A&R Vs. A&B – Artist & Branding

Back in 1994, only a couple of years after I started producing music for TV, radio and early interactive media, I noticed the increasing number of people calling the studio inquiring about the music they had heard on a commercial. They wanted to know where they could buy the album that included the full length version of the track that they heard on the commercial.

Most of the time I had to tell them that no such an album existed.

Well, it didn't take long for me to realize an opportunity was being wasted here. So, at that point I started pitching my clients –account execs at ad agencies– with the idea to produce an album of music that included an extended version of the ad music, and several other similarly composed selections.

The result would be a promotional gift they could give to their customers upon a purchase. I envisioned hiring young rising stars and then making, say, a BMW produced-and-branded CD (or later, I conceived it as a downloadable playlist, which I alternately called Branded or Brand Mixes) that, say, new car owners could play in their 'Ultimate Driving Machine'.

In other words, I wanted advertising agencies to become music companies.

It seemed like a simple thing to do. After all,  agencies were already producing 'singles', per say in the way of jingles and underscores; and creating multi million dollar videos for them (the commercials); and buying enough media time to put them into heavy rotation (promoting TV shows and products), thereby insuring public awareness, buzz and even to some extent, mass popularity. So, what's another half mil to actually create a piece of collateral you can own (for a little while, anyway) and give to customers of the 'core merchandise'?

And now, wake up to the year 2009, and this model appears, if not quite in full swing, a viable alternate way to for some musicians win fans and to either bypass or attract the attention of record labels.

That said, I don't think it's working out quite so well for the advertisers, and that's because agencies by and large have missed one key ingredient in the production of

However, if advertising agencies are increasingly assuming the role one held by record labels why isn't the model yet working in terms of industry?

The problem has to do with how advertisers view people: Whereas Artists see Fans who relate to performers, Advertisers see Consumers who simply use products.

But this paradigm might change if the makers of products and services begin place less emphasis on creating profit and instead consider how they might create and benefit from the creation of artistic or socially conscious cultural capital.

Whether such promotions will cost more or less than traditional marketing means remains to be seen, but ROE  (the Return Of Emotion) potentially earns more loyalty and therefore generates more earnings long term (than meeting immediate profit goals).

ROE is always worth more than ROI alone, because ROE influences repeated contact with the brand, and therefore more opportunities for Consumer and Company to interact. ROE is what transforms a Seller/Buyer arrangement into a RELATIONSHIP.

In other words, ROE is what turns customers into return customers, thereby transforming them from a person who makes a casual purchase into a FAN.

Customers come and customers go, but fans will nurture and maintain a long term commitment (with Bands AND Brands) because Bands AND Brands give them REAL reasons to love them. In this respect, ROE encourages the development of exactly the kind of characteristics similarly found in relationships between two people, or a person and a pet, or any two living beings that share a mutual bond.

In no particular order, such characteristics include (and yes, some words overlap the definitions of others):

• Availability
• Dependability
• Reliability
• Respect
• Communication
• Maintainability
• Support
• Shared Responsibility
• Trust
• Integrity
• Loyalty

And last but not least:

• Free Gifts

It would be funny, wouldn't it, if it weren't also true.

At any rate, I once even fancied myself adopting a new role with the job title 'Artist & Branding'.

Didn't happen, although not doubt, with the tremendous increase in licensing music by advertising agencies in recent years, many music supervisors have already essentially taken on this role.

Regardless, since then, other's have created similarly conceived positions (not to mention produced similarly conceived promotions) with notable success. As a result, I do believe that one day in the near future –if only because I see it already happening right now– the traditional A&R role will evolve into a new A&B model. –Regardless of whether or not industry staffers ever actually relinquish the title that so many still dream of assuming, 'Artists & Repertoire'.

SOUL'D OUT!

Most of the broadcast projects I've been involved in over the last two decades can in a sense be considered straight-ahead enhancements to moving picture, game play or venue experience. Nevertheless, it was in the mid nineties that I began formulating my own uniquely formulated Brand Theology, and not long after that, that I began chasing Broadband video as it emerged from Madison Alley (Madison Ave + Silicon V/Alley, i.e. the ad tech community) byte by precious byte, well before anyone thought audio would ever get small enough to enhance the web experience in any meaningful way.

