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
Showing posts with label Medici Model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medici Model. Show all posts
Saturday, November 10, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
As it happens, not too long ago (on March 1, 2006) I wrote:
"It bears mentioning that reasons for corporate patronage also include a desire or necessity to curry political favor in another country, as Lorenzo de' Medici is known to have done. By investing or contributing in another nation's arts and artists, one possibly wins favor with its members of government. For American and European interests (seeking foreign industrial contracts), it may seem like good strategy to spend dollars developing tomorrow's Chinese rock stars and East Indian 'gangsta' rappers. Likewise, we may one day witness Asian governments sponsoring indigenous African and mid eastern cultural activities in a bid to compete for those country's petrol resources".
So, it was with no shortage of interest that only two weeks later –in the November 12th issue of the New York Times– I discovered an article titled: The New Ambassadors.
In 'The New Ambassadors', writer Jeff Leeds reports that several foreign governments have begun sponsoring their own local popular artists in an attempt to spread goodwill as they tour abroad –in this case, 'abroad' meaning the United States.
Leeds writes:
"In a global economy that is blurring geographic borders, more and more nations view intellectual property — films, software and the like — as valuable commodities, easily transferred exports that can sell in previously inaccessible markets. That includes intellectual property like pop-punk or death metal... One way or another, between the musicians who are representing their countries abroad and the government officials who are seeking out and signing new talent, the international trend has forced all parties to invent new rules, and new roles, in situations that none of them could have anticipated."
Obviously, I agree –excepting the idea that such a 'situation' could not have been anticipated, for it most certainly was, six hundred years ago by Lorenzo de' Medici.
"It bears mentioning that reasons for corporate patronage also include a desire or necessity to curry political favor in another country, as Lorenzo de' Medici is known to have done. By investing or contributing in another nation's arts and artists, one possibly wins favor with its members of government. For American and European interests (seeking foreign industrial contracts), it may seem like good strategy to spend dollars developing tomorrow's Chinese rock stars and East Indian 'gangsta' rappers. Likewise, we may one day witness Asian governments sponsoring indigenous African and mid eastern cultural activities in a bid to compete for those country's petrol resources".
So, it was with no shortage of interest that only two weeks later –in the November 12th issue of the New York Times– I discovered an article titled: The New Ambassadors.
In 'The New Ambassadors', writer Jeff Leeds reports that several foreign governments have begun sponsoring their own local popular artists in an attempt to spread goodwill as they tour abroad –in this case, 'abroad' meaning the United States.
Leeds writes:
"In a global economy that is blurring geographic borders, more and more nations view intellectual property — films, software and the like — as valuable commodities, easily transferred exports that can sell in previously inaccessible markets. That includes intellectual property like pop-punk or death metal... One way or another, between the musicians who are representing their countries abroad and the government officials who are seeking out and signing new talent, the international trend has forced all parties to invent new rules, and new roles, in situations that none of them could have anticipated."
Obviously, I agree –excepting the idea that such a 'situation' could not have been anticipated, for it most certainly was, six hundred years ago by Lorenzo de' Medici.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Strategic Audio Partnerships
I'd like to use this entry to revisit several ideas I’ve mentioned in the past, in separate posts, and perhaps demonstrate their interconnectedness. For although each concept was considered exclusive of the other, they can certainly work in concert. Such a strategy assumed by a wide enough base would have the result of forming a different kind of music industry than the one we see today. Or it might simply form a parallel but different branch of the entertainment industry. I've been calling this new paradigm 'Strategic Audio Partnerships'. These are three components that form the conceptual basis of the business plan:
1. Rock Brands: Rock Brands are artists who forgo traditional celebrity endorsement deals in lieu of strategic partnerships between their own brand/marketing company and a corporate account. They don't just show up for a film shoot, a party or publicity photos. They are active participants in the 'concepting', creation and execution of a marketing strategy that leverages their brand value to yield a return on investment for their clients –at an appropriate price.
Rock Brands will otherwise function as entertainers and audio/music providers, so never confuse their contributions to popular culture and commerce with traditional work-for-hire oriented music and sound production companies.
