Appetite For Disruption

Matchmaker, Matchmaker make me a match

Another cautionary tale in the world of brands and bands...

If this little incident happened 5-6 years ago it would have been one of many similar stories.  Brands, trying to latch onto Hip-Hop's urban street cred, would reach out to big rap stars, only to have to renege on the effort when a consumer, cultural arbiter, or the legal dept. discovered (shockingly!) that rappers cursed and rapped about sex, violence and drugs.

Brands got smart - the only ones that stayed involved with mainstream Hip-Hop were the ones that could take that PR hit and declare proudly they were as (supposedly) anti-establishment as Hip-Hop.

But a brand like McDonald's?  Booking a 10-city tour in major cities?  How can they have screwed that up?  I remember before McDonald's launched the "I'm Lovin' It" campaign a few years back.  They were concerned with not being seen as "authentic" in the music space.  Well, it's obvious, despite the success of that campaign - McDonald's can't be authentic with Hip-Hop until it stops babysitting its customers after they have signed acts for their marketing programs.  The time to do the research on Twista to decide if he was an appropriate brand representative was before signing him to do the Chicago concert event.  How hard could this research have been?  You buy a few Twista CDs, or listen to some of his explicit tracks online somehwere, or you ask for song lyrics.  You check the police blotter on the artist to make sure that the most he's gotten is a speeding ticket.  That's it - that's all a brand needs to know to find out if the artist passes the test.

What is that test?  It's the test to determine if hiring this artist to participate in a brand marketing program is worth any potential negative blowback to the brand.  The artist needs to take this test too, but with a slightly different question: will this payday cause me image/credibility damage with my fan base (or is it time I begin to grow new fans or abandon the parts of my existing fan base that would diss me for doing this type of deal)?  Both questions boil down to: "will doing this deal result in negative PR?"

An additional question is: how strong will the brand be in the artist's defense once the heat comes down?  This is the question that Pepsi faced when Bill O'Reilly called them out for having Ludacris as an endorser.  In that case, Pepsi caved... and then Ludacris responded with a salvo directed at both Pepsi and O'Reilly on his next record.  Pepsi ended up getting nailed by both Ludacris and O'Reilly because the company decided to stop repping the "Pepsi Generation"  AND also refused to stand up to the conservative cranks.

So, in McDonald's case here - they just got sloppy - plain and simple.  They trusted someone too much.  They felt they had overcome that music credibility gap from earlier this decade... but they never will because they can't embrace the fact that to embrace music and youth means to embrace rebelliousness - at least in some ways.  It's embracing the fact that some of the teens that show up at some of its all-nite restaurants are high or drunk or bored and restless.  That humor sometimes involves profanity or putdowns, or that dancing more often than not involves close touching.  Does sanitizing the youth experience make anyone want to buy more Big Macs?  Does it result in more profits for franchisees?  If not, then why the charade?

Apathy in the U.S. Redux

Apparently even the suggestion of developing some kind of CD giveaway program to LA Times readers has caused a big uproar out in the City of Angels.

Unlike Q Prime's Cliff Burnstein I disagree somewhat as to the nature of the U.S. music audience.  As I've written about many times before the U.S. consumer is faced with a dizzying array of choices on how to spend their time and money at almost every waking hour of the day.  We are an extremely busy, overscheduled society.  The sacrosanct record stores we grew up with - and even those placed strategically in major malls with heavy foot traffic - are no longer destination points per se, and even if they are we have far less time to browse around looking for the next great musical artist.  We want to get in and out of stores and onto the next thing before we have to pick up our kids from whatever party or camp or play date they are at, or before we have to prepare that presentation or get ready for a meeting.

Music needs to be curated to us, even if it's music by well-known artists like Prince.  If I was 13 years old now, the age I discovered Prince for the first time on MTV (with "1999" and "Little Red Corvette") I would not even be able to discover the artist via the same media I did back in 1983.  You don't have to listen to radio to get new music.  MTV barely plays new music (unless you're counting all the music they license in for their reality programming, a lot of which is from indie artists who will probably never get a video played on any MTV Networks channel).

So why shouldn't newspapers get into this game?  Why shouldn't they help expose music to their readers?  And why shouldn't they look upon this as a way to develop an advertiser-supported model when their ad dollars are drying up?  I say they should.

