Appetite For Disruption

Jon Pareles is wary of music/marketing partnerships - UPDATED

Jon Pareles of the New York Times wrote an interesting think piece on the way marketing tie-ins and advertising/TV licensing have changed the music discovery and music listening experience.

On the one hand, Pareles acknowledges the harsh realities of being a professional musician during these trying times:

Musicians have to eat and want to be heard, and if that means accompanying someone else’s sales pitch or videogame, well, it’s a living. Why wait for album royalties to trickle in, if they ever do, when licensing fees arrive upfront as a lump sum? It’s one part of the system of copyright regulations that hasn’t been ravaged by digital distribution, and there’s little resistance from any quarters; Robert Plant and Alison Krauss croon for J. C. Penney and the avant-rockers Battles are heard accompanying an Australian vodka ad.

On the other hand, Pareles wonders how those realities then affect the very creation of music itself:

The question is: What happens to the music itself when the way to build a career shifts from recording songs that ordinary listeners want to buy to making music that marketers can use? That creates pressure, subtle but genuine, for music to recede: to embrace the element of vacancy that makes a good soundtrack so unobtrusive, to edit a lyric to be less specific or private, to leave blanks for the image or message the music now serves. Perhaps the song will still make that essential, head-turning first impression, but it won’t be as memorable or independent.

I agree to this extent - I remember music placed in films more than I remember music placed in ads.  When you are watching a film you are (hopefully) engrossed in the film, or at least the particular scene, where a song appears.  I personally prefer to hear music in either my car, iPod, or home stereo so I can judge a song purely on its aural impact on me: does a particular lyrical phrase grab me?, is the solo undeniably killer?, do I want to hear the hook over and over again?  Basically, I want to make my own determination of the song's worth to me personally.

That being said, when do we get unvarnished experiences with any art form these days?  Before you see a film you are bombarded with on-screen advertisements.  Radio is filled with endless commercials.  TIVO and DVRs have save many of us from having to endure many TV ads placed in our favorite shows, but when we do have to view them how many are remembered?  The "not-for profit" arts sector is filled with corporate sponsorships supporting everything from fall seasons to particular art exhibits.

So why should we expect listening to music to be a mystical experience?  Isn't that asking a bit too much from the musicians themselves, just trying to be heard? (Period).  Pareles admits as such here:

Apparently there’s no going back, structurally, to paying musicians to record music for its own sake.

Advertising, if anything, is moving to formats even shorter than the 30-second spot.  Marketers know their messages are being tuned out willfully in a DVR culture.  If marketers need music to help their messages stand out, then God bless the musical community able to earn their livings off the back of those marketers' needs to differentiate themselves from competitors.  We tend to be selfish, us music listeners.  We love the pure listening experience, but how many of us have time to just sit and listen to music in an ideal environment?  Not too many of us I'd venture.  I'd tell Jon Pareles to take a listen to one of my favorite Joe Jackson songs - "I'm the Man" - to remind him the party doing the selling needs to have a survivor's cuthroat instinct.  In the case of music licensing - we know the buyers already have that mentality.

UPDATE: Charles Moran from AdAge.com's Songs for Soap blog also has some thoughts on the Pareles piece - here. 

More on the Wal-Mart-AC/DC Exclusive

From AdAge.com - another post-mortem on the Wal-Mart way of doing CD exclusives.

But I hate that Wal-Mart logo sitting where the lightning bolt in the AC/DC logo ought to be.  Never ever, EVER, compromise the logo.

The exclusive deals have become a "good business model for us," said Jeff Maas, divisional merchandise manager for music and movies at Walmart. "They tend to drive excitement into our stores. They keep our stores new and fresh. And so you'll see us do more."

So, once again, here is the retailer stating there is a VALUE in developing these exclusives which creates a "halo effect" for the retailer's marketing and overall merchandising efforts... and only the big box retailers are stepping up to differentiate themselves in the market.  Where are the specialty retailers who are much more lifestyle-focused developing these partnerships?  Other than Starbucks and Victoria's Secret - where are the specialty chains who have ever stepped up strong in this arena?

Walmart and the bands win because the retailer can merchandise a wide array of apparel and other related products in major in-store events, helping promote concert tours and move products beyond CDs in ways no other retailer could.

Consumers win because the deals include album prices well below the industry standard for new releases, such as $11.88 (with free shipping when bought online) for AC/DC's "Black Ice." Rivals such as Virgin or Tower Records have had no qualms about selling imports or simply reselling CDs bought from Walmart at $14.99 to $16.99 without topping their usual price points for new releases by much.

Imagine that - sell music for a reasonable price, with solid marketing, and merchandising backing the effort.  What a simple concept so many retailers could adopt vis a vis music exclusives.

Not every musical act means the same to all audiences.  Retailers should be combing through label rosters looking for the right act to partner with on such an effort.  There's a glut of musical supply out there for retailers to choose from.  Retailers are facing enormous bottom line pressures right now, but they need to get noticed, and great music  certainly has the power to do just that.

CD Exclusives at Retail - Redux

Here's a nice overview of a few recent account-exclusive CD releases at Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy from HITS magazine.

I've addressed this issue several times, most notably here, here, and here.