2. Medici Model Sponsorships: Such sponsorships are akin to those given to Public Television, whereby corporate patrons underwrite artists, with no endorsement expected, except to provide an appropriate and public acknowledgment for the source of the funds (unless otherwise negotiated). One might also consider that in lieu of direct grants made to artists, advertisers who wish to underwrite arts programs might allocate funds to a new kind of (possibly non-profit) record label. In this scenario, the artist is protected from accusations of 'selling out', because they will be producing art funded by an arts organization, not at the bequest of the foundation's contributors.
3. Camelback Collateral & Distribution: Camelback Distribution is a Non-Traditional Digital Audio Distribution method of delivery. It's referred to as Camelback, because something else carries the load. In this case Music is delivered as collateral or added value enhancements for other non-entertainment commodities –meaning the delivery of a music experience or product with every type of goods and services you can think of; whether packaged as a gift or promoted as a combo purchase.
So, for instance, one doesn't give away a free CD with a car purchase. Rather the music is liquid and the car –in this instance– is literally the vehicle for the distribution of music. The car -or any other primary product– replaces the CD case, if you want to think of it like that. One might reasonably expect that in the future the exchange of capital for a car, or any other product, will include a coupon, code or some yet-to-be-implemented technology for redeeming the artist's music at the artist's website, or an online music store; or Branded Mixes at the online space belonging to the product manufacturers.
Independent artists distributing their own works without a formal sponsor's product to package their music in/with, can simply package their music in or with their own branded merchandise, such as T-shirts, for instance. The purchase of a physical product –in this case, a T-shirt– eliminates the need for CD packaging (as the music itself is accessed via the web/ phone/ air –what I call in its 'liquid' form). The result is consumers pay for music but feel as though they are getting it for free.
This says nothing towards the idea of 'renting' music, which is a topic that merits an analysis beyond the scope of this entry.
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
1. Rock Brands: Rock Brands are artists who forgo traditional celebrity endorsement deals in lieu of strategic partnerships between their own brand/marketing company and a corporate account. They don't just show up for a film shoot, a party or publicity photos. They are active participants in the 'concepting', creation and execution of a marketing strategy that leverages their brand value to yield a return on investment for their clients –at an appropriate price.
Rock Brands will otherwise function as entertainers and audio/music providers, so never confuse their contributions to popular culture and commerce with traditional work-for-hire oriented music and sound production companies.
2. Medici Model Sponsorships: Such sponsorships are akin to those given to Public Television, whereby corporate patrons underwrite artists, with no endorsement expected, except to provide an appropriate and public acknowledgment for the source of the funds (unless otherwise negotiated). One might also consider that in lieu of direct grants made to artists, advertisers who wish to underwrite arts programs might allocate funds to a new kind of (possibly non-profit) record label. In this scenario, the artist is protected from accusations of 'selling out', because they will be producing art funded by an arts organization, not at the bequest of the foundation's contributors.
3. Camelback Collateral & Distribution: Camelback Distribution is a Non-Traditional Digital Audio Distribution method of delivery. It's referred to as Camelback, because something else carries the load. In this case Music is delivered as collateral or added value enhancements for other non-entertainment commodities –meaning the delivery of a music experience or product with every type of goods and services you can think of; whether packaged as a gift or promoted as a combo purchase.
So, for instance, one doesn't give away a free CD with a car purchase. Rather the music is liquid and the car –in this instance– is literally the vehicle for the distribution of music. The car -or any other primary product– replaces the CD case, if you want to think of it like that. One might reasonably expect that in the future the exchange of capital for a car, or any other product, will include a coupon, code or some yet-to-be-implemented technology for redeeming the artist's music at the artist's website, or an online music store; or Branded Mixes at the online space belonging to the product manufacturers.
Independent artists distributing their own works without a formal sponsor's product to package their music in/with, can simply package their music in or with their own branded merchandise, such as T-shirts, for instance. The purchase of a physical product –in this case, a T-shirt– eliminates the need for CD packaging (as the music itself is accessed via the web/ phone/ air –what I call in its 'liquid' form). The result is consumers pay for music but feel as though they are getting it for free.
This says nothing towards the idea of 'renting' music, which is a topic that merits an analysis beyond the scope of this entry.
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
There may be a time in the future when the Apple brand is deemed an incompatible venue for one or more artists to distribute their works. It may happen, for instance, that a performer receives underwriting from Microsoft, or another Apple competitor. Apple, is not after all, retail agnostic. How long will Sony want to keep sending their consumers to their biggest competitor for music playback devices?
