It is the same old story: conglomerate buys major company and, in turn, takes ownership of a subsidiary product line. Parent companies then partner with outside industry imprint to market the subsidiary product to demographics and audiences not normally receptive to its products.
Uh, this is probably easier to explain and will make a lot more nonsense if I used proper names. So, let me be direct. In 2005, Proctor & Gamble purchased Gillette. In the deal, it got Gillette's Tag Body Spray. This year, it has decided to market Tag by creating Tag Records with the help of Def Jam and its hit producer Jermaine Dupri and is always looking for the “Freshest MCs.” Whaaaaat? Keep this handy: when someone asks you when you heard of the birth of the mighty Tag Records, you'll have an amusing party memory to tell.
We at Tiny Mix Tapes tend to keep a closer eye on music industry news than most websites, but this year even we needed corrective eye and ear help with the amount of lunacy that we read and heard. In fact, by the time you finish reading this sentence, at least three more artists will have signed fragrance deals. There is no reason to look at the evolution of music and product marketing; it's a long and boring history that would pad out my word count nicely, but it's hardly important. At this end-of-publishing-year time, we decided to look back at some interesting trends within and overpoweringly in control of the music industry, namely, the branding of music.
----
Nobody knows the trouble they've seen, nobody knows their sorrow.
2008 has been a bizarre year for the music industry. The “problems” that exasperated the major record companies have multiplied this year. File-sharing, the closing of retail stores en masse, consumer trends to buy singles rather than albums, hard economic times, and futures -- it has been a pretty dour year for business. Accordingly, we have witnessed both inspired and asinine approaches by the Big Four to change the continuing trends.
Music companies now seek out business graduates and experienced non-music persons to head new departments of branding, sponsorship, synchronization, and partnerships rather than employ industry vets. Labels are partnering with anyone who can give them a lifeline: teen apparel companies, lifestyle retailers, video games, charities, and benefit concerts -- you name it, and a music group has or will be trying some twisted tie-in with it. No selling angle isn't debated, and the unexpected small victories are scrutinized ad nauseum after the stroke of luck happens. There are still a few sure-fire ways to garner sales, and these are coveted.
Take a look at what an iPod commercial can do for a career. Would Jet or Feist or The Ting Tings or The Submarines have been as successful without the boost? Possibly. But without Apple campaigns, we are talking about sales differences in the hundreds of thousands -- millions of units in some cases. Good timing and luck play their part, but commercial ventures and opportunities are some of the first things mentioned when an act meets with a prospective label and publisher.
There is simply no band without the brand now, because snagging a 30-second ad for Pantene or Bounce benefits all sides. The ad may be an artist's career zenith, but it may also mean that artist will never have to work another day in their life. To the cash-mad and nervous music label, the chance to get an artist placed in one of these ads means a big hit, and big hits are hard to come by now, especially when so many of their departments expenditures are in a permanent state of lockdown.
Levi's, who has also had incredible success with its commercials, especially in England (where a TV ad can regularly propel tracks into the top 10 in the national charts), have branched out and launched their own label. In Australia, the jeans king has started its own record company called Levity, hoping to bring attention to unsigned Australian and New Zealand acts. In exchange for recording, distribution, and marketing costs, the bands have to appear in the marketing campaigns.
----
Do you want a CD with those fries?
Not all branding schemes have been successful. In a blatant attempt to place its Big Mac brand even further into the global cultural consciousness (is that even possible?), McDonald's hired Maven Strategies, an entertainment marketing company, to find, persuade, and sign artists willing to incorporate the company's cornerstone sandwich into songs for upcoming ad campaigns. The idea had hopeful beginnings, but after (presumably) cold feet on the part of “artists” clamouring to be Scrawny Ronnie's bitch, the initiative is on hold now.
