The Consumer's Music License

Are We Struggling With Third-Wheel Marketers or a Third-Person Effect?

Posted by Charlie Moran on 12.29.08 @ 12:47 PM

As if this were not already the gloomiest December of my quarter century, Jon Pareles, The New York Times' chief music critic, was kind enough to spill the last dregs of egg nog from my moose mug on Christmas Eve. His piece, "Songs From the Heart of a Marketing Plan," should give everyone pause, particularly marketers who use music for brand campaigns.

While resigning himself to the undeniable reality that marketers have filled some of the vacuum left by retreating album sales, Pareles wonders aloud how this is affecting our consumption of the art in its most basic form. Have ads turned our attention away from 45-minute albums to TV-friendly, 30-second bites? Have songs become simply a means to unrelated ends? And, if so, do the economics of the industry leave us without an alternative?

Pareles is hardly the first to pose these questions -- although he goes about it more sensibly than few before him -- but for someone like myself who a.) spends an inordinate amount of time following music-brand deals and b.) feels that music has an important role to play when the world looks grim, I found Pareles' answers both plausible and deeply troubling.

Music always had accessory roles: a soundtrack, a jingle, a branding statement, a mating call. But for performers with a public profile, as opposed to composers for hire, the point was to draw attention to the music itself. Once they were noticed, stars provided their own story arcs of career and music, and songs got a chance to create their own spheres as sanctuary or spook house or utopia. If enough people cared about the song, payoffs would come from record sales (to performer and songwriter) and radio play (to the songwriter).

And as music becomes a means to an end -- pushing a separate product, whether it's a concert ticket or a clothing line, a movie scene or a web ad -- a tectonic shift is under way. Record sales once channeled the taste of the broad, volatile public into a performer's paycheck. But as music sales dwindle, licensers become a far more influential target audience. Unlike nonprofessional music fans who might immerse themselves in a song or album they love, music licensers want a track that's attractive but not too distracting -- just a tease, not a revelation.

Some may find it easy to refute Pareles' points by arguing that commerce has always been music's awkward bedfellow and that we are merely riding a very long arc. Others, with deserved sympathy, argue that musicians deserve to be paid for their work and earn decent livings; if consumers are no longer willing to support them, why can't marketers? Both points seem valid, but neither goes far enough to answer the question: Do we care as much about music as we used to?

This is, of course, an impossibly personal and abstract question, and the hard indicators out there are mixed -- people are listening to more music, but spending less money on it. It's also difficult to overcome the "third-person effect," the false perception that while advertising doesn't affect how we feel about songs, it probably affects the average person, who is more susceptible to its charms. Finally, while some artists' cachet is being diminished by the brands they've joined, what does that say about the strength of an artists' work that a dish soap gets top billing in our subconciousnesses?

It seems likely that we've transferred a lot of our attention to the musicians themselves, many of whom have become mega-celebrities in their own right, amicably separated from the content of shiny discs. (See: Puff Daddy, 50 Cent, et. al.) I hardly see any love lost here, although these music mega-celebrities don't seem to have an infinite shelf-life and marketers who pursue them are seeming increasingly desperate.

But how should we feel when we hear The Flaming Lips in a salad dressing ad? Pareles hints at the answer in his conclusion:

Perhaps it's too 20th century to hope that music could stay exempt from multitasking, or that the constant insinuation of marketing into every moment of consciousness would stop when a song begins. But for the moment I'd suggest individual resistance. Put on a song with no commercial attachments. Turn it up. Close your eyes. And listen.

For those like myself, the realization that personal connections with music can be regained by carving out time for purposeful listening is reassuring. And it also points to the critical limitation of music branding: that consumers prefer as few barriers between themselves and their favorite artists as possible. They may become comfortable for a time, but, as recent work by Oliver Sacks and last week's cover story in The Economist argue, human beings need direct relationships with music, and this is not likely to change any time soon. Perhaps that string still has some slack in it, but eventually it will be yanked back.

So, if marketers are still reading this far, does this make your campaigns irrelevant? No, but you should understand that consumers don't want you in the way. Be careful of inserting yourselves too forcefully into their experiences, which are the reason you've got their attention in the first place. The most effective campaigns in the future are going to be the ones where brands manage to step away while managing to leave a soft impression.

