A Cruel Summer : Taylor as a Commodity, Monopoly and Imagery for the Eras Tour

The recent Taylor Swift media spectacle in Singapore illustrates the power of imagery and the importance of capitalist bargaining. Discuss.

Introduction

“(This) isn’t what good neighbours do, Our countries are good friends. That’s why actions like that hurt” (Cepeda, 2024)

This was a statement made by a Filipino lawmaker, Joey Salceda, about the Eras Tour. The Eras Tour is a mega concert event by Taylor Swift. It includes some highlights from her music career, which results in a three and a half hour show. For the Singapore leg of the tour, Sabrina Carpenter was the opener, a famous Disney star turned musician. The concert was the highlight of this year’s ASEAN summit. The Eras Tour has projected roughly $225 million for the 6 days that the tour lasted (Cabato,2024). There are many neighbouring countries that are dissatisfied with Singapore’s actions. This essay aims to discuss how international perceptions of Singapore as a progressive Southeast Asian nation have served Singapore’s monopoly and power in securing Taylor Swift. It is through the use of commodity fetishism and the desire of the consumers that this concert was made feasible and successful.

You Need to Calm Down (Lah): Taylor Swift as Singapore’s Commodity.

Singapore is a nation that has had appeal with the global markets for decades. It is 3rd globally and 1st in the Asia Pacific (Monetary Authority of Singapore, 2019). This is due to “its rule of law, digital friendly environment, high quality infrastructure, excellent digital connectivity, and efforts in adopting technologies” (Ibid). With regards to Singapore securing Taylor Swift, Singapore paid subsidies up to US$ 3 million per concert (Cepeda,2024). While Taylor Swift does have 5 number 1’s with an average of 214 chart appearances in Singapore (Bywater,2024), this is not the reason that the Singaporean government secured Taylor Swift.

Rather, Singh (2024) stresses that Singapore’s success in obtaining Taylor Swift is largely due to the fascinating ‘concert economy’. Lerner (1934) defines monopoly as “the exclusive right of a person, corporation, or state to sell a particular commodity”. This demonstrates that to Singapore, Taylor Swift serves as a commodity. Marx describes a commodity as “an object outside of us, a thing that, by its properties, satisfies human wants of some kind or another” (Marx and Mandel 1992). Marx goes on to say that “the nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference” (Ibid).

It can be argued that serving this concert economy would be a form of commodity fetishism. Marx viewed the fetish for commodities as the monetary link between production and trade, a social link that exists between things (money and commodities) and not as interpersonal connections. With this concert economy, Taylor Swift acts as a mediator, a reason pertaining to the success of Singapore’s tourism economy due to the concert. This can be evident in the rise of demand for accommodation and flights.

The Fullerton Hotel and Resorts and the Fairmont Hotel have witnessed an increase in accommodation demand, while the Marina Bay Sands’ VIP packages are completely filled (STAR,2024). Demand for flights, particularly those operated by Malaysian Airlines (MAS) and Singapore Airlines, has surged.

Despite the cost of travelling to Singapore, the reasoning of concert attendees, whether Swifties or non-Swifties, both within and beyond the country, is clear. This impulse to spend money stems not from joie de vivre, but from a fear of losing out. The Taylor Swift concert has been widely shared on TikTok, with some videos receiving 46.1 million views.Using Lacanian psychoanalysis, it is possible to argue that the satisfaction of need enters into this relationship of dependence on the Other. Every demand becomes, above all, a desire for the Other’s love, with Taylor Swift serving as the Other.

This proved successful with the Coldplay concert, which, like the Taylor Swift event, lasted six days. With superstars like Barry Keoghan, Lalisa Manoban from Blackpink, and Travis Kelce in attendance, the tour has successfully drawn huge names, as Singapore has done before. Given the number of celebrities and income generated by the concert, it is apparent that it was a success.

Bad Blood with ASEAN: Is it justified?

While the concert was a success in Singapore with its economy being boosted by $370 million, it has led to the rise of geopolitical tensions. As a result, other ASEAN countries have expressed their dissatisfaction and regret for not securing Taylor Swift. In Malaysia, it was discussed in parliament with Communications Minister, Fahmi Fadzil mentioning that “there are no plans to allocate government funds for “exclusive deals” with foreign artists so they will only hold concerts in Malaysia and not other countries regionally”. (STAR,2024). He posited that this is not for the government but for private organisers (Ibid)

However, it could possibly be argued that this was not a malicious move made to alienate Singapore’s neighbours, but rather a step taken to protect Singapore’s interests. Singapore has the resources to stage such an event, particularly on such a large scale. While Singaporean officials are not the most liberal and are well-known for controlling local artists, they are receptive to foreign artists since they recognise ways to appeal to global markets and consumers. Unlike Malaysia, which has a history of prohibiting artists.

For instance, Matty Healy from a band called the 1975 was banned from reentering Malaysia due to his speech on gay rights in Malaysia and insulting Malaysian politicians at the Good Vibes Festival. There was also a lot of backlash with the Ed Sheeran and Coldplay concerts with preachers calling for people to prioritise Palestine. Malaysia also has a track record of banning artists like Beyonce and protesting against artists like Billie Eilish and Selena Gomez.

However, Thailand and the Philippines simply do not have the resources to host such an event on a grand scale. While Thailand did have the Harry Styles Love on Tour and the Arctic Monkeys Tour, Thailand does not have the means to pay the amount that Singapore did to secure Taylor Swift. This emphasizes the importance of capitalist bargaining in order to secure the best interests of not only local economies, but also appeal to international markets.

Conclusion

This essay has analysed the correlation between imagery and monopoly, specifically with regards to Singapore’s acquisition of Taylor Swift for one of her most successful tours. The success of Singapore requires other Southeast Asian nations to employ similar tactics and promote themselves in a way that makes them attractive to international artists. Although for certain countries, such as the Philippines and Thailand, the funds could be better utilised to enhance their infrastructure, Malaysia has sadly missed out on the chance to expand their economy.

This essay was for a module: Mass Media which was convened by Professor Zaharom Nain