While it may seem despicable to openly treat supposed artists as promotional chess pieces, this sort of marketplace play happens all the time. McDonald's effort may be cold and eyebrow-raising ethically, but at least it is honest. It is also a rare example of a failure (unless the plan surprisingly gains momentum in the future). David Caruso (not the David Caruso who plays ginger-topped, Horatio from CSI Miami, as far as I know) of Acme, the firm that coordinated the Def Jam/Tag union, has seen a branding attitude change first hand. “When I started in this business 10 years ago, it was hard to get an artist to stand in front of a sign with a logo on it. Now brands are engaging their audiences with content.”
Maven itself has had a thick string of successes with another brand name, Seagram's Gin, which is often mentioned in hip-hop tracks. The firm has some products under exclusive placement deals, for music and movies. Seagram's certainly hopes for effects like that of Courvoisier, who saw sales rise 30% after Busta Rhymes embraced the brand's bottle in his "Pass the Courvoisier" song and video.
Even without the active efforts of hired marketing hands, hip-hop tends to namedrop brands without much prompting at all, making product placement companies work less for their bucks. Many of these brand mentions are tracked by American Brandstand, primarily an “interactive mobile marketing and hospitality” promotions company based in Huntington Beach, CA, who posts up-to-date stats on its website. Many of these are incidental, musician-created shout-outs; many are bought and paid out. Regardless, brand mentions are way more numerous in hip-hop than in other styles of music, and that explains why McDonald's is eager to tap that genre in particular.
----
Golly gee, what have you done to me... well I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
Regardless of music genre, branding plays a part in every conceivable aspect of music marketing. If we aren't hearing about companies cutting to the chase and asking bands to write about their products, we are seeing more and more exclusive deals going down between retails giants like Wal-Mart or Starbucks with specific artists. When record companies aren't coming up with panicked ways of selling their product with sponsorship deals, artists are trying to expand their fan interest globally with the hottest marketing firms and product lines. It all adds up to the murky realization that it is getting increasingly difficult to differentiate between the artist and the brand.
The music industry is in this crippling situation because of itself, of course. While they are trying dozens of approaches -- some of which are mentioned above; dozens and dozens of others we haven't heard about yet -- they are acknowledging the fact that their lives have changed. It is now essential to understand the intangibles that drive brands, not just within one's own industry. Imitating others' success will always be a part of what they do; it is a part of what everyone, in every sector, does. But true successes understand what makes something successful, not merely copycatting fleeting, hot popularity. Hence, we are seeing non-music companies stepping in to do what the music industry has failed to do: sell, properly advertise, expand the market, and make profit.
This year, Nike hooked up with Crystal Method to produce some remixes and with Kanye West, Nas, KRS-One, and producer Rick Rubin to record a benefit internet track (which was nominated for a Grammy!), Groove Armada joined forces with Bacardi to produce their latest EP; The Pussycat Dolls' Nicole Sherzinger shilled for Caress; and Converse got The Strokes' Julian Casablancas, Pharrell, and Santogold together for what The Times of London called “a three-headed Frankenstein's monster of coolness.” This is the future, whether the music industry likes it or not. The only thing to do now is to get in on the deals rather than have their acts step over their inactive bodies to make them themselves.
It goes without saying that the record industry is a business like any other. It is as full of cut-throat cowboys as any other. But there is still a certain cred or uniqueness attached to the music industry, even the major player circle, that doesn't exist in the world of body sprays. Will we ever hear someone say, “I used to like Tag in the early days, before they sold and became pussies. I'm switching my allegiances over to Axe, man..."
Many of the more popular acts I have mentioned have lucrative major label deals anyway, but these huge supplemental endorsements and brand projects make BIG money and help grow the artist's brand so that the artist and whichever brands he, she, or they decide to sign with can make even more money. Richard Bishop, manager of Groove Armada is quoted in a July 2008 NYTimes.com article as saying, “I think in the world today, it doesn't make a difference to the consumer if a record comes out on Warner Music, EMI, Red Bull, or Diesel Jeans. Artists may be better advised to put their music out with a brand to get better reach and bigger advertising.”