Unfortunately (for some), marketers will probably not be shying away from sync licenses any time soon. But consumers have even broader licenses: to negotiate their relationship between art and commerce, like they always have, until they find an arrangement that fulfills their needs. At that point, the question becomes less about the importance of music and more about the role, if any, a marketer has in meeting consumers' needs for it.

[New York Times] Also: Peter Kohan seems to have similar feelings.

7 Comments

By mtunnicliffe | BROOKLYN, NY December 30, 2008 11:56:42 am:

Well much as I wasn't overly taken with the article by Jon Pareles there are a number of recent articles that start to question the value of 'free' music and usage of music in advertising / music and brands. Here's another one printed before the holidays in the UK's Guardian Newspaper http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/16/musicindustry-popandrock

As I've said a number of times, it's time for brands and the music industry to step up a gear and get a damned sight more strategic. A point that I recently made in an article on this very subject in leading European Advertising Magazine Campaign: http://www.brandrepublic.com/Campaign/Features/Features/860785/Music-brand-band-love-in/

'These deals need to be put together in a credible and meaningful way that allows the brand to slip behind the consumers "firewall" but at the same time some produce some form of quantifiable return on marketing'
To my mind this is the next big issue that needs to be addressed; as these deals increase so should the level of strategic thinking to ensure a good brand-fit and most importantly relevance and benefit for fans/consumers. If we get this right these types of partnerships will become established as a long-term culturally relevant play for the brands and a revenue generator for the brands and artists, rather than a glorified form of sponsorship or endorsement. We are on the first rung on the ladder and still have a long way to climb! '

Permalink

By connectme | Denver, CO December 31, 2008 11:51:45 am:

Music has always been the soundtrack to important moments in our lives: not only sports, but our first dates, our high school prom, etc. The right song matches the mood and the moment and by doing so, provides a cue that allows our mind to tap into the feelings we had at those moments.

Purposeful listening as a broad consumer activity is a pipe dream for old fuddy-duddys who really don't understand why young people multitask. Music's utility in everyday occasions is just beginning to be understood, and while that lays waste to the CD model, the fact is that the CD as it is currently constituted is the last gasp of the LP business model. New distribution vehicles like Guitar Hero and YouTube are version 1.0 of the 360 view, where music has a role in just about everything that we would want to remember.

Permalink

By charliefmoran | New York, NY December 31, 2008 01:27:12 pm:

Brian,

I have to disagree that we can still make the same connections with 30-second blips of songs in ads because we're so good at multi-tasking. It may seem difficult and maybe impossible for most people these days to sit down and listen to a song without much else going on, but that's what happens at live concerts, where people are immersed in music. That also happens to be where some of the most effective brand recall is happening, as I wrote about a few weeks back, in reference to British kids. But, even with lesser degrees in other situations (the car, sitting at the computer and chatting with friends, hell, look at the iPod and the volume people listen to them; that's a way of focusing attention on a song, which is what we should expect, and, well fear for hearing damage(. It's hard to argue that anyone is relying on ad soundtracks as their primary way to experience music.

The problem and beauty of multi-tasking is that, while it can summon up stored feelings when your attention meets the song, people are hardly going to be making those connections in the first place that way. That's where I think Pareles gets it a bit wrong; he's not the only one who's still diverting plenty of attention to music.

Permalink

By UFCSongs | Los Angeles, CA December 31, 2008 03:03:43 pm:

The Beyonce/DirectTV "Upgrade" commercial is the worst marriage of advertising & music I think I've ever seen. I bust into laughter everytime it comes on. I'm surprised SNL hasn't lampooned it yet. But other interests are at work here....to keep Beyonce at the apex of pop culture interest at all times (please take a vacation B...you've earned it).

Permalink

By connectme | Denver, CO January 1, 2009 04:00:36 pm:

I'm reminded that once upon a time, monarchs would commission musicians to write music. People would travel miles to listen. But times change, and the way we experience music has changed as well. Some of the arguments raised here remind me of the ones made by advocates of AOR in the 1970s: the conceit that the "right" way to experience music was to listen to a complete album, uninterrupted, from beginning to end.