More recently –in this millennium– I've positioned myself as a creative consultant. As such, I'm asked to consult individual artist/ entertainers who believe my once so-close-to-the-sun and you'll-get-burned-proximity to brand imaging (via music production for advertising, and as a founder of a pioneering interactive audio shop) might also make me capable at providing them with some insight how to reverse engineer the publicity process in order to fuel their own creative careers.

Along the way, I've had occasion to coin the rare phrase, and redefine others which had already found their way into limited circulation, if only as a means to explain myself with necessary clarity. I stumbled through a lot of now dead ideas, but a few things I got right. Today, even if the exact phrases that I chose aren't in wide use –Rock Brands, Medici Model, Camelback Collateral and Strategic Audio Partnerships– the ideas they represent are indeed present and certainly living large.

Most people I speak to seem to be gravitating towards using a variation of the phrase 'New Music Model', 'New Music Paradigm' or 'Music 2.0'. I think all three terms are rather neutral, –a sort of non descriptive nomenclature that doesn't quite reveal anything. Fine for a cocktail party, but otherwise devoid of content. But, sure, you'll catch me using one or the other on occasion as a kind of short hand when I know the person/s I'm addressing are already well acquainted with what those terms might imply.

Music 2.0 suggests a new version to replace the current version. But the terms I chose collectively describe aspects of what I originally conceived as a parallel 'music industry' –one where independent musicians thrived using a modified 'Medici model' –whether that meant accepting a role where public endorsements were required, or in my own case, accepting work-for-hire commissions in order to pay for 'my art'.

The Medici model isn't my own invention, and its meaning is widely understood by those who know the history of the Medici family and their patronage of the arts, between the 13th and 17th centuries. Ever since, DIY musicians and artists since then have been trying to find ways to reignite its potential so that they might be able to survive our capitalist construct, integrity intact, but sans Industry.

Enter the Internet, and the Medici model is actually viable again, albeit on a more significant scale.

SOLD OUT OR SOUL'D OUT?

In 2001, a few weeks after the World Trade Center fell, I produced a group of New York Metro area session musicians and singers, under the banner Gotham Artists, in the production of a tribute song. Despite it's limited '01/'02 release on the now defunct MP3.com site ((it now lives a quiet life on the Garageband site), I continue to receive appreciative email complimenting our efforts and the resulting music.

I'm telling you this because the tools you have now, from home studio equipment to social networking sites to YouTube, all mean that you and your musical vision stand at least an equal chance –and in reality a very great possibility– of touching another soul on the other side of the planet.

And that's all it takes.

In many ways we live in a Post Sell Out World, but it still hasn't lost its heart. Get your music out there and don't worry about being too harshly judged. Ultimately, art is an experience of self discovery. If you become an international global pop star in the process, more power to you.

BRANDING WITH AUDIO AND BEYOND

So with that in mind, I'm kicking 2008 out and 2009 in with a recap of what I think were some of the most prescient articles this author has published in the first few years of the new millennium.

The third article listed below, Branding With Audio, was published by an industry trade back in March of 2001, and represents one of the first widely read articles on Sonic Branding.

"Do you know what your company is saying right now?"

You can read some version of this phrase on just about every music house, audio branding company or composer website today, but prior to the publication of this article you would be hard put to find even industry insiders asking it. Not like I'm a futurist –a term I utterly loathe– but given my background and interests, I simply arrived at the question before most.

I include the article on this list because while it was written for an audience of account executives and marketers in mind, it concludes with advice I think is (still) applicable whatever side of a co-branding agreement you may be on, artist or executive:

"Branding beyond advertising means creating an experience that is free of an overt pitch yet is compelling enough that consumers will nevertheless identify it with your brand. If you've produced a CD, for instance, folks will listen to it while they eat, work out, make love, and your company will be the underscore to their lives. Oats may be oats, but if I'm making babies to your music, then chances are my babies will be eating your oats".