There’s absolutely no reason or need to send music fans to any specific online store, such as iTunes, whose own branded experience may fall outside any given artist's own brand mandate. Companies that underwrite artists should make downloads available on their own websites. Additionally –and in direct contrast to record label offerings– creative works resulting from corporate underwriting might even be offered without copy protection. Why? Because unlike traditional entertainment units, brands will want as many consumers as possible to share in their brand event/experience.
Assume an artist who receives sponsorship of some sort is satisfied with his or her compensation/funding. It follows that adequately financed, original works of art and music will have a chance of spreading virally as never before. And because the material is underwritten and not work-for-hire, the artist retains the option and opportunity to further profit from the material assuming his or her underwriters are duly credited (ex. 'This recording was made possible as a result of a grant from The Famous Soda Pop Co. Foundation For the Arts').
Underwriters might also negotiate such things as branded tags, keywords and icons so that the material can be located and viewed in iTunes (and other similarly formatted sites or applications) by BAND name and BRAND name. Why not? Doesn’t every movie begin with the producing studio's Logo? I’m not suggesting pre-roll audio commercial announcements be placed before a song or musical composition –although a .25 (quarter second) to 3.0 (three second) fanfare before a multi-song (or music+video) experience may not be too unreasonable for consumers to accept. However, I am advising that Song Info appear in any and all consumer databases fully credited:
‘Artist X’ – ‘Title X’ – courtesy of Brand X
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
itunes
There’s absolutely no reason or need to send music fans to any specific online store, such as iTunes, whose own branded experience may fall outside any given artist's own brand mandate. Companies that underwrite artists should make downloads available on their own websites. Additionally –and in direct contrast to record label offerings– creative works resulting from corporate underwriting might even be offered without copy protection. Why? Because unlike traditional entertainment units, brands will want as many consumers as possible to share in their brand event/experience.
Assume an artist who receives sponsorship of some sort is satisfied with his or her compensation/funding. It follows that adequately financed, original works of art and music will have a chance of spreading virally as never before. And because the material is underwritten and not work-for-hire, the artist retains the option and opportunity to further profit from the material assuming his or her underwriters are duly credited (ex. 'This recording was made possible as a result of a grant from The Famous Soda Pop Co. Foundation For the Arts').
Underwriters might also negotiate such things as branded tags, keywords and icons so that the material can be located and viewed in iTunes (and other similarly formatted sites or applications) by BAND name and BRAND name. Why not? Doesn’t every movie begin with the producing studio's Logo? I’m not suggesting pre-roll audio commercial announcements be placed before a song or musical composition –although a .25 (quarter second) to 3.0 (three second) fanfare before a multi-song (or music+video) experience may not be too unreasonable for consumers to accept. However, I am advising that Song Info appear in any and all consumer databases fully credited:
‘Artist X’ – ‘Title X’ – courtesy of Brand X
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
itunes
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Medici Model Revisited
There’s a historical precedent for patronage. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven –all the great classical composers– wrote music at the bequest of a variety of benefactors, be it the church, a member or royalty, or another extremely wealthy person. Michelangelo’s masterpieces were all created as commissioned works, and I don’t think anyone ever accused Michelangelo of selling out to the Medicis or the Roman Catholic Church.
As such, I don't understand why today our largest corporations do not commission symphonic works of some substantial length to merit an evening of music. If classical or concert music is dead, I can certainly imagine this kind of patronage changing the whole game, not to mention the potential contributions to the arts and culture such largesse would afford. By the way, I'm accepting such commissions beginning immediately.
As it turns out, some corporations already do employ art buyers: to decorate their lobbies and offices; to contribute to environmental branding needs and to enhance an investment portfolio. So, if a company has an art buyer in their employ, why not also create an artist relations role? Or develop in-house music producers who not only are capable of eliciting world class musical performances from the artists and entertainers they work with, but who also specialize in cultivating, selecting and filtering works of art (i.e. the composition, performance, tonality and recording process) through the lens of a client's brand strategy.
Of course, artists averse to selling out –if they perceive it as such– don't have to participate. And there will certainly be those whose material is so offensive or politicizing that they would be hard pressed to attract mainstream sponsors. But for others, the idea of piggybacking on a pound of Starbucks coffee or a can of Pepsi will be considered a perfectly acceptable means of guaranteed distribution should they choose to accept a corporate commission or grant (certainly, if the result is getting heard by millions of people).
