Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes (Turn and face the Hard Drive)

A few decades ago, it was a common childhood aspiration to grow up to be a platinum selling rock star who practiced neurosurgery (The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension); but in this day in age, it seems more young people would rather flip that model and be a neuroscientist with 93 million downloads.

Music has not been a catalyst for social change since the sixties, or for lifestyle choices since the collapse of grunge. In the meantime the ascent of Internet distribution has reduced the costs of production, distribution and access, so of course it has less value than it did thirty years ago.

We don't want or need a songwriter with a rap or protest song to start a revolution with, we have Twitter for that now.

Most of the time, we just want something we can listen to in our ear buds at the gym, or at work, or while in Starbucks drinking a No Foam Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte.

We no longer perceive songwriters as shamans or mediums capable of summoning a song that can transform a society, and those who continue to adopt that role feel oddly out of sync with contemporary culture. Nor is the song the thing now; it is now more likely simply the soundtrack for the thing; and if it doesn't suit us, we'll switch it out for one of the other billion economically worthless if still emotionally charged tunes in our pocket.

If you accept that premise, then the disruption we’ve experienced in recent years doesn't necessarily or only originate from the competition between a pay model vs a free model, but rather perhaps from the incumbents resistance to the notion that music has been re-assigned from its old position of valuable resource to a new position of complimentary service.

Just like water, when the logistical issues of a given region regarding supply, sanitation and distribution networks are suddenly resolved.

Consider at one time in the ancient world freshwater was difficult to come by, and therefore its value was commensurate with its scarcity. Then along come the plumbers, they lay down the pipes and suddenly everyone has access to water. Naturally, the cost of freshwater declines exponentially, and now, go to any restaurant in the world, sit down for a meal, and your waiter will bring a nice, tall, ice cold glass of freshwater for 'free'.

Well, the Internet is such a pipe.

There's money in the pipes, to be sure, if not the content.

That is to say, music like water is nice on the side, even necessary for life, but should by no means be mistaken for the main meal.

And this not to say that the creators of music shouldn’t be compensated; after all, even complimentary water isn’t free. It’s free to you, the customer at a restaurant, but someone pays for its collection and processing somewhere along the line. It may also be cheap, but plumbers are still expensive.

Ironic, though, at the exact same moment in history when the world is parched for content,  artists are asked to run the tap and give it away for nothing.

Perhaps we should ask not whether music has value; of course it does. Music possesses immeasurable social value, and as such, contributes to much human happiness.

But so does sex, and that's also 'free'.

Either way, we might re-consider both how we pay for music and how much we pay for music. It may be that we no longer buy it directly, but that it is provided, like water,  as a compliment to another purchase for another  item, service or device that provides access to music; this band courtesy of that brand or benefactor, and would you like fries with that?

In the past the LP, the cassette and then the compact disc served as containers for music, and few mourned the passing of cardboard and plastic once they got used to carrying a thousand tunes in their pocket.

The mixtapes of my own childhood represented not simply a playlist, but a painstakingly conceived piece of personal multimedia. Maybe portable screens and drives –or whatever sub dermal embedded doodad they think up in the future– will render all such packaging obsolete, and where we once relied on packaging to provide context, digital wireless media floating in the ether or implanted in our bones will suffice.

Of course, it's already happened, but there are still some people of all ages that push back, deny, ignore or otherwise resist the tectonic technological shift that all but shakes the ground beneath our feet (–he said dropping a piece of vinyl on the deck).

Music As Collateral: Concepts in Co-Branding

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the three-part November 2007 MUSIC AS COLLATERAL series exploring exploring the new paradigms for Music Distribution:

Part 1: Compatible Archetypes
Part 2: Collaborative Marketing Concepts for Musicians
Part 3: The Hottest Brand in the World

This Series link also includes the May 2006 explaining Camelback Collateral.

Bonus Article: ADDED VALUE AUDIO.

* * *

Like this Topic? Click on any link below to read all the articles in the four-part Fall 2006 AUDIO AS ADDED VALUE series exploring exploring new paradigms for Music Distribution:

1. The Compact Disc Is Dead
2. Saving The Music Industry One Brand at a Time
3. Self-Referential Jingles are not Content
4. Synergy = Energy

Music as Collateral: The Hottest Brand in the World

This article represents the final part of a November 10, 2007 post on the subject of music as collateral.