Agree or disagree, either way, I hope it provides continued food for thought (no pun intended). It's 2009 – you don't need a multi national to fund your project in order to draw fans from around the world.

here's to making a big noise in the new year,


Terry O'Gara

* * *

From the Critical Noise Archives

From YR 2000
ROCK BRANDS: Tomorrow's Rock Star Marketing Partners

From YR 2000
Convergence And The Composer
Originally published in Shoot Magazine, August, 2000

From YR 2001
Branding With Audio
Originally published in Clickz, March, 2001

From YR 2003
EXPERIENCE: Traditional Packaging Not Required

From YR 2003
This is Where the Story Ends

From YR 2006
Music as Collateral: Using Audio to Add Value

From YR 2007
Music as Collateral: Compatible Archetypes

Co-Branding as an Alternative to 360 Deals

While presented as 'new music paradigm', the term 360 describes a wishful number of revenue streams flowing back to a traditional label, based on a traditional loan to an artist signing an otherwise traditional agreement.

Which is not to say you should never consider participating in such an agreement.

If your current income is zero, then a 360 deal makes great sense.

However, for an artist who has already established a revenue stream, a 360 deal only becomes a reasonable choice when all parties to the contract, having full understanding of their responsibilities to the other parties, and with full transparency can be held accountable for the execution (or abdication) of said responsibilities, so in effect, contract each other.

The label only wants to pay you on the net of record sales? Therefore likewise, carve out an agreement whereby they are only paid on the net of touring and merch; and like any good manager, hold them accountable for the fulfillment of specific, measurable responsibilities (that entitle them to the agreed commission). To me, that sounds fair and equitable.

The ideal 360 deal –from the artist's perspective– should therefore look a lot like a CO-BRANDING agreement, albeit where one partner (the source of funding) remains invisible, logo real estate notwithstanding.

With the exception of limited work-for-hire agreements (one-off commissions), no one in the new millennium should enter any kind relationship whose execution would compromise an artist's integrity.

Nobody should, but people will. As much as record companies are accused of being greedy, musicians are often equally guilty of signing draconian agreements in order to satisfy a lust for fame and celebrity. But this is not the always the case, of course, and in fact, as previously indicated, 360 deals make sense for some acts, and one may even make sense for you.

However, in our Post Sell Out World, you're a free agent. So, if you're going to sign a 360 deal, you don't necessarily have to do it with a traditional music label. Instead, you can do it with a collaborator of your choosing, for terms agreeable to both of you.

You might sign with the entity who gives you the least control but the most money; or you might choose to collaborate with a company that offers you less money but more creative control. Ideally, you will enter into either a limited term equity partnership or accept a 'Project Underwriter Sponsorship'.

FYI: Per the 'PBS Red Book', "PBS defines an "underwriter" as a third party that has voluntarily contributed cash to finance, in whole or in part, the production or acquisition of a PBS program. Money from such sources used toward research and development, or for packaging or repackaging a program, ordinarily counts as underwriting as well".

For our purposes, a Project Underwriter Sponsorship is defined as an agreement between a two or more parties whereby one or more has voluntarily contributed cash to finance, in whole or in part, the production of a an artistic project, in this case a musical recording by a specific artist/s and the subsequent promotion of the project, in return for credit for having done so.

Neither co-branding partners nor underwriters may necessarily have a history recording and distributing music. If we speak strictly of a 'new music paradigm', they usually do not.

In fact, for the purposes of raising funds in order to record, tour and pay the rent, EVERY company is a potential record company –from the local shops on Main Street to whomever happens to top the Fortune 400 list in a given year, and whether they sell futuristic widgets or old fashioned potpourri.

Of course, not every company can provide distribution, but depending on your specific needs you may or may not need a major label network in order to fulfill your own professional and artistic goals.

The important thing is that such deals are structured as mutually beneficial CO-BRANDING contracts, or as corporate sponsorship of an artistic enterprise, but never as label/bank providing a lopsided loan to the customer/artist. Because if all you need is a loan in order for your dreams to come true, there are cheaper ways to secure that loan, even in today's economy.

More to the point, artists can stop doing business as applicants for loans, if they find a way to position themselves as suitable investments in another company's or collaborator's business strategy.

New Music Deals, No Record Label needed

On a well known music industry forum, one member asked for advice on how to structure a deal between an upcoming band and a potential sponsor. I thought I would post my own suggestion, as well as that of others, for the benefit of readers to this blog, who like me have long considered the future of ROCK BRANDS.

Without further ado:

'Cicada' posted the following scenario on The Velvet Rope:

"There was previous discussion here of the benefits of seeking out marketers to underwrite bands. Look at the Bacardi deal with Groove Armada. The company pays a fee that covers all costs associated with extensive use of the band's music in their advertising campaign and uses the band to play live events and in many other ways to promote their product. It's a great alternative for the band. They get paid, lots of promotion, don't have to worry about sales and it's a non-exclusive agreement so the band benefits from all of the promotion.