Has any one who loves building cars or driving them ever said, “No, I can’t accept a sponsorship because that would be selling out; and therefore, I will limit all my driving to public roads?”
No, of course not: The best professional drivers want to get behind the wheel of the best-made cars and drive them on the most exclusive, prestigious and challenging tracks in the world. There’s no reason a similarly constructed music industry can’t adopt something from the NASCAR model.
Can you envision a day when consumers make all their music purchases at a grocery store because all the produce they purchase comes with –or provides access to– the music they want? I can: It will either be an economic nightmare or a gilded age.
Perhaps a can of beans is not an ideal stage for a serious composer. Perhaps the public will be turned off by an artist who arrives home with them with their organic carrots. But at the same time, I can't help but think it still is a commercially viable model for the production and distribution of entertainment, given the suitability of artist and corporate partner. I'd be more than happy to bring home the complete remastered works of Duke Ellington with a Lexus, and I wouldn't think less of the man or his art. A market exists for this delivery system right now, and it is probably larger than anyone right now can even imagine.
This may mean that companies such as Proctor & Gamble –to mention one company which is perfectly poised to take advantage of the proposed model– could eventually come head to head with companies like SONY/BMG. No doubt, today’s corporate titans are on the verge of a market shake-up that will define tomorrow’s entertainment behemoths and modern day Medicis. As a result, a company best known for selling soap and detergent today, just may win the upcoming war for consumer loyalty, and do by simply creating connections with artists; by funding music and distributing it with or without explicit tie-ins to their products and services (the music/ entertainment/ art might be made available only at their website, or by via some kind of non-commercial venue).
Proctor & Gamble is an especially formidable player in this regard because they already have a significant, if often overlooked, history as a content producer.
It bears mentioning that reasons for corporate patronage also include a desire or necessity to curry political favor in another country, as Lorenzo de' Medici is known to have done. By investing or contributing in another nation's arts and artists, one possibly wins favor with its members of government. For American and European interests (seeking foreign industrial contracts), it may seem like good strategy to spend dollars developing tomorrow's Chinese rock stars and East Indian gangsta rappers. Likewise, we may one day witness Asian governments sponsoring indigenous African and mid eastern cultural activities in a bid to compete for those country's petrol resources.
It should also be noted that government sponsorship of artist tours abroad are neither new nor even revolutionary. We are reminded by the Heritage Foundation on the Americans for the Arts website, that:
“Cultural exchanges are part of our first line of defense, helping to bridge ideological gaps and policy disagreements with person-to-person contact and close-up views of the United States. Such programs helped end the Cold War and could have reduced costly complications for America in the global war on terror.”
Future artists will greatly benefit from national patronage –or another form of sponsorship– if only for the guarantee of distribution and exposure, and if not always as a result of an association with the underwriter. –Although negative perceptions of artists (for participating in these relationships) by existing fans can largely be avoided if both parties –brand and band– make good public partners. New fans won’t care if patronage, endorsements or sponsorships are in play because that will be how they discovered the artist/s in the first place.
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
sponsorship
As such, I don't understand why today our largest corporations do not commission symphonic works of some substantial length to merit an evening of music. If classical or concert music is dead, I can certainly imagine this kind of patronage changing the whole game, not to mention the potential contributions to the arts and culture such largesse would afford. By the way, I'm accepting such commissions beginning immediately.
As it turns out, some corporations already do employ art buyers: to decorate their lobbies and offices; to contribute to environmental branding needs and to enhance an investment portfolio. So, if a company has an art buyer in their employ, why not also create an artist relations role? Or develop in-house music producers who not only are capable of eliciting world class musical performances from the artists and entertainers they work with, but who also specialize in cultivating, selecting and filtering works of art (i.e. the composition, performance, tonality and recording process) through the lens of a client's brand strategy.
Of course, artists averse to selling out –if they perceive it as such– don't have to participate. And there will certainly be those whose material is so offensive or politicizing that they would be hard pressed to attract mainstream sponsors. But for others, the idea of piggybacking on a pound of Starbucks coffee or a can of Pepsi will be considered a perfectly acceptable means of guaranteed distribution should they choose to accept a corporate commission or grant (certainly, if the result is getting heard by millions of people).