Anyone at the LA Times (or any other major daily or newspaper conglomerate) want to answer that question?

Anarchy in the UK / Apathy in the U.S.

The newspaper business in the U.S. is constantly being reported on as near death.  Sometimes the predictions seem almost as dire as those directed towards the music industry. ;)

One of the solutions UK newspapers have used as a promotional tool is covermount CDs, especially to drive Sunday circulation.

Well, Prince has put a new twist on this promotional strategy.  He sold the Daily Mail his entire new album, which was given away last Sunday to massive sales (free - registration required).  Prince owns his masters.  He can do what he likes with his music to get himself paid and his music into people's hands.  He is one of the elite artists who can have the luxury of employing such a tactic.

But, here in the U.S. - where circulation is lagging and newspaper jobs are drying up - there hasn't even been an attempt to do anything with music CDs - no single-artist efforts, no various artists compilations - by any of the major dailies in U.S. cities.  I know, because when I worked for Universal I was trying to work with one of these papers on a series of CDs for their Sunday paper to be released over the course of a particular month.  They didn't like the economics of it, but they had also not attempted to secure any advertisers to come on as co-funding partners.

What do these papers have to lose?  They should tie in such an effort with an advertiser(s) and make a big splash of the promotion.  Newspapers just need to be clear on who their audience is - adults.  The CDs should be targeted to them, not to them in their role as parent, but music they can discover and enjoy.  Adults have too little free time to go discover and buy new music, even less so as they get more and more entrenched in professional careers.  Being presented with new music to listen to is just one more incentive for those adults to pick up the Sunday paper on the newsstand, or to subscribe to it.

Over the Counter Sales - Last Week / When to Secure Acts

Last week, as per Nielsen SoundScan, 24% of the titles(48 albums) on the Top 200 Current Albums Chart have achieved over the counter sales over 1 million units.  An additional 26 albums have achieved sales between 500,000-999,999 units.  So 37% of the entire chart has scanned platinum (1MM units) and gold (500k+ units), respectively.  And a decent number of releases beneath this level have been recent releases which haven't reached these levels simply because they haven't been in the market long enough.

So yes, there are hits, believe it or not, hits that have reached a mass audience - and mostly via the CD cofiguration.  It is certainly taking longer for some of these releases to reach these higher levels.  Most of the platinum releases have been out at least 6 months, if not longer.  Some have been on the chart close to two years.  What that means for corporate brands is that they have to realize that musical acts do have fans, but that those fans are taking longer to react to that album's presence in the market.  Whether that is due to less discretionary income, increased marketing clutter, or consumers not finding their music through traditional music marketing channels such as terrestrial radio or MTV (and having almost infinite choice on the Internet), there is still demand for music and artists.

But this isn't the only chart that determines the idustry's health (or lack of it).  Increasingly, record companies and artists have an increasingly diverse pie of revenue-producing activities.  Downloads of individiual tracks and mobile phone ringtone downloads represent for certain artists a majority or significant percentage of revenue on a per project basis.

So, when should a brand commit to an act as part of their marketing efforts - when the label is trying to do push marketing of its own and the artist will be everywhere at retail, press, etc..., or later on, when the brand's presence will actually represent the label's main marketing of the artist for that period?  The answer is always contextual based on your brand's needs and timing, but the best time to secure the artist for any types of brand activities is in the planning stages for a particular release, even if the execution of your campaign occurs later on in that artist's album release cycle.  The pre-release stage is when the label is most active and engaged on a particular artist, and most accepting of input on how to find "other people's money" to help fund certain artist activities, whether that be a radio promo tour, tour sponsorship, integrated, multi-channel campaigns, etc...  Later on, the label's focus might be diverted to other artists or there may be less commitment to your desired act based on the artist's performance in the market.

The Tween Market

Pursuant to my previous post, here's another mention of the high-flying tween music market.  But I have to say that the other major labels have yet to even come close to Disney Music Group's success because of the multi-channel synergy they employ.