Here's the one passage of the HITS piece which disturbs me (italics mine):

The most recent big box exclusive, Chinese Democracy, sold only 255k in its first week at Best Buy and a deleterious drop off to around 56k in its second, a disappointing total blamed equally on Axl Rose’s lack of promotion and limited cooperation from Interscope Geffen A&M, which lacked the incentive to do much, having pocketed the initial check for $14m, the revenue from the approximately 1.6 million sold one-way at $8.75 a pop. On the other hand, the label’s been complaining about the lack of visible marketing support from the retailer, so let the finger pointing begin. Despite the glitches, most believe Chinese Democracy did better than it would have with a normal release.

Lacked the incentive to do much?  How about the incentive to maximize revenues and profits?  How about seeking to create a bright spot in an otherwise dismal retail landscape?  How about driving catalog sales on GNR and other UMG current and catalog acts at Best Buy with the GNR fan base coming in to buy this record?

If it's all about the paycheck, then why the hell did Axl do this deal?  why did he hold onto this record for so long?  Why try and claim any artistic high ground as he recorded and re-recorded and mixed and re-mixed this album with various casts of characters in the decade+ he has been working on this album for?

If it's all about the paycheck for the record label, then labels can't expect retail to want to do these exclusives and be enthusiastic about them.  Why?  Because they are pulling the weight with no label support.  The AC/DC example is the complete opposite of the GNR situation, as they were an integral part of the marketing, PR, and radio promotion effort to drive the sales on Black Ice, and continue to do so.

Partnerships don't have to be equal per se, but they ought to be equitable.

Does Your Endorser Really Use Your Product or Service?

If the answer is no, then you may not be happy about the way the FTC is interpreting the guidelines for product endorsers.

A star who does claim to use a product must be using it at the time of the endorsement. And the sponsor can run the spot for only that period of time.

What’s more, the commercial arrangement must be disclosed in some situations. For example, a pro tennis player who says on a talk show that her game has improved has to disclose that she is paid by the clinic–provided she names it.

“Consumers would not expect that a celebrity discussing a medical procedure in a television interview to be paid for doing so,” the FTC says.

I wonder how far this goes.  If an actress is a paid Chanel endorser and she wears a different perfume for a night out, would she be "guilty?"  If Brett Favre endorses Wrangler jeans and is caught wearing Levi Strauss, what's the penalty?  If an artist's song is used by a wireless carrier in a TV spot, does that mean that group needs to all have wireless plans with that carrier?  And what of race car drivers with cars sponsored by Viagra or Prilosec, for example?

Interesting issue.  I'll get back at it later...

All My Friends Say "Great taste. Less Filling."

Songs for Soap writes about the new Luke Bryan/Miller Lite tie-in surrounding Luke's #1 Country hit "All My Friends Say."  And from the tone of the piece it seems they don't approve of the partnership.  Here's the information on the partnership.

"All My Friends Say" is a catchy single with a hooky chorus about getting drunk the night before at a frat party and having to piece together last night's wild events through the stories of one's friends.  I don't necessarily agree with how Songs For Soap seeks to ascribe details about Luke's personality based solely on a few of his songs.  This passage was the one that irked me:

[Luke Bryan's]"... the guy who slept through astronomy in the back of your lecture hall with his cowboy hat over his head, but he was always willing to tap the keg for you and save you from looking like a wuss in front of your girlfriend."

Say what you will about the song or even Luke's other material.  Songs don't always paint the picture of the artist as a person.  Luke Bryan's neither the first nor the last (nor the best) artist to address life in a drunken state, but there's no need to hammer the dude for this song.

It's just beer guys.  I'll take the "All My Friends Say" tie-in over Clydesales playing football any day.

The legitimate criticism here would be of Miller Lite and its corporate parent Miller Coors.  In an age of "drink responsibly" ads, an era where promoting getting drunk off of beer is taboo in advertising (isn't it amazing how with all of the beer advertising done no one is ever the least bit tipsy?  I guess beer must possess magical happy qualities that make it necessary to be drunk without ever addressing it's an alcoholic beverage.), Miller Lite ties in to a song that is about nothing except getting blind drunk and blacking out.  And this is no criticism of the song itself per se.  It's still a fun song that would rock a party.  But as a corporate brand steward, how do you let that slip by?  How do you leave yourself open to the many critics of the beer industry and how it markets itself?

Yes, this is a limited promotion, but it leaves the parent company open to criticism it did not have to face.  I would not be surprised to see the brand get whacked by some regulatory body or have to play PR defense against an advocacy group like MADD.

Why continue EMI as a going concern?

So EMI is now in talks with its major label competitors to get its U.S. distribution.

Really?  It's that bad?  It's that unmanageable?  EMI got socked with a disadvantageous CD manufacturing deal a few years back, but come on.

At this point just sell off the assets, even in pieces, to the other three majors, and be done with it.  Quit making lame attempts at salvaging a sinking ship while throwing the crew overboard to stay afloat.  The artists deserve better.  The employees deserve better.  The industry desrves better.

Axl Outrage Update

As per AdAge.com.

"In this age for Dr Pepper to try to associate themselves with a band with no contract or agreement is not just bad communications, it's bad business," said Robbie Vorhaus, a crisis-management consultant. "The right thing to do is to say 'We were wrong, we were sorry and this is how we are going to make good.'"

Indeed.