Music should look like professional sports
February 13, 2009
I was understandably rankled when I read about the recent merger between Ticketmaster and Live Nation. Just when we were getting some competition going in the live ticket sales industry, we’re going back to the monopoly. In the article, the writer tried to put a positive spin on it by saying that perhaps now they’ll go to an auction-based ticket sales format so that artists can get paid the true value of their performance (much of which is now captured by Stubhub and ticket agencies on the secondary market).
The thought of an auction is a bit scary. Demand for hot show tickets in most cities is out of control, with individual tickets to most desirable shows going for 2 to 3 times their base sales price – typically hundreds of dollars each. It seems like you’d be able to see a lot fewer shows than you do in the current system.
But for the sake of comparison, let’s look at another public-venue entertainment industry: professional sports. One of the reasons professional athletes get paid as much as they do is because of the economic concept of “rivalry.” Simply put, rivalry identifies whether a good or service can be enjoyed at the same time by more than one person. For instance, only one person can eat my box of junior mints. Therefore that box is only worth the three dollars the movie theater overcharged me. However, the movie we sit down to watch can be enjoyed simultaneously by everyone in the theater. That is why one movie can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars (if it’s any good).
Professional sports teams and the athletes that play for them know this. They do as much as possible to get their on-field activities in front of as many people as they can. People pay top dollar to attend events, with ticket prices set close to market price, and then the leagues have massive TV contracts that bring the events to people all over the world. Merchandising and celebrity-athlete spokesperson contracts are for huge amounts of money, fueled by TV availability and awareness (the Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Cubs, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish all excel at grabbing national attention, which is why they are more valuable than other teams in their leagues).
So why aren’t rock concerts like that? Why can’t you watch them all live on TV (I know some of them are on pay-per-view, but that doesn’t count)? Well, I’ll point an accusatory finger (again) at the packaged media business. By putting musical content on to a tape, a CD, a DVD – by slapping DRM technology on digital downloads - media distributors are trying to introduce rivalry into a medium that is characteristically non-rivalrous. Follow me? Music is intangible, abstract – not at all like my junior mints. When people say that “music wants to be free,” they don’t mean without cost. They just mean that it, by its very nature, is supposed to be enjoyed by more than one person at the same time.
The economic reality of music and the musicians that produce it is that they are like professional athletes, and that economic reality is now causing a collapse in packaged media sales. Because you just can’t fight the nature of something.
What do record companies do? Is the music industry going shrink or even <gulp> collapse? No, not at all.
A big part of the solution is to follow the lead of professional sports. Raise tickets prices so your “athletes” get paid what they’re worth. Don’t fire everyone who works in your packaged media business. Move them over into a new type of distribution job for “ConcertTV” channels 1-20 that air live concerts of all types from all over the world on cable, 24/7. I’d pay $15 a month for those channels. With this increased personal exposure for artists, ramp up the merchandising and sponsorship dollars (there is so much that could be done here that isn’t being done). More distribution and marketing jobs there, too.
The side effects of this approach? Prices for albums lower further to a price that lets more people enjoy more of the good stuff (25 cents a song, anyone?) – music becomes more accessible and demand is further stimulated. Supply follows: Bands tour more, more venues are built, more musicians can actually make a living doing it on the low end – music becomes bigger and more diverse. Bands that can’t actually play their instruments, are supported only by good production and marketing, or write albums full of filler can’t put on a decent show and fail – music becomes more about talent and quality.
I for one think the above realities will come to pass regardless of what the record companies do, and I’m pretty excited about it. But I’d like to see the record companies continue to employ the good people they have, I’d like to see the transition happen faster and with less heartbreak. So here’s hoping that sometime soon, during a Sunday afternoon football game, a few record executives have epiphanies.
Photo Credit: Originally uploaded by Mark Sevigny
Can marketing agencies evolve into social?