Read Part One here: Compatible Archetypes.
Read Part Two here: Collaborative Marketing Concepts for Musicians.

The three posts together continue a series explored throughout this blog discussing potential uses of Audio as an Added Value Component .

In the past I’ve attached the label ‘Strategic Audio Partnerships’ to the general concept of subsidizing musical artists by companies that produce products or services; the artists that accept such subsidies ‘Rock Brands’; sponsors, foundations, contributors and even ad buyers who commission musical works with a return promotional effort as a requirement, as following a ‘Medici Model’; and the method by which the music is distributed via as an accompaniment to another purchase as ‘Camelback Collateral’, because the music isn’t selling itself, but rather being carried into the home via another sale.

In the current parlance, individual aspects of these related concepts are increasingly being re-bundled into the separate ideas and executions known as 'Branded Content', and '360° deals'. However, at its essence, Branded Content , "...is ideas that bring entertainment value to brands and that integrate brands into entertainment". And 360° deals typically describe a relationship whereby a record label will theoretically lay a larger role in an artist's development in return for a share of profits that includes merchandise, touring and other streams of revenue.

To learn more about Branded Content, click on either of the Branded Content links above.

To learn more about the positive potential of 360° deals, read Jeff Leeds' excellent New York Times, November 11, 2007 article, The New Deal: Band as Brand. (As it happens, I've commented on a Jeff Leeds article before. Check out my November 14, 2006 post, Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest). Also check out Bob Lefsetz's Music Analysis blog, The Lefsetz Letter, where he writes in response to Leeds': "Under the guise of artist development, the major labels are spinning this fantasy that 360 deals are good for the artist when the real story is they’re a land grab, a desperate attempt to insure the labels’ future."

Like Branded Content, the concepts of Strategic Audio Partnerships and Rock Brands describe Artist relationships with 3rd party sponsors for the purpose of bringing entertainment value to brands but excepting collaborative promotional ventures, the models stop short of recommending reciprocal integration of those brands back into the artist's entertainment or works.

In contrast to 360° deals, third parties may or may not be active participants in the production of a collaborative marketing venture with an artist: they may simply be sponsors, following a Medici model, with no marketing plan proposed or required). But in the event of a commercial project in which an artist is commissioned in the support of promoting a brand, the artist (and his or her creative and/or management team) will certainly be active participants, if not take on creative leadership roles, and perhaps even manage the production of the effort.

In effect, Brand and Band commission each other in the creation of media of some sort, which serves a dual purpose of promoting both partners to the venture.

The intent is to thereby define the Artist not simply as musician/s under contract for a traditional endorsement or production deal, but as an independent creative and marketing consultant/s at the helm of their own brand –with their own agenda, and inclusive of the professional responsibilities such titles suggest– regardless of what kind of relationship they might have in place with a record label.

Strategic Audio Partnerships and Rock Brands describe an alternate music industry, one supported by sponsors, contributors, arts foundations, patrons, and other strategic or 'brand partners'; and when partnering with advertisers, the Artist (and their creative/ production/ management team, i.e. the 'Rock Brand'), takes on a creative leadership role, as a partner, expert and authority, in the development of any commercial endeavors. The Artist isn't directed by an advertising agency because the Artist is the Advertising Agency (although the deal between Brand and Band may certainly be (and probably will be) brokered and supervised by a traditional communications firm. That is to say, acting at the bequest of Brand, Agency will play line producer to Artist's (or Brand/Band) Creative Direction.

As you might have guessed, I believe the future will indeed resemble 360° deals, but my model positions the Artist/Rock Brand at the hub, with label and partnerships representing but individual revenue streams/spokes in the wheel; as opposed to the model as it is proposed now with the label at the hub, –unless it's worth it to the artist to accept such a contract, and it very well may be in some cases.

There's a reason why I keep using the term Rock Brand. In contrast to traditional endorsement models, the term Rock Brand implies the notion that the artist is not just reading from a script, but that he or she and their team is assuming many –if not all– of the functions typically handled by creative consultants, marketing agencies and commercial production companies. I rarely mention management in this equation, but my supposition is that artist management will represent the fuel cell, build or manage 'the team', and provide much of the energy in this model. In fact, a great place to assemble brand and production consultants under one virtual roof is via management. That said, there's no reason a successful artist might simply start their own production or marketing companies independent of their management's control, and possibly retain other artists as clients or even partners in these businesses.