The article mentions Sony BMG's act Paula DeAnda, who records for the Arista label.  I worked the Limited Too and Justice accounts for the company when her record came out, and I can tell you her record was NOT targeted at tweens.  There were at least 3-4 tracks with guest raps from Hip-Hop artists, and Hip-Hop is not appropriate for tweens..  While that is a statement I agree with it's not me setting those rules.  It's the retail gatekeepers for the tween market - Limited Too, Justice, and Club Libby Lu - that are setting the rules.

Top 40 radio may have played "Walk Away" by Paula DeAnda, but unless that artist, or any other artist looking to break into these key three accounts, has a whole album full of squeaky clean tracks, then that label can kiss their chances of success goodbye.  Because parents trust these brands.  They'll pay full price on CDs at these chains' stores because of that trust factor.  All three of the chains cater to tween girls, girls who are already exposed to too many oversexualized and profane images in the media through other channels.  These chains are an effective filter for parents.  The music may be somewhat disposable, but at least the songs are tunes parents can feel okay about their kids singing along to without further contributing to their pre-pubescent maturation.

I believe in the tween market as a market to be targeted by the record labels, but they will be sorely disappointed if they think just "talking the talk" about the tween market will win them converts at tween retail.  Case in point: I happened to be in a mall yesterday and walked into the Limited Too store - only one non-Disney title was stocked by the store!

Personally, I think the real big win would be to find a tween country artist.  Why?  Because country is an already healthy genre, it's a genre of songwriters (who can easily shape songs to this market), and it's not dependent on Radio Disney per se.  Country radio dwarfs Radio Disney in terms of influence and size. 

The Buzz Word Done Right... and the Channels to Feed It

So many diversified media companies often talk the talk of synergy, but don't walk the walk.  Getting different divisions to coordinate timing, priorities, budgets, meeting schedules, etc... is very difficult, even when the overall goal is the same - optimizing shareholder value.  And even when it does happen, there's no guarantee that type of concerted effort can maintain itself over the long haul.

But right now, Walt Disney Co. has several divisions clicking on all cylinders, so much so that the combined fuel of these divisions is providing above-sized returns for the company's Disney Music Group in a very down market for the record industry.  Disney has learned how to leverage the following divisions of their company:

• The Disney Channel
• Disney Home Video
• Disney Music Group
• Walt Disney Consumer Products
• Radio Disney
• Go.com Internet properties

Epitomizing the success that these divisions have created are two dominant properties: "High School Musical" and "Hannah Montana."  These aren't the only properties gaining market share, but they are great case studies.

"High School Musical" was a TV movie on The Disney Channel which spawned the CD soundtrack and download business - it was the best-selling album of 2006, going quadruple platinum.  The tracks from the album were plastered all over the Radio Disney network.  The home video business then raked it in on the DVD.  The consumer products business made hay with all other ancillary products (including the company's book publishing division - oops, forgot that one).  Next month the mania will begin again with "High School Musical 2," which includes the same cast as the original movie.  Will the magic repeat itself in 2007?  I wouldn't bet against it.

"Hannah Montana" is Disney Channel's #1 series, starring young Miley Cyrus, and the popularity of the show and the show's soundtracks (all performed by Ms. Cyrus in character) have launched Ms. Cyrus as a solo music star in and of herself.  This is a formula Disney first used with Hilary Duff when she starred in the "Lizzie McGuire" series, and Disney appears to only have upped its game as time has gone on.  The new Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus 2-CD set just debuted at #1 on the Billboard albums chart - quite the feat considering the title was going up against the new release from Kelly Clarkson, whose last album is one of the few titles in recent memory that actually tallied more sales than the original "High School Musical" soundtrack.

Strategically, Disney efforts like these and "The Cheetah Girls" have focused squarely on the tween girl market.  But would that focus have been rewarded if there was not a burgeoning retail channel that also caters to this demographic? Three chains: Limited Too, Justice, and Club Libby Lu, represent 800+ mall-based stores that have been fertile ground for Disney's efforts on all of these key properties.  Limited Too and Justice are both owned by Tween Brands.

