Publicity

[john]

Hi

Ever wondered how much difference publicity makes?

I was browsing info about recent record sales in the UK (sad, I know). Apparently the debut single by Leon King, winner of XFactor in the UK, out sold other singles by uite a significant margin when it became the UK Christmas No1. The margin? It out sold the rest of the top 10... added together!

It just shows what weekly exposure, hype, and a massive marketing machine can do (no disrespect Leon!)

Cheers

John

[Chokai]

The whole publicity machine is killing music. Eventually we'll have totally generic music, backed by warring conglomerates.

oh, wait a sec.. thats already happening. Thank god we have the underground.

[john]

Hey

A degree of publicity is necessary, but overall too much is killing the biz for lots of musos. At least the online industry has brushed away some cobwebs and there is a thriving indie scene.

So, what do you think is an acceptable level of publicity?

Cheers

John

[Chokai]

Thats a difficult question that involves alot of variables, such as budget, type of music and of course fan base. If you have a big fan base it can go a long way to cutting the advertising budget as so often the fans word-of-mouth is very good in generating free publicity.

I think getting a fan base in the first place is key to effective and economic publicity.

On the other hand, in some genres of music where public performance can be complicated and difficult, a good option of exposure is on line advertising and "gorilla" marketing (handing out fliers, posting on forums, starting rumours, buying up banners etc.).

Its really down to the individual and the circumstances. Its just good practice to work this out as you go along and find out what works best for you.

Its taken the best part of 5 years to figure this out in my case, and I still don't know if I am doing it right yet!

An acceptable amount of publicity I guess is demonstrated by sales and a good amount of people talking about the music. What that acceptable level is down to the music. If you have the budget for extensive advertising, you do of course run the risk of "ramming it down peoples throats" and therefore having an opposite effect. ("heartbroken" by T2).

A difficult medium to get right i think.

[hariossa]

Yesterday I was re-reading an old issue of Mix magazine and found this excellent article by Paul D. Lehrman, the good thing is that you can find this article on Mix-Online:

Marketing to Myself

"Audiences like to be told what to like. We want people and institutions to look up to , to tell us how to behave and what to pay attention to..."

[Steve]

Thats a good quote Hari. I think as musicians, we see things differently from non musicians. Therefore, we don't need people to tell us what to like!

[hariossa]

I have always been open to new and different music from all styles and sources, I guess it comes from being always on the move and knowing different people, that influenced my writing for better or worse!

I remember when I was 14, a friend of my mother who came from California was shocked to know I was a Zappa fan (I was rised in Chile) she was like: how did you know his music?, why you don't like Debbie Gibson or regular teenager stuff?, then she showed me Steely Dan and I loved it...

I guess all you need is believe in your own taste and be curious enough! a friend of mine from school at that time was Felipe Perry, he loved music as much as me and he never played any instrument, he showed me a lot of good stuff like Chick Corea and Deep Purple.

I guess the majority of people don't really care at what they listen to, most people only own a few albums, they just want to be cool having the latest hit if they're young or having their youth hits when older, so first it's a matter of fashion and then a matter of memories.

Normally after their 30's people stop caring about what's going on on MTV or top ten radio... although I never cared about that!!

I know a lot of musicians that only listen to one style like bebop, or metal or classical music and hate other kinds of music or musicians, so I don't think it's natural for all musicians to be open to new and different sounds.

I think there is good music on every style.

[john]

Hey

I appreciate almost any music, when it is done well.

I am definately drawn to the more creative writers, and the more emotional performers, but I like lots of styles.

Cheers

John

[Lazz]

How much difference does publicity make?

This is no easy question.

On the surface, one can agree immediately about the power of big marketing machinery.

We are all hip to hype now, and our attitudes and ideas regarding music marketing become cliché themselves.

But similarly to my observations in our cliché thread, I think it's worth recognising that sometimes it works well and sometimes it works poorly.

Apparently the debut single by Leon King, winner of XFactor in the UK, outsold other singles by quuite a significant margin when it became the UK Christmas No1.

The margin? It out sold the rest of the top 10... added together!

Clearly, the Leon King story is an example of how it can work well - and why my vote in the talent shows thread went for recognising how they work as a great career opportunity.

But that model is one built on effective audience development as well as strategic positioning in the media process.

I think it is still a modern illustration of the old 'mud-on-the-wall' view of music marketing realities, however.

Back in the day..., marketing armies would hurl random individual globetts of mud at the wall, but no one really knew which pieces would stick.

I recall witnessing the results of this traditional process at Island many years ago: when Frankie Goes To Hollywood was the big clump that stuck to the wall, all the operation and delivery forces fell into place behind the big push and evrything else on the product menu fell rght off the agenda. Nowadays, with those TV talent shows, the audience development/relationship process identifies which pieces of mud are sticking to the wall. And the same old operation and delivery machine can thus mass in effective support because of it. It's a slick scam and I admire it.

As an impressively slick scam though, I think it also shows how Publicity is essentially an art as well as a science.

The art lies in the creation of this particular promotional concept and model - the science lies in the traditional supporting operation and delivery departments.

But publicity on it's own certainly does not determine success, even though it is otherwise equally essential to it .

Interesting and apposite, for instance, that the Lehrman article introduced by Hari should reference Warner Brothers:

But if Warner Bros. tells you something is cool — especially if it can dress its marketing machine up as some kind of super-hip teenage online community and keep repeating it using the glitziest of music and graphics and costumes and toys and whatever — then it must be.

Because I also recall a few years back when Warner had found and signed a new young boy singer in Ireland. I don'e recall the name of the lad - but I guess he had talent and promise enough to convince the executives he had the legs for a giant career, because they gave a huge publicity budget to the project. I don't recall the exact figure right now - neither can I recall where I stored the detail - but it was in the staggering millions zone. What I do recall is that, despite their best efforts, Warner Brothers managed to sell less than seven hundred units internationally.

Operations and delivery were ready to go - but the mud simply didn't stick.

As for the rest of that article... surely by now we all know about the consolidation of the industry and it's aggressively defensive vertical integration whereby the remaining "majors' are only part of huge inter-related media-entertainment conglomerates. While the content and supply side of the music industry has fragmented and democratised, the operation and delivery side of the physical and digital universe remains under the fief of the big guys. Whatever bits of mud start to stick, they still stand ready to exploit and profit.