The question remains: Why would an ad buyer want to forge a strategic audio partnership with a Rock Brand? Certainly that money might be put to better use if spent on a traditional print or TV advertising campaign. Wouldn't it?

Let’s address the issue of budget: In the case of television, consider that production for a national TV commercial might cost between .25M and 1M, not including the media buy, and perhaps run for 13 to 26 weeks. Then it's over and finished, and once it is off the air it quite often erases itself from the popular consciousness. In fact, given the ubiquity of TIVO and other hard disc recorders it may never even connect with (and deliver its message to) its intended target demographic. Likewise, print suffers a parallel effect that TV commercials suffer at the hands of TIVO. People simply turn the page, if they’re even reading print anymore. Suffice to say that every dollar in any advertising budget is gambled.

I often consider how far a million bucks would go if spent on a young emerging artist or band –one perhaps overlooked by the record labels, but identified by an ad buyer's in house A&R team as having the potential to capture the public imagination –or even one small segment of it.

And I've also wondered how long thereafter that a band's young fans might connect a brand endorsement with a band's music. Might that connection continue so that it is able to influence a purchase not now, –not in the next 13 weeks, nor even a year from now; but well into adulthood? It's only conjecture but I have to imagine that two music instrument manufacturers continue to sell a significant bit of product today because thirty years ago a generation of kids read in the liner notes that ‘The Hottest Band In the World’, –KISS– "uses Gibson Guitars and Pearl Drums because they want the best".

Likewise, in a March 30, 2001 article I wrote evangelizing the use of Sonic Branding, titled Branding With Audio, and published by Internet marketing resource clickz.com, I wrote: Oats may be oats, but if I'm making babies to your music, then chances are my babies will be eating your oats.

And keep in mind that not every dollar of any given ad buyer's promotional budget is necessarily meant to translate into a direct sale. Coca Cola's sponsorship of The Charlie Rose show doesn't translate into direct sales, but it does translate into a general feeling of goodwill that may spur a Coke sale in the future, and perhaps even a lifelong relationship with the brand. Isn't a lifelong relationship with the people who enjoy their music what every artist wants, too?

For a band, if a relationship with a product or service can be contextualized by the public as a collaborative promotion rather than as a paid endorsement by one party of another ('selling out'), then perhaps a band can benefit from being framed as representing the essence of a certain aspirational lifestyle. The worst that can happen is probably not a career killer for the band, nor the brand. Even if the public does not wholeheartedly embrace the relationship, then at the very least one might expect a bit of fame, notoriety and/or interest to sustain the next stage of market evolution for either party, even if the two partners chose to part ways after one campaign.

Consider rockstar Sting's collaboration with Jaguar. The campaign left no doubt that both Jaguar and Sting are luxury items. Maybe you can't afford a Lexus, but you can afford a Sting album. Press play; close your eyes, and now who needs a car to bask in the rich and global lifestyle package Sting represents?

True, I may never listen to Sting again without thinking of Jaguar, –and such associations would be problematic for some artists– but in the case of Sting and Jaguar, this pairing doesn't necessarily distract from my enjoyment of the artist's music. This means that Jaguar's dollar, or pound, stretches quite far, well beyond the actual campaign and will possibly even resonate across the Artist's new works and future appearances. For Sting, the association reinforces the public perception of his position as a celestial body in the Rock universe. It is precisely because the collaboration paired two equitable archetypal figures, and presented them as creative collaborators, that their past partnership will continue to serve each to great mutual advantage.

* * *

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the three-part November 2007 MUSIC AS COLLATERAL series exploring exploring the new paradigms for Music Distribution:

Part 1: Compatible Archetypes
Part 2: Collaborative Marketing Concepts for Musicians
Part 3: The Hottest Brand in the World

Collaborative Marketing Concepts for Musicians

In the past I’ve defined the following general concepts: ‘Strategic Audio Partnerships’; the artists that participate in them ‘Rock Brands’; sponsors who commission such works regardless of a return future endorsement or mention, as following a ‘Medici Model’; and the distribution method ‘Camelback Collateral’, because the music isn’t selling itself, but rather being carried into the home via another sale.

Aspects of all these concepts are increasingly being referred to as Branded Content, and can also be found in '360° deals'. That said, the term 'branded content' as often as not refers to works in which the content itself integrates the brand in some way, for instance as presenting a name brand product as a pivotal plot element of a TV show, or a scripted use by an actor; –and not simply as presented in ads during commercial breaks.

According to the London based Branded Content Marketing Association, "Branded content is ideas that bring entertainment value to brands and that integrate brands into entertainment."

Branded content has been around a long, long time. As media strategist Tessa Weggert reminds us in her article, Advertorial's Kissing Cousin, branded content can also refer to entertaining or informative content produced, controlled and published –and therefore 'framed' or 'contextualized'– by an advertiser. Think of, for instance, the articles you might find in a health and fitness newsletter provided by a pharmaceutical company, or even your local gym or family doctor. The actual content maybe factual and otherwise neutral, but it's been brought to you by a brand, even if that brand is your own family doctor.

360° deals typically describe a relationship whereby a record label will play a larger role in an artist's development in return for a share of profits that includes merchandise, touring and other streams of revenue.

To learn more about 360° deals, read Jeff Leeds excellent New York Times, November 11, 2007 article, The New Deal: Band as Brand.

In contrast, the concepts of Strategic Audio Partnerships and Rock Brands describe Artist relationships with 3rd party sponsors for the purpose of bringing entertainment value to brands but stopping short of a reciprocal integration of those brands back into the artist's entertainment or works. These third party sponsors may or may not be active participants in the production of a collaborative marketing venture with an artist, but the artist (and his or her creative and/or management team) certainly is; and this thereby defines the Artist not simply as musician/s under contract for an endorsement deal, but as an independent marketing consultant/s at the helm of their own brand, regardless of what kind of relationship they might have with a record label.

* * *

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the three-part November 2007 MUSIC AS COLLATERAL series exploring exploring the new paradigms for Music Distribution:

Part 1: Compatible Archetypes
Part 2: Collaborative Marketing Concepts for Musicians
Part 3: The Hottest Brand in the World

Music as Collateral: Compatible Archetypes

In previous articles I’ve suggested that collaborations between artists and ‘Ad Buyers’ –businesses that provide products and/or services (and their advertising agencies– are one way musicians might be subsidized by corporate sponsors other than a traditional record label; or alternately serve as their record label; or work in tandem with a record label or management company, but 'outside' the traditional music industry universe.

I’ve also knocked around ideas in an attempt to forecast how future Ad Buyer/Artist relationships might veer away from the current endorsement deal model, and become more collaborative. Traditional endorsement responsibilities can be perceived as hawking by fans and thus damage credibility. Likewise, sponsorships appear most effective when sponsors appear carefully selected by an artist, –and not accepted on the basis of monetary valuation alone.

Consider National Public Radio: Sponsorships are never construed as inherent endorsements by a program, host, celebrity or even the network. But the context in which such sponsorships are presented results in all sponsors framed if not as caring contributors concerned with 'giving something back', then simply as neutral supporters of the arts.

In like manner, I think that providing music as a complimentary gift that accompanies a purchase of either a product or service by a provider who also subsidizes either the artist or artist production may be but one method that music production and promotion in the future will be funded and distributed, with positive effect for both artist and sponsor.

You don't need a strategic partner to make this happen, however. An independent artist might move product in combination with the sales of their own branded merchandise.

What is important is that whether the music is distributed via Artist merch or via a relationship with a partner, it should never be referred to as a ‘freebie’. Perhaps it is framed as a gift, –perhaps as ‘complimentary’ with one’s purchase, or some other term or tag to be decided, but never as a valueless giveaway. A giveaway yes, but one that came at some expense to the giver, and from a giver who actually cares and connects with the gift. This is important: both music and purchase must relate to one another in some credible manner, as I’ll explain presently:

Presently when we purchase music, we buy it for it’s own sake. For instance, you buy a Jay-Z CD because you like his music. And when we buy a product or commission a service, we buy that for it’s own sake, too. One purchases a certain car because you like that make and model, or it serves a utilitarian purpose in one’s life. I think there is an increasing opportunity for both artist and ad buyer to connect with consumers and fans by providing what I might call a ‘lifestyle package’.