I had the opportunity to work as the rep for the Tween Brands accounts during my tenure at Sony BMG Custom Marketing Group.  Here is how powerful these chains were to these Disney Music Group properties - on each of the titles mentioned above Tween Brands was at least a TOP THREE(!!!) account.  One always thinks that big-selling records have to cater to a large amount of retail chains which carry (at the minimum) a fairly wide selection of other CD releases.  Disney's success has proven this theory to be turned on its head.  Sure, Wal-Mart was a huge seller on these titles.  But Limited Too, Justice, and Club Libby Lu carry only a limited selection of titles, carefully chosen by the accounts' buyers.  There is no profanity in the lyrics to protect the impressionable young audience the stores cater to (and provide a safe environment to parental gatekeepers).  And, to my amazement, they sell CDs at full price!!! 

Two years down the road... no other label group has developed an artist with a CD title, much less a multi-channel juggernaut, that has really caught fire at these key accounts.  As to why that hasn't happened - you'd have to ask the geniuses signing all the pop-punk and emo bands.  These Disney projects certainly don't represent any significant musical movement per se, but they do represent how the record industry can find some channels which represent rays of hope for its future... if they only developed releases that fit in these highly targetes retail channels!  How about Sony BMG and the partnership with Nickelodeon!  Nope. D'OH!

The irony of all this tween-targeted good news is that many of the marketers that used to heavily target kids: packaged foods, QSRs, etc..., have had to greatly curtail their own marketing towards kids due to regulatory pressure.  If marketers could get past that conundrum to partner with these key Disney properties, then they'd hit upon a goldmine.

Easier to Comment

So I just realized I have been making it inadvertently harder for site users to comment on posts.  Sorry! I've fixed that, so I hope to see more comments from you all soon.

The Thin Line Between Love and Hate

Most successful (and not so successful) recording artists have a fairly short period of time to cash in on their fame.  Singles go down the charts as quickly as they rise.  Musical trends can become passe in an instant.

And for brands there is the temptation to feel if they miss out on an artist's commercial peak, then customers will not feel their brand is current or hip enough to get noticed in an atmosphere of clutter.  But they also might overpay at the peak.  It's a tricky balance to strike.  Music is meaningful to brands in so many ways, and they don't want to leave the field open to competitors if a particular artist of the moment is selling a boatload of records.

But, despite my advocacy of brands associating themselves with music and vice versa, there are still deals which make me hold my nose for various reasons.  Sometimes it's a lack of an organic fit.  Sometimes a brand will use a treasured song in such a way as to make the song or the artist who recorded it seem less classy.

Dr. Pepper just paid the semi-successful pop-punk band Cartel to live inside a bubble on a pier in New York City while recording their new record.  The effort was filmed for an MTV reality show which ended last month.  Sure, it's interesting to see the creative process of making an album, especially by a fairly new band (though Metallica's "Some Kind of Monster" is a much more insightful look into that world).  But it seems like such a marketing STUNT!  Where is the authenticity?  Now the Dr. Pepper brand supports music in numerous ways; this particular tactic, however, reeks of crass commercialism.

And now, Candie's has just paid multi-platinum artist Fergie $4 million to appear in some ads - and will pay her to incorporate the brand into her song lyrics by design.  First off, I'll admit to not being a fan of Fergie's in any way, shape, or form, whether as a solo artist or a member of the Black Eyed Peas (who used to be a half-decent, though not commercially successful hip-hop group before Fergie entered the picture).  I found her distasteful even before this came to light.  And I am not surprised to see her or her label taking the cash - the marketing of this artist has always been about cash and flash above any sense of musical quality.  Nevertheless, America has bought into Fergie as a superstar.

But it's one thing for an artist to give a shout-out to their favorite brand(s) in a song and another, more distasteful thing for the artist to accept cash to ensure that a brand is mentioned in one or more songs they record.  That's blatant product placement.  It's making the song a commercial in and of itself.  But the questions for Candie's are: "What happens if the next Fergie album sucks?,"  "What happens if the next Fergie album doesn't sell?,"  and "What happens if the other songs on Fergie's next album are sexually explicit or distasteful to the moms who buy the brand for their daughters?"

Record labels and pop artists are not in a position of power.  If they see cash like this, then they will grab it and run to the bank in an instant.  They will say "yes" and promise you a lot.  They may even deliver you a lot, but they still want to deliver more to their fans and to radio and video and Internet outlets than they want to for your brand.  And what they deliver to them might trump what they deliver for your brand.  Remember Madonna and Pepsi?  Need I say more?