Has any one who loves building cars or driving them ever said, “No, I can’t accept a sponsorship because that would be selling out; and therefore, I will limit all my driving to public roads?”
No, of course not: The best professional drivers want to get behind the wheel of the best-made cars and drive them on the most exclusive, prestigious and challenging tracks in the world. There’s no reason a similarly constructed music industry can’t adopt something from the NASCAR model.
Can you envision a day when consumers make all their music purchases at a grocery store because all the produce they purchase comes with –or provides access to– the music they want? I can: It will either be an economic nightmare or a gilded age.
Perhaps a can of beans is not an ideal stage for a serious composer. Perhaps the public will be turned off by an artist who arrives home with them with their organic carrots. But at the same time, I can't help but think it still is a commercially viable model for the production and distribution of entertainment, given the suitability of artist and corporate partner. I'd be more than happy to bring home the complete remastered works of Duke Ellington with a Lexus, and I wouldn't think less of the man or his art. A market exists for this delivery system right now, and it is probably larger than anyone right now can even imagine.
This may mean that companies such as Proctor & Gamble –to mention one company which is perfectly poised to take advantage of the proposed model– could eventually come head to head with companies like SONY/BMG. No doubt, today’s corporate titans are on the verge of a market shake-up that will define tomorrow’s entertainment behemoths and modern day Medicis. As a result, a company best known for selling soap and detergent today, just may win the upcoming war for consumer loyalty, and do by simply creating connections with artists; by funding music and distributing it with or without explicit tie-ins to their products and services (the music/ entertainment/ art might be made available only at their website, or by via some kind of non-commercial venue).
Proctor & Gamble is an especially formidable player in this regard because they already have a significant, if often overlooked, history as a content producer.
It bears mentioning that reasons for corporate patronage also include a desire or necessity to curry political favor in another country, as Lorenzo de' Medici is known to have done. By investing or contributing in another nation's arts and artists, one possibly wins favor with its members of government. For American and European interests (seeking foreign industrial contracts), it may seem like good strategy to spend dollars developing tomorrow's Chinese rock stars and East Indian gangsta rappers. Likewise, we may one day witness Asian governments sponsoring indigenous African and mid eastern cultural activities in a bid to compete for those country's petrol resources.
It should also be noted that government sponsorship of artist tours abroad are neither new nor even revolutionary. We are reminded by the Heritage Foundation on the Americans for the Arts website, that:
“Cultural exchanges are part of our first line of defense, helping to bridge ideological gaps and policy disagreements with person-to-person contact and close-up views of the United States. Such programs helped end the Cold War and could have reduced costly complications for America in the global war on terror.”
Future artists will greatly benefit from national patronage –or another form of sponsorship– if only for the guarantee of distribution and exposure, and if not always as a result of an association with the underwriter. –Although negative perceptions of artists (for participating in these relationships) by existing fans can largely be avoided if both parties –brand and band– make good public partners. New fans won’t care if patronage, endorsements or sponsorships are in play because that will be how they discovered the artist/s in the first place.
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
sponsorship
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
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.
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.
Monday, May 01, 2000
Branded Mixes
A Brand Mix is a playlist (or a selection of playlists) created by one or more music supervisors or DJ/brand strategists commissioned a corporate patron or advertiser.
For instance: Buy a BMW and download fifty songs that you can listen to later –not just any fifty songs, mind you. I'm suggesting you select material that brings to mind that BMW is indeed The Ultimate Driving Machine.
Now rinse and repeat: Good for every product and service available worldwide.
The music on the playlist can be arrived at by any number of ways: It simply might be comprised of a variety of licensed tracks from several artists; or it might feature the works of one artist –your strategic audio partner, so to speak. Or the music might all be original compositions commissioned expressly for a specific Branded Mix project; or some combination of the above.
Ideally, song selections meet the criteria put forth in formal brand analysis.
In effect, a consumer goods brand provides a soundtrack to their consumer's lives. –Whether consumers listen to the mixes driving or washing laundry, the music serves the purpose of sustaining an 'off line' connection between brand and consumer.
As a consequence, a thriving singles market can be expected to flourish. However, also expect the music industry's primary market to change from primarily being Business-to-Consumer, to Business-to-Business.