But what if you're not dealing with Bacardi, Red Bull, Nike or some other huge corporation with very deep pockets? What would you expect to get paid for a similar deal that is on a much smaller scale? How much do you think this deal is worth?

Scenario:

An 'up and coming' COMPANY, with corporate sponsors coming on board soon, wants to use XBAND's music for an all-in promotion deal. Their promotional area is online and in the Midwest. Keep in mind, it's a sort of "get in on the ground floor" type of deal, where they don't have the mega-funding yet that they expect to have over the next few years. So the pricing should reflect XBAND's desire to build a relationship with COMPANY. The COMPANY deals with sports marketing, the deal will likely include...

• Covering costs for XBAND to play at several events
• Pressing and distribution of 5K copies/ 3 song Promotional CD

Those 3 songs used extensively in...
• Online / Web advertising with COMPANY's website
• Promotional videos for COMPANY
• Free downloads and give-aways offered to promote COMPANY
• Ringtones
• Other promotional use of XBAND's name and likeness
• It's a non-exclusive use

ALSO:

The company is gathering corporate sponsors, building a website, doing a soft launch this year with continued and greater promotions into 2009 culminating in events that are projected to have 40,000 attendees (by 2010). But that's all projected, right now they are limited in what they can spend to develop a relationship with the band. They approached the band, they like the idea of building a sponsorship relationship. Band's name and image, 3 songs, used in website, internet promotions, company videos, cable TV productions, Free downloads, CD give-aways, ring-tones, the band will piggy-back and be included in their promotions as well as perform at several events.

The band has some small recognition in this region with a very big top 10 commercial radio hit last year in one of the major cities in their market and a distribution deal with a major retailer that covers their market and included LOTS promotion (band blurb/photo featured in 7 million circular ads, TV appearances with local FOX affiliate). The band does well in the club circuit here, has headlined a festival (4,000 people) and has had guarantees with colleges of $1000-$1,600 and corporate events for $2,000.

How much is that deal worth? What should the band be looking for? How about a dollar figure range? Remember, this isn't HUGE money yet. But it's not small potatoes either. More like almost medium potatoes. Your thoughts?"

A member logged on as MusicMBA suggested:

"Depending on the regional popularity of the artist (maybe measured by their guarantees in local clubs?) I would look for something in the $50,000 - $100,000 range".

Another contributor, QueenSheDevilCow, cautioned:

"I cannot think of a single case where a corporate sponsorship did not make a band seem cheapened, with the possible exception of sponsorships by companies that produce quality music gear. But, it's not the band's image that I am worried about, it's the chilling effect that this would have on music itself.

Record labels are filled with the reprobate of the Earth, but they are primarily MUSIC companies who live and die based on the success of their music, not the success of their bar soaps, cell phones, apparel, beverages, etc".

Okay, my own reply:

"On the other hand, advertising creatives these days appear to demonstrate greater acceptance for a wider variety of music than their major label brethren.

I can't speak to the variety of corporate sponsorship packages out there, but anyone who has turned on the TV at least once in the last decade can see any number of marketing campaigns that appear mutually positive for both musical artist and advertiser (Sting & Jaguar, for one early example).

As we move into the future, the best active sponsorships will resemble collaborative development deals. Ideally, sponsors won't make you be or do anything you're not. Rather, you'll choose each other because the relationship makes sense. Athletes seem to make it work, why can't artists?

Personally, I would start to arrive at a fee by beginning to think in terms of what the contract is going to look like.

Maybe something like this:

EVENTS:

a) If XCORP books XBAND for specific events delineated at the time of execution of contract: XCORP Provides XBAND $1,500 + Hotel, Air, Ground, Meals & backline requirements per event. (NUMBER OF EVENTS x 1.5K)

b) For XCORP sponsored events beyond the limit of the contract: XCORP Provides XBAND $2,000 + Hotel, Air, Ground, Meals & backline requirements per event.

c) In lieu of sponsoring specific dates, XCORP instead only options to display XCORP signage at TBD number of dates independently booked by XBAND (except for private dates):
FEE: $500 per event.

Additionally, XCORP will be responsible for securing signage and installing its display at each such event, at no cost to XBAND.

