Taylor Swift's epic treadmill fall in Apple Music's new ad was no April Fools' joke—it actually had been in the works for months. 
 
 On Friday, the singer posted the funny spot, which shows her working out, on her social accounts. Since then, iTunes sales of the song featured in the ad, Drake's "Jumpman," are up 431 percent globally. And the number of plays for Apple Music's curated #gymflow playlist shown in the commercials has grown 325 percent, making it the No. 5 playlist of the week. 
 
 Overall, the video's been viewed 37 million times, and Swift's tweet with the video has racked up 66,960 retweets and 119,000 likes. 
 
 Apple didn't disclose how many streams or subscriptions the ad generated. 
 
 "To really get an idea that was simple, informative and funny with hooks is really like writing a song," Larry Jackson, Apple Music's head of content, told Adweek. "With an artist that's got 73 million followers on Instagram, that's bigger than NBC, CBS and Fox and the viewership of prime time combined." 
 
 Based on true events. #TAYLORvsTREADMILL @applemusic @champagnepapi @future A video posted by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift) on Apr 1, 2016 at 5:36am PDT 
 
 The decision to tap into Swift's massive Instagram following was no fluke. Two days beforehand, the Facebook-owned app announced it was rolling out minute-long videos, and Swift was one of the first users to test out the feature. The spot was then immediately pushed out to her Twitter and Facebook accounts followed by Apple Music's social pages. 
 
 Now, it's running as a 60-second TV ad on ESPN, CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox. Two additional spots with Swift are planned over the coming weeks, and the singer will also star in a bigger Apple Music campaign in the next few months. 
 
 "We wanted to capture that feeling that music accompanies every element of your life, and the [Apple Music] service is the backbone of that concept," said director Anthony Mandler. "When you match that with Taylor's stance of dancing like nobody's watching, I think it was a very effortless flow." 
 
 Apple Music didn't work with an agency to create the ad. Black Hand Cinema produced the ad, and Mandler is represented by Believe Media. 
 
 Swift has a well-publicized relationship with Apple dating back to last June when she wrote a letter about Apple's decision not to pay artists as part of its launch strategy for Apple Music. (Apple ultimately changed its plans.) 
 
 Once she started working with the tech giant to create an Apple Music-exclusive documentary about her 1989 tour in October, Swift's team started talking to Jackson about a possible campaign. Those talks sped up after an Apple Music commercial with country star Kenny Chesney that debuted at the Country Music Awards in November caught Swift's eye. 
 
 The singer and Jackson then started bouncing ideas off of each other via email before bringing Mandler on board in January to direct. After three "creative sessions" with Swift, the team filmed the spots in February. 
 
 Apple has a rocky history with agencies, and while Apple Music still works with New York-based Translation, Jackson said he didn't want to work with a lot of people on this campaign. 
 
 "It seemed to be very important that the idea of being protected and not be put in front of the jury—if you want to call it—where you get that agency vibe and you get 40 people tearing apart someone's creative idea," Jackson said. "I just kept the process private." 
 
 Mandler added that the shop-free approach isn't about dismissing agencies entirely. Instead, it's about finding partners that can work quickly to create content. 
 
 "We don't live in a system that we were in five years ago, three years ago," he said. "Things are happening at a different pace. You have people who were never in the advertising world that are now at the center of marketing and advertising products." 
 
 Jackson and Mandler declined to talk about what the two upcoming ads will look like, but Mandler said they build on the idea that the viewer is part of Swift's world. 
 
 "The idea that you kind of hear the reel like you're in her head and you're watching her like you're part of the room—that sort of unintrusive access and intimacy was paramount for us," he said. "What you'll see in the other spots is a camera that sits back and watches things unfold." 
 
 Apple Music also plans to launch additional campaigns with other artists in the following months, as part of the company's plan to compete with Spotify, Pandora and other music-streaming services. 
 
 "It's going to be an assault and a barrage of stuff that you'll see over the next couple of months," Jackson said. ||||| If there's one thing we know about Taylor Swift, it's that she wants to get paid. 
 
 The world's biggest-selling artist is not so much a musician as she is a full-body lifestyle experience. You can fill yourself with her Diet Coke and moisturize your skin with her lotions before stepping into her line of Keds and moving to New York, which has been waiting for you. 
 
 There isn't a single aspect of Swift's career as an artist that isn't diligently commercial; she's a force of nature, a constant tidal wave of art and business. It's awe-inspiring, even if staying brand-safe means that she might never be able to write a song about anything other than new relationships, ongoing relationships, and failed relationships, in an unending cycle. 
 
 So why did Apple think for one second that it could get away with not paying Taylor Swift? 
 
 We don't need to get into the depth of the details here; you know them. Apple Music pays higher royalties than competitors like Spotify because there's no free option; you have to pay $9.99 a month to use it. But to entice consumers into signing up, Apple's offering a three-month free trial, and artists like Swift weren't going to see any money during those three months. Last week Adele's label said it wouldn't participate in Apple Music, and yesterday, Swift posted an open letter to her Tumblr saying she would withhold her album 1989 due to this "shocking" and "disappointing" turn of events, and 17 hours later Apple's Eddy Cue apologized on Twitter and completely backtracked. Artists will now collect some royalties during the Apple Music free trial period, but at a different (presumably lower) per-stream rate, according to Apple. Applause and retweets all around. You just can't screw with Taylor Swift; she wants to get paid. 
 
