Music Industry

Keisha Beats Me said:
It wasn't just that, it was a botched abortion in some dodgy clinic.

Aww, how I loved "Together", it was so bad it was good. I loved how they misspelled everyone's names, "I was hanging out with Cheryl Crow!"

Oh God yeah, and she goes on and on for chapters and chapters in intimate detail about bleeding and the like. Lovely! Is nothing sacred!?
 
Wow. It's a law I think is ethically correct, that's going to have a massive impact on viral marketing in general. I quite like it when record companies setup fake blogs to leak tracks. Madonna's people did it for Hard Candy, and even though it wasn't said it was quite obvious.
 
I don't think I'm alone in saying that 'viral marketing' is actually quite a nasty idea, and its logical conclusion is those naff amazon reviews loaded with buzzwords that have been proved to come from record companies. It just feels dishonest.

'Street teams' are painfully awful as well, I can't imagine they've driven many sales with inept pasting of banners and myspace links into threads on other forums.

My main problem is that it represents an unwelcome intersection between the personal and the public - advertisers trying to break into the private sphere unannounced in order to sell you something - advertising is fine when people know they are being sold to, but all of these disingenuous campaigns leave a bad taste in the mouth, and just feel inappropriate, somehow.

I am in favour of this new law, clearly the industry can't regulate itself properly, although as the article notes, it is a mystery how this is to be enforced.
 
I think the new rules are rather Stalinist. If people are so stupid as to be swayed by marketing, then it's their own fault. A person should alway remain being wary. With this new law, people will actually start believing that now, they can trust reviews, blogs, leaks, and what else there is, when we all know, it will all remain a big set up, only now with bribes paid to the regulators at the ministry of truth.

Just look at the BBC and ITV, and its rather sly censorship of free speech during Question Time, and the aggressive pushing of their own agenda, or the blatant Sylvia Young / Simon Fuller / Cowell school stable of artists that seem to monopolise every television program there is, even in Blue Peter.

Stick to the rule, don't trust anyone , and stay cynic.
 
Egalité said:
I don't think I'm alone in saying that 'viral marketing' is actually quite a nasty idea, and its logical conclusion is those naff amazon reviews loaded with buzzwords that have been proved to come from record companies. It just feels dishonest.

'Street teams' are painfully awful as well, I can't imagine they've driven many sales with inept pasting of banners and myspace links into threads on other forums.

My main problem is that it represents an unwelcome intersection between the personal and the public - advertisers trying to break into the private sphere unannounced in order to sell you something - advertising is fine when people know they are being sold to, but all of these disingenuous campaigns leave a bad taste in the mouth, and just feel inappropriate, somehow.

I am in favour of this new law, clearly the industry can't regulate itself properly, although as the article notes, it is a mystery how this is to be enforced.

I think viral marketing is fine as long as it's transparent. It's no worse than ad breaks on ITV.

Like PJ, I'm interested to see how this pans out (not just in the music industry) - as a copywriter for clients, we often run social marketing campaigns, but we never 'hide' our identity.

I also agree that marketeers who do try the strategy of promotion through messageboards are usually see-through, but that's just because they're not very good at it.
 
I read it...and wondered whether it would have any sway over bloggers who just blog for the fun/passion of pop and music (Like Dontstopthepop, like Popposterblog, like Myfizzypop, like Chartrigger, like XoLondon) & follow careers of musicians especially as they start their journey in the field of pop. One wonders whether this law is enforceable? Also, does it truly matter that a pr company representing a new boyband posts on here or sets up a blog in a bid to gain some fans and perhaps getting the act signed to a major label? As long as the music is certifiably good who gives a betty boo how it arrives in our ipods?
 
I have a feeling that it may help a lot of aggressive marketing actually puts a really, really bad feeling in my stomach and makes me less likely to buy a product.
But then again i'm a cynic.
 
With respect to the original question replace "music" with "entertainment" and I think you're probably correct. The computer game, film and other such industries are as rife with underhand marketing as the music business. Probably because people are generally more enthused about entertainment products than they are, say, cleaning products.

As a law I think it will be incredibly difficult to enforce. Similar to the gambling and pornography industry's on-line branches what is to stop record labels carrying on the same behaviour but "off shore". Much has been written on policing the internet and how all governments need to work in unison for it to be done effectively.

If the law is publicised well enough and people accept it as morally wrong then I imagine the internet users will become self-policing to some degree. As Mr PJ pointed out there have already been backlashes against some of the more prominent attempts to pass marketing off as consumer opinion.
 
Let's see....


I'm sure you all know about this latest fiasco involving UK-based YouTube.

The industry is dying, record sales are drying up like the Iraqi marshes, so you cut off your nose to spite your face.

Music videos are not something that should be paid for by the public or a vehicle for royalties - they are simply a medium to promote a song, like hearing it on the radio. iTunes exists for selling music videos - you don't try to charge YouTube, which is already running a massive budget deficit - to show videos. Nobody is losing money when a fan or a casual listener watches a clip online - in fact, that is a potential SALE as if the song is liked enough, the watcher will gladly pay 99 cents for the song or two dollars for the video in HI-Q.

And of course this OTHER YouTube fiasco last year with Warner Music Group - FUCK YOU WARNER MUSIC GROUP - pulling ALL their roster's videos off. Including Madonna - and since she is barely played on American radio, she just lost a massive source of publicity. Not to mention '4 Minutes' was one of the highest viewed clips on YouTube, ever.

WMG, you've just lost MILLIONS by squabbling over a few thousand. Now all your artists have lost free publicity, angered the fanbases, and lost MILLIONS by preventing a form of publicity that could translate in a very real way into major sales.

Now how can fans hear the songs by their fave artists or artists they may like - and how can the wonderful creative videos be seen? That includes Madge, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park among others.

Video fiascos aside - let's talk about the mess that is modern Top 40 radio. Sales dwindle, dwindle - but corporate controlled radio tightens its death grip over playlists - spinning the same tired songs by the same tired acts again and again and again -

don't they realize more artists on the radio = more fans of new artists = more sales = millions more dollars in profit?

And the new acts that DO come along - really have no potential to last or generate large scale income - Katy Perry and Lady Gaga are NOT going to be buoying their labels 5 or 10 years down the road.

Corporate radio refuses to expand playlists. Big labels disallow their videos from being seen publicly. MTV is a joke.

The stupidity and greed have cost the labels untold millions more than their money grubbing "revenue stream innovations" EVER could have.
 
The YouTube "fiasco" is not about music video usage. It's about music usage. And YouTube are the immature ones who've pulled the content in the UK.
 

Top