well said, Amy.

  22. word says:

    Of course Kanye can’t admit failure. He’ll also be deleting all those tweets he wrote about being “the luckiest man alive” once him and Kim get divorced. Anyone with half a brain and who is in touch with the REAL WORLD knew Tidal would not be a success.

  23. belle de jour says:

    Business axiom 101: see a need and fill it.
    One trouble with this venture was they addressed the need to fill their own pockets without clearly identifying or ‘fixing’ a consumer need that was already being filled by another service.

    • Dani2 says:

      Exactly, what real benefit did Tidal introduce that other music streaming services didn’t already have?
      Even their stans couldn’t save this mess.

    • Bubbs says:

      The trouble with pathological narcissists is that they don’t see beyond their own needs, even when it would benefit them to do so. Anyone with the most basic of business sense would have advised this Collective of Dumb that massive egos and “star” power are not enough to convince people to pay more for for something already available to them for less money, and much better executed.

  24. Mylene - Montreal says:

    Jay-Z is successful business-man but on this project he fail !!!!

  25. pleaseicu says:

    Tidal was the best thing to ever happen to Spotify. Tidal’s about to go under and Spotify’s sales numbers are up since the Spotify v. Tidal comparison started.

  26. Lucy says:

    This is a mess already.

  27. ISee says:

    As someone currently working in the music industry, we will be sticking with Spotify to promote our artists. Tidal was a nonstarter.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      As a consumer, willing to pay for music, I can assure you Tidal was a nonstarter and had no effect on my pre-existing Spotify subscription.

  28. me says:

    What really put people off was:

    1. the way it was launched with all those rich and famous annoying people on stage with their fake smiles acting like they can’t wait to get their hands on more of your money. It was just gross seeing them all on stage acting like they just changed the world and are true revolutionaries…it was so laughable.

    2. the fact it cost MORE than the rival company.

    3. the fact they really thought they could keep anything EXCLUSIVE on the internet. Do they not know how the internet works ?

  29. Iheartgossip says:

    I am so thankful this failed so greatly. The people involved don’t deserve success in this venture. Bunch of immature, arrogant babies.

  30. AmandaPanda says:

    For me what it proves is that those megastars have a lot of help to “create” from people around them – including streaming platforms, agents, managers and yes even labels.

    Say what you like, this shows what happens when musicians are left to their own devices. Do these superstars seriously think all the expert marketeers, brand experts, licensing guys etcetc contibute nothing? tidal is what happens when you don’t call in the pros.

  31. Joe says:

    I’ve used Spotify for years, and it would take something really special to make me quit. I have so many playlists and songs so to have to go back and recreate and sync them for offline use is definitely a drawback. Not being able to listen to Taylor Swift seems like a small price to pay when there are so many songs available. T-Swizzle is the one losing in the long run. #TeamSpotify

  32. jwoolman says:

    Isn’t a few weeks too short a time to evaluate? Not enough time to find their audience and make needed changes based on feedback. They seemed to be sayimg that they could provide better sound? Which some people will pay more to get.

    • Kate says:

      They offer better sound, but you need extremely high quality audio equipment to make the most of it. That’s quite a niche consumer base. I know a few people who do have that sort of equipment, but they’re using it for their own music, for playing old records etc. They still use streaming services like the rest of us, primarily on their phone or tablet. It’s not a perk that many people are going to be able to use, and one that even less people are going to be willing to pay extra for.

  33. Chaz says:

    You would think that somewhere in there would have been at least one voice of reason saying ‘Dude it is way to expensive, people won’t pay for it, because there are cheaper options.’
    I am not interested in how rich they are or how much more richer they will become. In the end the consumer makes the best choice for their wallet.
    It was also a really bad marketing ploy to act as if their fans are minions to command and control. ‘I say it is so and so be it, Ye shall pay for this fantastic expensive idea, because you are my sheople.’
    Yeh, that didn’t go down well with the masses. Turns out lots of people are still thinking for themselves.