In an advertisement for a lifestyle package, the product might be a car, and the soundtrack a licensed piece of music by a certain band. But in contrast to the yesteryear model, whereby the licensed music supported the filmed story, product demo or brand message, in the new model the product and the artist whose music is being used will support each other. Sting's 2000 promotional collaboration with Jaguar represents one relatively recent and notable example of lifestyle packaging between auto manufacturer and rock brand. Likewise, the 2007 Lexus campaign featuring Elvis Costello and Diana Krall.

Ideally, both brand and band serve to sell each other.

Core Costello fans from the artist's punk past might feel affronted by the ads, but his new base probably thinks it's wonderful to see their favorite artist on TV again, in any capacity. Televised promotions are additionally beneficial to the artist because commercials serve to function as an artist's video, and are produced at no cost to artist.

For an example of a lopsided pairing, recall the popular 2000 VW ad that used Nick Drake's song PINK MOON as its soundtrack. In the end, the ad proved better as a music video for Drake than it did as an ad for VW. Simply put, the commercial did more to rehabilitate Drake's career than it did to sell Volkswagens. Not to mention that no one at the time could seem to remember that the ads were actually promoting a specific model, the VW Cabrio.

I suspect that the entire VW 'Drivers Want It' campaign, which featured exceptionally tasteful music choices across a series of quirky spots, did much to keep the music industry afloat with new sales at a time when Napster was biting off big chunks of its bottom line. Meanwhile, VW fired the ad agency that developed the campaign because their cars were collecting dust on lots.

For a strategic relationship between brand and band to work, and benefit both parties, both brand and band must represent compatible archetypes. It will not work when an artist is used to drive sales by overtly pitching products or services directly.

Reciprocally, it will not work when the artist’s fan base does not align with an ad buyer’s target demographic.

But it will work with positive effect when both partners in the relationship are a natural and logical fit for each other, and so long as they remember the silent parties to the contract are fans and consumers. Further, advertiser and artist must not appear to promote each other, but rather fulfill roles as symbiotic symbols in a given lifestyle arrangement, for which the target demographic is shared between both consumer base and fan base.

* * *

Click on any link below to read all the articles in the three-part November 2007 MUSIC AS COLLATERAL series exploring exploring the new paradigms for Music Distribution:

Part 1: Compatible Archetypes
Part 2: Collaborative Marketing Concepts for Musicians
Part 3: The Hottest Brand in the World

Music As Collateral: Using Audio to Add Value

The music industry complains of being broken. Digital Audio is easy to copy. So, now consumers apparently have no reason to purchase legitimate product. As a result there is much talk regarding how to add further value to physical product in order to sustain a consumer base.

Let me suggest that instead of adding value to the music, let’s consider how to use music to add value to other consumer products. In this way:

A) the producers of a recording can profit;
B) the artists gain a vehicle for distribution; and
C) the consumer can feel like they’ve either earned a reward, or gotten something for free that they would otherwise have to pay for.

For instance:

I would personally be more likely to listen to an album of romantic songs if they were delivered with a premium box of Godiva chocolates. Likewise, the global florist, FTD, has an immense opportunity waiting for them if they are first to deliver music along with their floral arrangements. Long after the flowers wilt, a loved one can listen to the song they were gifted and thereby continue living within an FTD branded experience.

I call this Camelback Distribution (or Collateral) because something else is carrying the load. In this latter example the something else is the flowers, and the load the music.

Any kind of sponsorship may not be the best platform for an unknown artist, for either the artist or the sponsor; but you can surely can see how it could be a profitable one for both current hit makers –(Mariah Carey & FTD, for example)– and for classic catalog recordings, which in effect represents a vast emotional repository for the entire culture.

To the customer the experience won’t feel branded: It will simply feel like a love letter received from one person to the other; or it will be accepted as a token gift of music, accompanying the bouquet. Either way, which florist do you think giver and receiver are going to call the next time either one needs to send a bouquet of flowers?

As a teen my friends and I traded songs or mix tapes. On occasion, the exchange was prefaced with an explanation that the person receiving the material was to pay attention to a particular set of lyrics. Thus, the music became the vehicle for a message attributable not to the songwriter, but to the person who made the mix tape, to be decoded later by the person he or she gave the music to. In a way, the gift which arrived was in fact neither the mix tape nor the music, but rather both mix tape and music provided Russian Doll like packaging for an emotive expression, which was the true gift!

