Traditional way of marketing a band is to promote the band to the public using music videos and maybe publicity in the form of interviews in the hope that this will, in turn, generate sales.
If the band is big enough they probably don't even need to do that much publicity, they almost self-generate it would appear. This isn't the case. There is nearly always a publicist or clever manager somewhere thinking up new ways to reach his/her band's audience.
JAY-Z AND HIS BOOK
It seems now, because we have the internet, that marketing and selling music is getting harder and harder. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe those selling music just have to come up with better ideas? Its hard to say.
I found this article about Jay-Z's new book, Decoded. It's essentially his autobiography, but the whole thing has been marketed on the web as a Donnie Darko style web mystery that you have to put together.
The plus for us: a bit of late night digging around in Jay-Z's history.
The plus for Jay-Z: helps the sales of his records by propping up his public image and keeping him in the public's mind. Beyonce with a bump doesn't hurt either, but that is a tad cynical.
http://www.jay-z.com/index.php
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE IMAGE
This chap does very well with contemporary country acts. It might not be your cup of tea, but what he has to say about what he wants from a music video is very interesting.
He isn't as much interested in telling the story of the song. He is interesting (as are his artists, because according to him, they come up with the ideas themselves) in selling the artist themselves.
Its also very interesting for another reason. Music videos are moving image, right? So, really, anything that is a moving image that deals with the band or artist, is potentially another method of selling the work of the band?
For example. The Osbournes. It's a reality show, but didn't it do wonders for the publicity and profile of all the Osbournes and their various careers?
This chap, Marc, says something similar. Nowadays, and he's very straight up about, bands need to be looking out for other moving image opportunities. Not just music videos.
http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/producing+music+videos
BEING IN A FILM
There is a natural cross over between music and film. They are after all both artistic disciplines and work well together. However, one can't deny how working in film, for a musician, doesn't hurt their public profile and ultimately their album sales. Beyonce was in Goldmember, and wrote a song about it:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2q6fv_beyonce-hey-goldmember_music
That's old school. The Beatles were doing it way back in the sixties with a HARD DAY'S NIGHT. A full length feature film made at the height of their fame. It happened to be very good, very funny and was recieved both critically and commercially.
Here's a clip from it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCVmUD3WfNM
There's tonnes of other examples.
Here's a good one (its from Wiki!): The genre-defining surf films of Bruce Brown, George Greenough and Alby Falzon and others are also notable for their innovative combinations of image and music featuring sequences of specially-filmed surfing footage, carefully edited against long music tracks, with no accompanying dialogue. Greenough's landmark 1972 film Crystal Voyager concluded with an extended sequence (filmed and edited by Greenough) that was constructed around the 23-minute Pink Floyd track "Echoes". The band was impressed with Greenough's effort and agreed to allow Greenough to use their music in his film in exchange for the right to use his fiThe genre-defining surf films of Bruce Brown, George Greenough and Alby Falzon and others are also notable for their innovative combinations of image and music featuring sequences of specially-filmed surfing footage, carefully edited against long music tracks, with no accompanying dialogue. Greenough's landmark 1972 film Crystal Voyager concluded with an extended sequence (filmed and edited by Greenough) that was constructed around the 23-minute Pink Floyd track "Echoes". The band was impressed with Greenough's effort and agreed to allow Greenough to use their music in his film in exchange for the right to use his film footage when performing "Echoes" at their concerts.lm footage when performing "Echoes" at their concerts.
SUSAN BOYLE
Na. You're joking. This is nuts.
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/11/lou_reed_apologizes_to_susan_b.html
People seem to take music videos very seriously. Or maybe there is a lack of real news in the media thesedays.
What's interesting about the Susan Boyle music video, the one Lou Reed directed, is the sheer amount of publicity it generated on other websites. There were stories about the locations. Stories about the scenary. Stories about how it was made, what camera was used, even the blinking stunt woman managed to get a story into the Scottish daily the Daily Record.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/11/09/i-was-perfect-choice-to-be-susan-boyle-s-music-video-stand-in-says-stunt-double-86908-22703252/
This is, of course, all good news for the Producer, the artist and anybody involved in selling the music. Because it creates a buzz, which is slightly different from branding in that it just puts the artist in people's minds. Not necessarily with a branding attached other that - wow, this person is worthy of our attention.
I wonder, if you tried to moneterise the publicity (work out how much it would cost to get a PR company to get you all that publicity) would it amount to more than what the music video cost to make in the first place?
In other words, does the music video pay for itself by other means and is this another financial strategy for hard pressed music producers?
No comments:
Post a Comment