 So what was this? A victory for Taylor Swift? A victory for Apple, which turned a day of headlines about Swift withholding 1989 into a day of Taylor Swift victory laps? A victory for consumers? A victory for the music industry? 
 
 Turns out it's none of the above. Instead, it's a victory for the status quo, which remains steadfastly in place even as Apple insists that its new music service will save the industry from plummeting streaming royalties just as the iPod and iTunes saved it from piracy. 
 
 There's no guarantee 1989 will be on Apple Music when it launches 
 
 Apple's frantic fallback still hasn't guaranteed that 1989 will be on Apple Music when it launches; the company has to figure out the specifics of those per-stream rates, and presumably has to sign a new deal with Swift. But the speedy damage control ensured that today's headlines would be about Taylor Swift beating Apple, not Taylor Swift being mad at Apple for not paying her. It's a win on many levels, but it also exposes a hard truth about Apple Music: it's offering the same fundamental deal to artists and labels as the much-vilified Spotify. 
 
 Here's the basic deal Spotify offers artists: a free service that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by ads but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties. 
 
 Here's the basic deal Apple is now offering artists: a three-month free trial that pays very low per-stream royalties supported by Apple's enormous bank account but promises to convert users into paying customers of the paid service, which pays much higher royalties. 
 
 Swift has been pointing the fuck-you-pay-me bus at streaming services for a year now and Apple still got smacked 
 
 Hmm. Not much of a difference there, especially if Apple doesn't convert free users to paid users at a significantly higher rate than Spotify; you'd rather get a little money indefinitely than a little money for three months. But that's the entire bet, if you think about it: the industry is wagering that Apple's marketing prowess and huge iPhone install base will allow it to sign up more paid music subscribers than any other service has seen thus far. It's probably a good bet, but it illustrates the difficult high wire act Apple is trying to pull off as it positions itself as the second-time savior of the music industry while coming up with fundamentally the same ideas as everyone else. And Apple hasn't shown any particular ability to walk that line; Taylor Swift has been pointing the fuck-you-pay-me bus at streaming services for a year now and Apple still got smacked in the face. If Apple had played it correctly, Swift would have launched Apple Music at WWDC with a live performance; instead Eddy Cue was doing damage control at midnight on a Sunday. 
 
 It's only when the services have meaningful leverage that artists back down; Swift hasn't said word one about YouTube, the most popular ad-supported streaming service in existence, because taking her videos of off YouTube would be a disaster for her fans. But Apple can't afford to have Swift taking shots at Apple Music, while Swift can just sit back and let her army of ultra-devoted fans actually buy her albums from iTunes proper. 
 
 In fact, it's curious that Apple's not overtly taking advantage of its commanding lead as a music retailer to let artists like Swift window their releases against demand. Hardcore fans might buy new records on their release days, while others might wait for them to hit the streaming catalog. Singles might be made available to buy first, or to stream for a while ahead of wider release as a promotional tactic. Apple's already taught millions of people to pay for music on iTunes, but instead of using streaming to support and expand music sales, it seems to be running two distinct services whose overlap hasn't been made entirely clear. To be fair, that's Spotify's problem as well: the company's foolishly religious stance on free streaming means that it hasn't offered any particularly innovative new solutions to the business of selling music to artists beyond yet more playlist types. 
 
 No one knows how any of this is going to work 
 
 Apple is the world's largest music retailer, so Swift was extremely deferential in her open letter yesterday. But last November, when she pulled her catalog from Spotify, she was blunt. "Everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment," she said. "And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music." 
 
 We're still in that experimental phase. No one knows how any of this is going to work, or even if paid music streaming services are a realistic path towards making music itself as valuable as tote bags and tour merch has been for Taylor Swift. But unless Apple and Spotify and all the rest try to come up with newer, better ideas, Taylor's just going to stay pissed. 
 
 Verge Video: Achieving high-end personal audio in the streaming music era
– On April 1, Taylor Swift shared an ad for Apple Music in which she belts out Drake and Future's "Jumpman" while running on a treadmill, then does a faceplant. (Shake it off, Swift.) AdWeek reports the video—"based on real events," says Swift—has been viewed more than 37 million times across all social channels, but that's not even the most impressive figure the ad produced. A look at the numbers: Sales of "Jumpman" are up 431% worldwide on iTunes Plays of the #gymflow playlist featured in the ad are up 325% The video has been liked 1.4 million times on Instagram It drew 544,000 reactions on Facebook Swift's tweet with the video has 68,000 retweets and 120,000 likes Apple Music is hoping that success can be repeated; two other ads featuring Swift—who will star in a larger Apple Music campaign—are on the way. (Click for 20 more celeb endorsements you can actually get behind.)