Given this scenario, which continues today with the exchange of mp3s, why not bundle single roses with singles (songs) and market the combo to teen romantics at a price they can afford?

I can imagine that the attached card might read:

"Nothing says 'I Love You' like a rose, except for music. This song says more about how I feel about you than I could ever put into words myself."

The reality is, the music isn't free but  it feels free, because the ostensible purchase is for the rose (or other gift (the 'camel'). So, the music is paid for with each and every product purchase. Alternately, a corporate sponsor can eat the cost entirely, either as a loss leader or because by doing so they hope to profit by factors other than an immediate economic payback (–such as the goodwill and gratitude of their customers, for instance).

+     +     +

This article is one in series of articles about audio as added value. Read the other entries by following the links:

Music As Collateral: Using Audio to Add Value
The Compact Disc Is Dead
Saving The Music Industry One Brand at a Time
Self-Referential Jingles are not Content
Synergy = Energy

EXPERIENCE: Traditional Packaging Not Required

Apple launched iTunes in January of 2001. The product, it turns out, is a music supervisor's delight.

But in order to maximize its usefulness to me, I've had to rather compulsively spend inordinate amounts of time transferring media from one platform to another. Now, two years later I've finally burned through a life's collection of Compact Discs and DATS, and even digitized my old audio cassettes, so that I can access it all via the iTunes app. The net result is that as of today I've amassed one hundred and ninety seven gigabytes of audio, a collection that includes both MP3s and AIFF files. An even though I've been using computers for well over 20 years, I'm still amazed that how much audio can now fit on a single drive.

Here's a question: What am I going to do with all that left over packaging?

Along the way I came to the following realization:

In the past, the vinyl record and its jacket was not just a vehicle for distribution, but actually part and parcel of the entertainment experience. The same can’t be said for Compact Discs, which are about as experiential as a box of Tic Tacs. Once the Tic Tacs are gone, you don’t keep the packaging. So it goes with CDs. Once a customer has transferred audio from a CD to their hard drive, the disc, Digipak or jewel case it was transported in, all instantly become garbage.

The iTunes store itself has replaced packaging to some extent –as has each artist’s own website– and both definitely provide an experience. But given how digital audio is wreaking havoc on the traditional music business model, how will artists in the future reach a substantial audience? Because global awareness is one reason why an artist signs with a record label, right? Well, I think an artist can reach a worldwide audience –and significantly increase their market share– by accepting sponsorship and corporate patrons. Call it The Medici Music Model.

I am NOT suggesting artists accept traditional spokesperson-styled endorsement deals. Nor am I suggesting that performers tell their fans that they use and enjoy a sponsor’s products unless that is part of an overall contractual negotiation/obligation.

However, I do put forward that modern merchants can power up their branding possibilities by underwriting individual artists and entertainers beginning with the recording and distribution of an artist's works similar to the same way as Coca Cola does right now by underwriting Charlie Rose's talk show. That is, no explicit endorsement by the artist for the patron's product or service required or expected –just a public word of thanks by the artist for the sponsorship (unless otherwise negotiated by the sponsor). For artists (unattached to traditional record labels), such relationships can significantly increase their own market share or fan base by a tremendous margin.

Let's consider a future where songwriters and performers aren't signed –they're underwritten. And stars won't endorse products; they'll partner with the companies that make them. (I call such strategic partnerships ROCK BRANDS)

For individual musical artists, regardless of whether they accept patronage, it's arguably all about the experience; therefore there's no reason to insist on packaging your music on a Compact Disc, or in a jewel case. You can sell anything –oats, soap, flowers, swag, art, books, marketing collateral, tequila and collectibles of all sorts– and package the merchandise with a coupon redeemable at an online store for one's desired music. For ten bucks, do your fans prefer A) one CD, or B) one T-Shirt that comes with a unique code enabling a download of a complete album (or perhaps any ten songs from your repertoire) from your online site?

In the future, musicians may resemble entrepreneurs who sell not just songs, but are associated with an array of products, which will use the artist's own music to add value to a number of consumer goods and services. In tandem, the brand partnerships will serve as a distribution vehicles for the music and the artist's message.