February 11, 2009
The other day I read a great blog entry over on Mediapost that talks about how “The Future Agency of Record Will Be Social.” In it, Joe Marchese of Socialvibe opines:
There is a quiet battle raging in the advertising industry over who will become the Agency of Record (AOR) for marketers’ social media efforts. With traditional media for delivering advertising declining in reach and effectiveness, and an even greater call for advertising efficiency in a down economy, becoming a marketer’s social media AOR can be a huge win and provide a map to a much-needed new business model and revenue stream for agencies.
Later in the article, Joe gets into how basically every possible classification of agency (from PR to Media to Interactive) could potentially evolve into the coveted role as the social media AOR. But by doing this 
he more or less makes the point that every agency will have to evolve to keep their seat at the table, because the social web is changing how every marketing discipline is practiced. But what does it mean to evolve? How does an agency’s DNA need to change to grab the social media brass ring?
I joined Powered a little over a year ago from an interactive agency in Chicago. In that move, I got to transition from one company whose focus is on more traditional (though sophisticated), online programs (corporate/brand web presence, relationship marketing/CRM programs, campaign sites) to another whose focus is social marketing (branded communities).
The transition opened my eyes to some of the evolutionary differences that Joe is surfacing in his article, albeit solely within the interactive marketing space. (Perhaps others can speak to other areas like PR/Media in the comments?) The surprising thing is that although both my current and past company fundamentally build websites – requiring strategy, design, content, front/back end development, project management, and maintenance – they are strikingly, fundamentally different.
Creative Differences
The first major difference is within the creative teams of the respective organizations. Creative within a typical interactive agency is highly focused on elegant visual design. The primary goal is to catch the eye, connect to the user on an emotional level, and engage and convert them with inventive content. Most creative teams in agencies focus on hiring rock-star interactive designers, videographers, and creative writers. The social marketing provider creative teams are far less focused on visual design, and more on delivering content in an approachable way that taps into what users care about and starts conversations. Learning is a key aspect of good community content. Social marketers hire creative people who are rock-stars in journalism, education, and instructional design. Of course, I’m not saying an agency can’t produce content for a community any more than I’m saying a social marketing provider can’t produce content for a campaign site – it’s really more a matter of emphasis in the creative skill set.
Technology Lockdown
The more an interactive program stops looking like a website and starts looking like an application, the more opportunity there is for leveraging a reusable technology platform. Many agencies, especially those who deploy lots of relationship marketing or CRM programs, have developed simple platforms to enable the quick development and deployment of those efforts. In my last agency, we had a relationship marketing platform that we even branded “Backstage.” However, online communities are far more complicated from a technological standpoint and really have to be treated like a product in order for the technology to work reliably. For that reason, a social marketing provider is likely to have a much larger engineering staff (typically with separate product and implementation roles) and an enhanced competency around product management and development.
Experts who Talk, Experts who Listen
The added complexity of an in-market online community is also the reason for additional operational staff to support the effort. There are two roles here that will be atypical in a standard interactive agency. The first is the operations people who are there to watch over a community to make sure user-generated content is moderated and to enhance the experience by corralling resources to interact with users in real time. The second is a social analytics expert who not only understands typical web analysis and data mining, but also gets how to watch, measure, and mine UGC. These roles have to cooperate tightly with the strategic account manager (who also needs to have experience in planning community) to adapt and close the loop quickly as they learn – community members are far less patient than those who are participating in an email campaign.
Must we evolve?
So will interactive agencies choose to evolve into social marketing providers? And even if they choose – can they?
I think all agencies will need to evolve, so the choice is just a matter of timing. And I do think agencies can negotiate the pathway to social – in three different ways. First, I think the larger agencies will likely acquire social marketing providers who were born that way, integrating their capabilities and becoming instant players. Second, other smaller agencies will likely focus on campaign-oriented social media and interactive work (Facebook apps, Mobile apps, Twitter build-outs, UGC campaign sites), choosing to farm out communities to partners. Finally, still other agencies, small and large, might change tack and try to re-invent themselves as social marketing providers.
It’s this last pathway that presents the most danger, but recognizing that community is not just a new type of marketing program – but a new way of approaching marketing and a new organization to support it – is the first step to getting there.
This post is cross-posted over on Powered‘s blog, The Engaged Consumer.