Artist's presence at promotional events or live performances of any kind is not guaranteed without the prior written consent of the ARTIST or ARTIST’S Manager.

Signage is not guaranteed for dates already booked by XBAND. XBAND will provide option to XCORP on a gig-by-gig basis as new dates are considered.

In any event, all arrangements shall be made through ARTIST’S Manager TBD weeks/months in advance.

* * *

2. PROMOTIONAL CD – OPTION A: CO-BRANDED CD

a) XBAND grants XCORP the right to produce 5000 units of a CO-BRANDED promotional CD containing 3 songs provided by XBAND (and only these three songs) and selected by mutual agreement by XBAND and XCORP. No other artists to be represented on CD.

XCORP provides at no cost to XBAND: mastering, design, production, manufacture and distribution of Promotional CD.

XBAND grants XCORP the right to design CD to reflect goals of XCORP marketing strategy.

XCORP provides that final approval of design and copy of said product shall be by mutual agreement of all signatories to the contract.

Song selection subject to mutual agreement.

MASTERING:

Songs to be pre-recorded and delivered by XBAND.
Mastering must be provided by XCORP at no cost to XBAND.
XBAND retains option of having representative present at mastering session.

OR

Mastering to be provided by XBAND, for a fee to be determined by both XBAND and XCORP, and reimbursed by XCORP,with any costs above said fee to be responsibility of XBAND.

XBAND grants XCORP option of having representative present at mastering session.

FEE: $9,000 – $15,000 (not including mastering)


PROMOTIONAL CD – OPTION B: XBAND CD w/GUARANTEED SALES

b) Alternately, XBAND produces 3-song promo CD at no cost to XCORP. XCORP guarantees to purchase 5000 copies of XBAND CD at a reduced rate of $3 per unit.

Additionally, XBAND grants XCORP right to apply stickers to CD for the purposes of co-branding (at no cost to XBAND).

Cost of design and application of Stickers during manufacture process to be provided to XBAND at time of production.
FEE: $0
SALES GUARANTEE: $15,000

In either case, regardless of FEE or GUARANTEE, XCORP agrees to return undistributed copies to XBAND at end of term, and at no cost to XBAND.

* * *

3. Use of Band Name, Image and Association:
If applicable: FEE: $TBD

* * *

4. MUSIC LICENSE: 3 songs (same 3 songs as on CD. Original usage)
Usage as follows:
– Unlimited streaming on XCORP website.
– Unlimited usage in non-broadcast promotional videos for XCORP.
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $3,000–$6,000

5. MUSIC LICENSE: 3 songs (same 3 songs/additional usage)
Usage as follows:
– Unlimited use in XCORP advertising campaigns, worldwide, in all media.
– Unlimited usage in cable TV productions
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $6,000–12,000

6. FREE DOWNLOADS: 3 songs (same 3 songs/additional usage)

CHOOSE ONE:

XBAND grants XCORP right to distribute up to 1500 total downloads –in any combination– of the same three songs covered elsewhere in this agreement, after which XCORP will have the option to renew.
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $375–$1,500

OR

XBAND grants XCORP right to distribute unlimited downloads of the same three songs covered elsewhere in this agreement, for a term of 12 months.
TERM: 12 mos.
FEE: $1,500–$3,000

OR

$1 per download


7. RINGTONES

Ringtones to be produced under the supervision of XBAND by vendor of XBAND's choosing, at no cost to XBAND for non-exclusive distribution by XCORP. Vendor to be paid directly by XCORP, or by XBAND and reimbursed by XCORP pending approval of estimate provided by vendor.
FEE: 0$

* * *

The above is for illustrative purposes only. Not a lawyer, don't pretend to play one either, so I would hesitate to use the preceding as a boilerplate. Nevertheless, I've worn the Head of Production hat for three notable music production companies, and therefore possess considerable experience engaging in my own fair share of contract negotiation (with legal teams representing Fortune 400 advertisers and behemoth entertainment companies). More recently, I've gained experience as consultant to artist/talent management on a variety of similar matters. I hope this post provides at least food for thought for any aspiring Rock Brand new to such matters, but only use the language submitted here at your own discretion.

