Blog powered by TypePad

Blogroll - Sites I Dig

Categories

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

Categories

December 21, 2007

Starbucks Entertainment Officially Jumps the Shark

Kenny G.  No artist's name makes the hair on my neck stand up straighter.  As someone who got involved with the music business in the 90s from a love of jazz and during the "jazz renaissance" of that decade Kenny was, in my opinion, the epitome of everything wrong with music.  The saccharine sounds.  The Michael Bolton connection.  The complete lack of soul.  Sure, the guy had chops up the ying-yang, but to what end?  The coup de grace was when he paired himself with the disembodied voice of the deceased scion of jazz music: Louis Armstrong, for a "duet" on "What a Wonderful World."

I'm a pretty inclusive music consumer and listener.  I listen to all kinds of music, even the occassional smooth jazz record.  But I draw the line with Kenny G.  Today, Starbucks Entertainment announced an exclusive release with the above-mentioned Mr. G.

When I worked at Universal Music Special Markets I really wanted to work on the Starbucks account.  They had always approached music with a very sure-handed and opinionated curatorial sensibility.  Certain music worked for their brand.  Certain music didn't.  I distnctly remember one of the first meetings I attended with someone from Starbucks in 1999.  We had someone from Verve Music Group in on the meeting.  That person tried to pitch Starbucks on doing a smooth jazz CD as part of the company's branded CD compilations for the coming year.  They Starbucks employee looked at our Verve guy like he had two heads. 

Smooth jazz was not what Starbucks was about.  They emphasized artistic quality and warmth, intimacy and collaboration.  They did instrumental jazz compilations, singer-songwriter collections, blues, Brazilian music, world music, even some classical and opera.  The music for the brand had a point of view.

Starbucks never did too much advertising.  Their advertising was their product and their stores, and the environment created in those stores.  The couches and the ability to sit and enjoy your latte were part of that environment, but the music playing in the in-store bed was what you felt, what made you feel like sitting and staying at Starbucks, that being there was worth the price of that latte.  And the music on the Starbucks CDs and the music being piped in were synched up.  When you bought one of those CDs you could take a little piece of the Starbucks brand experience home with you.

Even as Starbucks purchased Hear Music and became more ambitious, the artistic specificity remained in their brand point of view.  They launched the "Artist's Choice" series of CDs, where musicians would create compilations based on their artistic taste.  And they chose artists that furthered the Starbucks brand's image as tastemaker: Lucinda Williams, Willie Nelson, Yo-Yo Ma, Elvis Costello, Diana Krall, Norah Jones, and many others (not all the titles are in print anymore).  Even on their "Opus collection" single-artist greatest hits packages they were able to delve into some very significant artist catalogs that were normally difficult to license: John Lennon, Bob Marley & the Wailers, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, and The Doors, to name a few.  For this they should be recognized and applauded.

Starbucks also became a more significant account for selling frontline records, records which not many other accounts were carrying.  They championed artists who were releasing good records rather than just carrying the latest record the labels wanted them to flog.

After the groundbreaking partnership with Concord Records which was responsible for the Ray Charles mega-hit Genius Loves Company the company was sitting even prettier.  But, after the massive, Grammy-winning triumph of Ray Charles that curator's sense of knowing what was right for the brand diminished.

Starbucks is a huge brand, with a massive retail footprint.  At some point earlier this decade the company decided that the exclusiveness of the type of music Hear Music was producing and buying needed to diversify to account for a wider, more diverse customer base that crossed many different age cohorts.

So there is no longer a "Starbucks sound" per se.  Starbucks can't do deals with Kenny G AND Joni Mitchell and expect there to be continued trust in the brand's musical taste or sensibility among its customers.  Similarly, on the frontline side the Starbucks Entertainment team is now stocking more big hits and well-known artists: Led Zeppelin, Alicia Keys, Wyclef Jean are current highlighted titles.  And the titles released by Starbucks by Paul McCartney, Joni Mitchell, and James Taylor haven't excited customers as much as they've generated PR buzz.

Starbucks has always aimed to be the "third place" in people's lives, other than home and work.  But, more so than they realize, Starbucks' music initiative, from its beginnings, has helped give the brand the respect it needs to keep people trusting in their brand experience.    I mean, even the baristas can't be excited at the prospect of having to have Kenny G music piped into the stores.

Starbucks needs to reclaim their musical mojo - not just take on projects because they can.  If the gentleman from Starbucks I know who delivered that "no smooth jazz" edict to Verve back in 1999 is still working at the company I can hardly imagine how disappointed he is in this choice by the company he's worked at for so long and done so much for in developing their music business.

July 31, 2007

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?