----
This is probably where I should put my Jerry Springer-esque “Final Thought” segment…
There was a time I would have sold my soul for a free keg of Guinness. I can only imagine what I would have given for a lifetime supply of the best tasting liquid to ever pass by human lips by signing some sort of partnership with the makers of the black stout. Incidentally, Guinness has partnered with EMI Music to produce a compilation of music featured in the brewing giant's TV commercials over the years. Naturally, this isn't a one-off release or piece of news; the two will be in development of music-based projects in Europe and North America. Says EMI on the matter, “Our aim is to proactively enter into strategic partnerships with global brands, such as Guinness and develop additional revenue streams for the benefit of all parties.” Guinness, you stinking sell out!
Ruth Simmons is the managing director of music consultant firm Songseekers. She also contributes her views to a lot of research efforts on music branding. In the AllAboutBranding.com article “What's the Real Score?” she explains the thorny subject of consumer trust. “It is no secret that Brands invest a great deal of energy and money on comprehensive research to fortify their evolving trust -- relationship with consumers,” she states. “They do this because they understand that if this trust is violated or misused, the customer/client is gone.”
Has Starbucks stepped over the line by poaching artists normally confined to big music contracts by producing and marketing its own CDs? What if it put out a Sonic Youth celebrity compila... ooops, too late! At what point does this sort of activity offend people, because it does offend people, and why? At what tipping point is trust in a group or business violated? What would make you abandon a band or label that you have been loyal to in the past? If a record company, or someone like Sting or Deerhunter's Bradford Cox, didn't call you the day after you had a really great date, would that do it?
What about independent labels? Every record label was once “independent.” Granted, it was when artists etched their caterwauling onto stone discs for cave party mixes, but you still get my point, I hope. Not every small label stays small, and not every independent artist resists the lure of the lucre or selling out Wembley Stadium if it gets the chance. Besides, isn't being staunchly anti-brand and independent a selling brand on its own? Ah, all good questions... all unanswerable and subject to matters of personal and cultural opinion, but good questions nonetheless.
----
The future is now and it kinda sucks.
Okay, not a hell of a lot of what I've written here should come as a surprise to you. Good music always prevails in the end (not commercially, of course), but it is ultimately what is most important. However, how it is sold to us is changing every day. This year saw the inevitable collapse of and between industry walls. Many consumers will rejoice over this collapse, or ongoing massive overhaul, of the traditional music industry, but what does it matter if you are now getting your music from Nike instead of Universal? I haven't gotten into questions about file-sharing and claims by practitioners that “music should be free!” but common sense and experience has told me that very little in life is free from financial or emotional burdens or ties. Those who claim they are entirely detached from any of this music/brand discussion probably aren't, and for those that really are, well, who really cares anyway?
There are a number of things you can do that won't make a lick of difference:
1. Cut off all ties to your life as it is now, pack up the bare essentials, and head off to a commune or kibbutz. Live there until a real estate developer comes offering scads of cash and shares in the condo project that it will build on your land after it dissolves, privatizes, and transforms it into a series of concrete and clay bunkers... with a Starbucks on the ground floor.
2. Stop putting the music industry and your favourite artists on ethical pedestals. It is a business, and these are businessmen/women who, for the most part, don't give a shit about integrity or art or their fans' perception of them -- or their fans in general. Accept this, listen to your music, shut up, and grow up. You don't run your life anymore, brands do.
3. As much as I like to roll my eyes when I hear of independent labels sticking by their renegade business practices -- and I am slyly suspicious of even the most handmade, homespun of labels -- everyone should make an effort to support more of these ventures, if for nothing more than exposing oneself to the music. Anything truly adventurous is shunned by the common masses and industry leaders, so expand your mind and buy something you would not normally try. The Coldplay corporation is popular and rich enough; it doesn't need to have a monopoly on music. If these imprints turnout to be very small puppets of Evil Monster Company, Inc., or decide to sell 51% of their business after one of their bands' songs gets plucked by the music supervisor from Scrubs, or have secretly made deals with their artists and Gold Bond to place the words “medicated,” “foot,” and “powder” in each and every one of their releases, so be it. Viva la vida, or so they say.
Image: [Branding Strategy Insider]
Click [here to return to the 2008 Year-End Image Map]