While in the car, sitting at the computer, chatting with friends, using the iPod - I assert that music is *not* the key activity. People are primarily driving, working, socializing, and getting around -- and music has become the figurative soundtrack for those occasions.

I understand why many people are so down on multitaskers. Every generation looks at the generation that follows and bemoans their lack of appreciation for music, or more specifically, the way music was "meant" to be appreciated.

And for that reason, I appreciate the tone of Pareles' prediction: the role of curator has indeed shifted from radio station program director, to a corporate suit at a radio conglomerate, to licensers. But I'm not so sure that the last transition is as apocalyptic as some think.

A local Denver band, the Fray, signed a deal with ABC so the band's songs will appear on ABC shows "Lost" and "Grey's Anatomy". The band will also appear on the American Music Awards, Good Morning America and the outdoor concert series on Jimmy Kimmel Live.

Permalink

By rebelcontent | Seattle, WA January 2, 2009 12:50:22 pm:

The trouble with Pareles' argument is in the first paragraph. Santi White has always been a "commercial" musician. Her status as a "quirky, insurgent rule breaker" isn't undermined by her sync success, except in the eyes of critics like Jon who understand her a lot less than her fans do. She's a rule breaker because of how she has carved a very successful path in the industry on her own terms as a woman, not because of how she stands up to that antiquated notion of "The Man" born from the hippified hatred of "corporate rock" and "selling out."

Purposeful listeners have always been a small part of the music consumer base. The vast majority are casual listeners who are motivated more by the emotional connection than they are by the recorded product. Though they once expressed their interest through the purchase of CD's, they now have a myriad of options and are free to make what THEY see as the best choice.

There is nothing awkward about music and commerce as bedfellows. There have been and always will be artists who will create music specifically for a commercial purpose. For example, there is no shortage of hip hop artists who have been producing tracks with ringtone success in mind. It's hardly surprising that some will tailor a composition for effectiveness in a :30 spot, if they are willing to do it for :10. There are also plenty of others who will not.

Artists create music for it to be heard and the relationship with marketers can provide a mutually beneficial opportunity to make that happen. The big gain of the Net is that it allows both parties to have a clearer understanding of the audience/customer and to develop a consistent, direct relationship with them.

The successful use of music in campaigns is driven by the fit. Instead of seeking to make a soft, but still disruptive impression, marketers can succeed by being an integrated part of the experience with highly targeted efforts aimed specifically at audiences who will see the connection as a benefit, not a deficit.

Permalink

By slainson | Boulder, CO January 3, 2009 03:40:09 pm:

I see nothing inherently wrong with using music to aid marketing. A well-designed ad is creative and people like to share it. There are many examples of misused music, but that's not the fault of the artist who wrote the music.

Saying that popular music should not be used in marketing or that to do so cheapens the music implies that commerce itself is bad. In other words: advertisements promote hucksterism; true artists do not associate with such sales people. Going deeper, this viewpoint would suggest that the exchange of money for art taints the art as well.

I don't mind keeping art and commerce separate as long as someone is making sure the artists have shelter, food, clothing, health care, and so on.

I come to the defense of musicians licensing their music for two reasons:

1. It can be a much needed source of income and exposure to them.
2. In the sports world (where I developed an interest in sponsorships) associating with a company is a mark of professionalism. Amateurism may have a certain purity about it, but it's hard to pursue sports as a full-time activity if you can't earn any money from it.

What I would prefer, rather than any blanket condemnation of bands licensing their music for commercial purposes, is a discussion of what works and what doesn't work on a variety of levels (e.g., Is the music good? Is the marketing effective? Is it creative? How well do the music and the marketing communicate to their respective audiences? Is there synergy between the music and the message, enhancing both, or do they work against each other?)

Pareles says, "Perhaps it's too 20th century to hope that music could stay exempt from multitasking, or that the constant insinuation of marketing into every moment of consciousness would stop when a song begins. But for the moment I'd suggest individual resistance. Put on a song with no commercial attachments. Turn it up. Close your eyes. And listen."

The days when we consumed music aurally and not visually ended with music videos. A criticism of music videos has been that they provide images with music rather than encouraging listeners to create their own in their heads. A similar argument can (and probably has been made) about turning books into movies.

Permalink