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

Saving The Music Industry One Brand at a Time

From the beginning of my career as a music producer of television and radio commercials, I sometimes received calls from consumers who wanted to purchase an album that contained the music they heard on a given spot. However, album production is not a general compliment to spot production. So, there never was a product to recommend people buy –unless they were referring to a pop track that an ad agency had licensed in lieu of commissioning an original underscore. In fact, most of the time the music one hears on a TV or Radio commercial rarely extends beyond the thirty or sixty seconds specifically created for the ad.

As a result:

1) A given intellectual property is limited from possible secondary use by simple virtue of its length.
2) Resulting inability to leverage music into extended customer experience (away from the TV).
3) Diminished ROI by neglecting opportunity (based on demand) to create a for-sale entertainment unit (or a Point-of-Purchase gift that may generate future sales).

Considering this, I began as early as 1994 pitching the concept of creating entertainment collateral. At the time I initially conceived of this collateral as 'gifts' redeemable upon purchase. For instance, buy a car, and here's a CD you can play on the drive home, et al. The idea would be to produce the music in tandem with the production of our primary commissions (being TV/Radio commercial, web site, theme park or electronic game scores). However –regrettably– at the time I couldn't convince one account to allocate the resources required to test this concept, although all seemed to think it was great idea (for someone else to do).

Regardless, the concept stuck with me. In March of 2001 the online marketer's magazine Clickz published an article I wrote on the subject of Sonic Branding. In it I argued the merit of this concept and other such alliances; and I suggested the following:

If music in a marketing context does its job, it will inform as well as entertain. And if consumers –that is, your audience– call the company switchboard and ask who wrote the music and where they can buy a CD of it, then maybe you and your client should actually produce a promotional CD that consumers can take home and listen to whenever they want...If you've produced a CD, for instance, folks will listen to it while they eat, work out, make love, and your company will be the underscore to their lives. Oats may be oats, but if I'm making babies to your music, then chances are my babies will be eating your oats.

Now, I was by no means the originator of this idea:

In the nineteen-seventies Post –and other cereal companies– packaged singles with their Super Sugar Crisp product. Many such promotions were dreadful (at least to adult ears). However, the Sugar Bears “You Are The One" continues to enjoy happy memories from enduring fans of the song to this day. Why? –Because the song framed an episode in many people’s youth. Their collective recollection has essentially been wrapped in its own soundtrack, brought to you by Post. And that's why kids of all ages still think the Post Super Sugar Crisp Bear IS THE MAN!.

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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.

THE NAPSTER DILEMMA

Because I'm only too happy to make some attempt at solving all the world's problems, let's start with protecting rock stars–

Eventually the record companies will prevail in their litigation against Napster and it's ilk. But that doesn't mean they will have ultimately resolved the situation in their favor. The record industry has misjudged the issue that the online exchange of music files presents. Underlying the very real notion of copyright infringement is a perception that provokes the public to participate in this illegal distribution.

First and foremost, teen age fans, who are by far the greatest participants in this activity, will never be convinced by a corporate behemoth that he or she doesn't have a right, and indeed obligation, to trade and exchange their favorite music among their peers.

Secondly, among fans (the ire against the rock group Metallica notwithstanding), the general perception is that the record companies are exploiting the artists themselves by trapping them in unfair contractual arrangements. It may only a perception, but it would still be appropriate to call it circumstantial fact. So, it goes to reason that if the very people who distribute the music are taking advantage of the recording artists, and this perceived exploitation appears sanctioned by the government and the trade, then fans logging onto Napster look less like pirates and more like rebels with a cause. People are trading mp3 files because they love the artists. Not because their trying to steal from them. Can the same be said of an industry where nightmarish stories of exploitation surface on a regular basis?

The final point to consider is the price of compact discs. Technological advances generally drive prices down based on newfound conveniences in manufacturing and production. But record companies haveignored this economic fact. Consumers understand that what was already a luxury item in 1979 should now translate into a modestly priced compact disc. Instead prices have escalated towards the dizzying nearly twenty dollars CD's fetch in many retailers today. When the means of distribution are limited this cost can be explained as 'what the market will bear'. But now the consumer has a weapon and it's called the Internet. If the artists were smart, they'd understand this weapon is also theirs to use to their advantage.

The bottom line for record companies? Repair their relationships with the artists, and the public perception of those relationships as well. Next, lower the price of this expensive product. Or alternately, they can continue to chase the technological demons that will never cease to look like a consumer's saving grace.