In case you're getting the wrong idea, I don’t want to see my favorite artists dressed up like NASCAR drivers. Rather, following a Medici Model I am suggesting implementing a process that resembles the way art collector/marketer Charles Saatchi nurtured the school of Young British Artists (Damien Hirsch, Cornelia Parker, Tracy Emin, Sarah Lucas, Chris Ofili, et al) by seeding interest in each artist with not just funding, but with his very association. It worked the other way around, too. Saatchi's currency as a collector increased by virtue of his association with them.
The Young British Art scene delivered us a wonderful cultural loop whereby the collector could demonstrate good taste through his discoveries; and having been chosen by a person with presumably good taste, the artists could claim a measure of brilliance for themselves –even if the art in question was made with poop or comprised of dead sharks in tanks of formaldehyde. The parallels with much modern pop music are indeed astounding.
Packaging music with a sponsor's products or services can make real sense when both band and brand aspire to appeal to the same or overlapping demographics. Brand Mixes work especially well in environments (hotels, retail, etc) if the success of MUZAK can be any indication. The Muzak company may be synonymous with bland music, but that has changed. In any case, taste is not the issue of this entry, PROCESS is. –And the process I'm describing combines a DJ's ears with a brand audit.
Regardless, one hopes any tie-in might also alert potential fans of any given artist's material (by virtue of its selection into the Mix), like an audio beacon – and not unlike radio, come to think of it.
I’m only being partly facetious when I say that were one to distribute The Cure’s Greatest Hits as a redeemable coupon for downloadable music files with every box of Count Chocula, that cereal would become the first breakfast of choice for Goth fans and gender confused teens worldwide.
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
For instance: Buy a BMW and download fifty songs that you can listen to later –not just any fifty songs, mind you. I'm suggesting you select material that brings to mind that BMW is indeed The Ultimate Driving Machine.
Now rinse and repeat: Good for every product and service available worldwide.
The music on the playlist can be arrived at by any number of ways: It simply might be comprised of a variety of licensed tracks from several artists; or it might feature the works of one artist –your strategic audio partner, so to speak. Or the music might all be original compositions commissioned expressly for a specific Branded Mix project; or some combination of the above.
Ideally, song selections meet the criteria put forth in formal brand analysis.
In effect, a consumer goods brand provides a soundtrack to their consumer's lives. –Whether consumers listen to the mixes driving or washing laundry, the music serves the purpose of sustaining an 'off line' connection between brand and consumer.
As a consequence, a thriving singles market can be expected to flourish. However, also expect the music industry's primary market to change from primarily being Business-to-Consumer, to Business-to-Business.
In case you're getting the wrong idea, I don’t want to see my favorite artists dressed up like NASCAR drivers. Rather, following a Medici Model I am suggesting implementing a process that resembles the way art collector/marketer Charles Saatchi nurtured the school of Young British Artists (Damien Hirsch, Cornelia Parker, Tracy Emin, Sarah Lucas, Chris Ofili, et al) by seeding interest in each artist with not just funding, but with his very association. It worked the other way around, too. Saatchi's currency as a collector increased by virtue of his association with them.
The Young British Art scene delivered us a wonderful cultural loop whereby the collector could demonstrate good taste through his discoveries; and having been chosen by a person with presumably good taste, the artists could claim a measure of brilliance for themselves –even if the art in question was made with poop or comprised of dead sharks in tanks of formaldehyde. The parallels with much modern pop music are indeed astounding.
Packaging music with a sponsor's products or services can make real sense when both band and brand aspire to appeal to the same or overlapping demographics. Brand Mixes work especially well in environments (hotels, retail, etc) if the success of MUZAK can be any indication. The Muzak company may be synonymous with bland music, but that has changed. In any case, taste is not the issue of this entry, PROCESS is. –And the process I'm describing combines a DJ's ears with a brand audit.
Regardless, one hopes any tie-in might also alert potential fans of any given artist's material (by virtue of its selection into the Mix), like an audio beacon – and not unlike radio, come to think of it.
I’m only being partly facetious when I say that were one to distribute The Cure’s Greatest Hits as a redeemable coupon for downloadable music files with every box of Count Chocula, that cereal would become the first breakfast of choice for Goth fans and gender confused teens worldwide.
For other articles in this series:
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners
Branded Mixes
Medici Model Revisited
Artist X Brand X Not Available @ iTunes
Strategic Audio Partnerships
Diplomatic Corps Rock Fest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)