Because Brands Care About Brands, Not Bands…

Canadian Music Week, branding panel #1.

branding1

Canadian Music Week, branding panel #2.

branding2

As badly as this industry wants consumer brands to champion and develop artists, the reality is that brands are limited benefactors at best.  And, an outright enemy at worst.  Because first and foremost, brands care about reaching their targeted demographic and effectively selling to that demographic, not supporting an artist’s career.

So if an artist offers a connection to that consumer, and can make a campaign effective, then brands are in.  But brands typically show up after the cake is baked, and they’re not in the business of developing careers.  Even if they accidentally help to start one.

And what about the growing trend of using early-stage indie music?  That’s tapping into a scene and staying edgy, not developing a career.  Which means the best an artist can hope for from a brand is a giant kickstart, not a long-term development partner.

Which also means the interests of recording labels – major or indie – were actually far better aligned with artists than almost any brand today.

Because even though they cheated, lied, and obfuscated their way through nearly ever artist contract, labels had an interest in selling stuff and licensing content over the long term.  Which means there was a possibility that artist relationship went beyond the first album,even if that first album was a stiff.

Perhaps it’s better to treat brands for the animal they are, not the one the music industry wants them to be.  A dog will lick its paws, but also lick something else — it’s all part of being a dog, it’s the what the animal is.

Which goes a long way towards explaining stuff like this:

chevroletgrooveshark3

So why would someone like Chevrolet take a risk on such an artist-unfriendly platform, especially given the deep hatred Grooveshark excites among rightsholders?  The answer goes back to the demographic: Grooveshark has lots of young males that are more likely to buy their cars.  And these young males aren’t dialed into the debates between artists and Grooveshark, and frankly, they probably don’t care to be.

It’s the same calculus that surrounds ad-supported piracy (see panel #2).  Because infringing sites like mp3skull.com have a certain, identifiable user group, one highly attractive to certain brands.  And unless David Lowery is able to create enough negative publicity that threatens to tarnish those brands, we’re going to see a lot more pirate advertising ahead.  The interests just aren’t properly aligned.

 

Written while listening to araabMUZIK’s latest, For Professional Use Only.

5 Responses

  1. Big Swifty

    There may be less enthusiasm for corporate sponsorship of musicians if the AEO Chiat Ghost Beach situation turns more ugly.

    Reply
  2. lindsay-bea davis

    Are you kidding me? Obviously! That’s their job!
    Try reporting with a little more integrity instead of bleeding you broke ass musician heart out. In this day and age, all kinds of revenue streams need to contribute to a “living” that most musicians will NEVER make, and if you think that marketing companies give a shit about bands more than their brands, you have misunderstood the opportunities with marketing companies completely.
    I hate when I read your headlines and go “DUH!”.

    Reply
  3. joseph Nicoletti consulting-pr

    What ever happened to Lic/copyright “Proofing” ?.. don’t these companies have people in the office to work on these matters?..or do they just want to pay Lawyers all the time ?….every one is running with the ball but have no idea where the “GOAL” line is…joseph Nicoletti Consulting-Promotion office 949-715-5382..

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *