| |
|
I'm (with permission) copying this post from a great message board yonder, which grew out of a discussion of whether Atlantic Records were defiling their 'brand' by releasing Goldie Lookin' Chain, particularly the new single 'Your Mother's Got a Penis'...Some folks are apparently shocked that such a well respected back catalogue would want to associate with such a coarse senbtiment (or something)....Anyway, an individual with the ficsuit 'KFD' wrote the following, which I thoroughly endorse...Thought it might be of some interest here :
I have a problem with the language of `branding’ in its widest sense, but I have a particular problem when it’s indiscriminately and unthinkingly applied to music. When people apply it to music and to labels or bands/artists they tend to use something they don’t really understand and apply it to something that was already well understood. What happens with labels and records, what happens with consumers and their behaviour, can be easily understood and accurately described with existing language, whether it be the language of psychology, sociology or of economics. Trying to shoe-horn behaviour into the language of `branding’ doesn’t help describe what’s going on. It’s obfuscatory rather than explicatory. And that drives me nuts! I’m a big fan of George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” – people should use the easiest, most clearly understood terms and styles to say what they mean. There’s never value in making something easy into something difficult, unless of course that’s a deliberate aim [i.e. using jargon to try and impress or to try and exclude others].
An easy way to describe what I’m talking about is to say that most `brands’ – e.g. Coke or Nike – are `empty’. They are shells. They have no inherent value or superiority over other similar products. So what the owners/advertisers have to do is create that value and difference. Coke is essentially just a sweet, molasses-based, carbonated soft drink. But it wouldn’t have gotten very far being sold on that basis! So a `sense’ of what Coke is has been created. It’s a drink that reminds one of summer, it’s a drink that brings us together, it’s refreshing. It carries notions of [outside of the USA] American `sexiness’ and cool. It’s got history and heritage. But all of those things have to be sold to us again and again because we don’t `get them’ each time we taste the drink.
Nike makes trainers. In one sense their trainers are no better or worse than those of Asics or New Balance. In fact they’re all made by the same sub-contracted firms in Vietnam and China. But initially they built their name, their brand, on the back of Bill Bowerman’s designs and Steve Prefontaine’s track success – they were runners shoes designed by runners. Pro gear. That’s obviously now expanded, post-Jordan, into the whole leisure “Just Do It!” ethos. When you buy Nike trainers or gear you’re supposedly saying something about your outlook on life. It’s arguable that you could say exactly the same thing by buying Adidas or Puma, but as with Coke, most of the effort of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on sponsorship and advertising each year goes – as the cigarette manaufactuers always say – not on grabbing new buyers/users but on simply trying to persuade people NOT to change to a rival. You wouldn’t lose out changing to a rival [in fact, if you’re Tiger Woods it might be BETTER to go back to Titleist clubs!] as 99% of the products are no better or worse than the rivals.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME WITH MUSIC. Sorry for the caps/shouting but I think this is the crucial point and difference. Record labels are not `empty’, they are not shells. Ignoring the smart-arse cries of “oh, but the music’s all the same” whenever pop music is mentioned, the fact is that the labels’ products are NOT indistinguishable. If I like The Darkness then I like them positively, I like them for themselves and for something they do that no other act does. There may be other acts in that genre on other labels but I will [or will not] like them `as well’ not `instead of’. The fact that records are the product of human creativity makes them unique. Yes, you can try and add to their attractiveness by creating desire around them via favourable media/press coverage which may lead to peer pressure to buy, and you can cloak that record in a nice sleeve and shoot a nice video but there’s still a `core’ there that we can all judge ourselves. And the label that the record is released on is irrelevant. No-one buying The Darkness is NOT going to buy them because the same label has signed GLC. No-one at Atlantic sits in an office or an A&R meeting and says “right…this is what Atlantic’s about….we need to sign more of the same to enhance and support our brand position/offering”. What common denominator covers Aretha Franklin, Led Zeppelin and Hall & Oates? All Arhmet Ertegun wanted to do was sign quality acts. Because he did so he built a label that was renowned as being one of quality. But that all meant or means nothing to 99% of CD buyers. If Atlantic signs and releases a crappy, manufactured pop act that dies an ugly death how – beyond the economic hit – would that impact on them? Would any buyer be more resistant to buying a CD by an act they like next time around because it’s on the same label? No. If a label makes a mistake then they pay for it there and then. Make many more and their business suffers of course, because that all costs money and doesn’t garner income but no `brand’ position is affected. But if you’re Nike and it’s publicised that your trainers are made in south-east Asian sweatshops, or if you’re Ratners and you rubbish your own products and consumers then you WILL pay a longer term price, because there’s no `essential’ basis to what you do. Prick the bubble and it could ALL go pop.
I worked at BMG in the 1990s when the bosses suddenly got caught up in this nonsense about labels-being-brands. Suddenly we had to put the BMG logo on everything we did. We had to `brand’ all our output as being `BMG’. I vehemently resisted this and asked why. Did anyone actually think that consumers cared one whit about whether a Take That or a Steven Isserlis or a Bassheads or an Al Green album were released on a BMG label? No. I could understand that there was some business-to-business sense in letting retailers know that Imago or Deconstruction or American Recordings were all part of, or handled by, BMG. Makes ordering easier. But other than that, there was no benefit.
As mentioned in the earlier post, it made sense to us in the early 1990’s to put most 12” records in a Deconstruction house bag. It was clearly identifiable and to a DJ getting 20-40 records a week it helps if your record stands out. And it helps obviously if your previous records have been good and thus the DJ says to himself “ooh…right..another Decon 12”….good label…I’ll check it out right away”, but trying to build confidence, trying to establish quality and continuity in the eyes of the consumer is NOT the same as building a `brand’. Deconstruction didn’t have any `brand values’, no-one picked up one of our records or bought one because of any sense of who-we-were or because by owning it they broadcast something ineffable about themselves. They did so because we – hopefully – released good records every time and `this’ time would be no exception. But what company is ANY business doesn’t try or want to do the same? What company says “well we don’t need to worry about quality this time…”. You only survive by doing good work again and again. Branding has nothing to do with it. Same goes for the Domino’s and Warp’s of this world. They try to stand out. They know that in a competitive market design continuity might make a difference. They hope that the good work they do will mean that a journalist or DJ sent a mailer takes a second glance at it, or moves it to the top of the pile because of that history. No more than that.
Why do Brands want to be affiliated with music? PRECISELY because they are `empty’ and music is not. Because music has inherent value and integrity and they don’t. Why does music want to be affiliated with Brands? Because the brands have money and access to consumers. But it’s a Faustian pact from the musician’s side. Fine if you’re a pop artist, you have nothing to `sell out’ so take the money. But if you’re Radiohead? Different matter.
Why has Warner changed the names of labels? Looks like simplicity to me. It may be sensible for the B2B reasons I mentioned re BMG. But it will make no difference to 99% of consumers. Those who work for it may feel better if they do feel a `sense of belonging’ to the “family that Atlantic once stood for”, and good luck to them. Anything that makes your staff happier is good news. But `Atlantic’ is just the name on a label now, it’s just a word. It’s not the stand-alone label of Arhmet and Neshui Ertegun any longer.
Calvin Klein is owned by Philips-Van Heusen. Look in your Dad’s wardrobe, he probably has some of their shirts. Hardly a hip owner. And would it matter to most buyers of CK fragrances if it WERE owned by P&G? I doubt it.
Most people who work in advertising don’t really understand what `branding’ means. But so what, that’s their silly business. Leave it to them. But please don’t introduce it into the language and world of music when it adds nothing, clouds the discourse and probably takes some of our vitality away. |
|
|