Photo Credit: Originally Uploaded by Narly
Your brand: The bridge to community
January 19, 2009
This post is cross-posted over on The Engaged Consumer, Powered’s company blog.
My colleagues Aaron Strout and Bill Fanning have gotten a great conversation started around the difficulty of connecting community with a brand that seems not quite as “community ready,” starting with a recent post titled “Would you join a Toothpaste Community?“
This is a question we get all the time in initial sales calls with savvy brand marketers. They get social marketing, but can’t quite see how people could ever get excited about their product – that is, excited enough to engage at a deeper level within a branded community. Aaron suggested a nice approach where you categorize your offering and look to commonly effective strategies. I’ll add to that by suggesting an additional approach that is a little more zen.
Alright, clear your mind. Let’s imagine that you are in a room with your ad agency and you are trying to brainstorm a new ad campaign. They will likely put you through a series of exercises designed to explore what you want your brand to mean to consumers. What are you really selling? Where is the point at which your product or service connects with something your potential buyer really cares about? Answering these questions allows your agency to produce a 30-second spot or a print campaign that more powerfully engages your target audience.
You might offer auto insurance, but you’re really selling safety and comfort. You might serve coffee, but you’re really selling opportunity and energy. You might be a toothpaste manufacturer, but you’re really selling health and good looks.
Before someone ever considers buying your insurance, coffee, or toothpaste, they have to be in the mode of being safer, being opportunity-driven, feeling healthy. That’s why TV commercials never start with the product that’s being sold, they start with images that evoke those feelings and then end with product. What I would suggest is that while these lifestyle elements are the secret to effective ad campaigns, they are also your bridge to an effective, high-return social marketing strategy.
What about a social marketing program centered on how to make your family safer: in your home, on the road, on the Internet? What about a program about how be more productive, more organized, more energetic? What about a program centered around total health, personal appearance, effective presentation? These are passion points for people, and it’s where you already get them to care about you. So why not deepen and broaden that brand-relevant interaction with online community? Bring in experts, engage celebrities, turn your compelling 30-second spot into a compelling conversation.
As in many things, the secrets to success here aren’t necessarily in some new playbook. They are hidden in what you already know. Why do people care about what you’re selling?
Photo Credit: Originally Uploaded by Carolyn from Lucky Planet Photography
From flat to round: The new brand
January 5, 2009
This post is cross-posted on Powered’s blog, The Engaged Consumer.
I draw a lot of parallels between marketing and storytelling, and I’m certainly not the only one. But recently, I’ve been giving some thought (mostly as a result of it being a hot conversation on the web) to the branding dimension of marketing, how it’s changing, and how it relates to the art of telling a good story.
Branding is to me most like characterization in the storytelling paradigm, the ability to develop convincing and compelling personalities with whom the reader (a.k.a. consumer) can identify and form a firm relationship. When you read a book, see a play, or watch a movie where characterization is done well, your emotions (love or hate) for the characters are amplified. The actors are full, their flaws and their strengths are detailed, and you can get to the point where when the story ends you want to see more of them. Good brands are like that – you feel like you know them, you feel like your association with them says something about you, and you want to see more of them.
A little bit of research into characterization rendered this from the Department of English at The University of Victoria that digs a little deeper:
A flat character (also known as a type, or a two-dimensional character) is defined by a single quality without much individualizing detail. A round character is a complex individual incapable of being easily defined. The degree to which characters are given roundness and individual complexity depends upon their function in the plot–some only need to be seen at a distance, like strangers or acquaintances, rather than known intimately.
I would argue that most brands today, and in the old world of marketing, are “flat characters.” A brand’s time with us has been hindered by our inability to choose with which brands we spend that time, as offline marketing channels feature a more-or-less complete lack of consumer control. As a result brand-marketers have had to keep branding simple. Every commercial break has been like a round of speed-dating where you have 30 seconds to get to know each of the brands involved.
That’s changing. With the web now a major force in marketing (and driven by consumer choice, spread primarily by word of mouth) consumers now have the means, and the ability, to choose to spend more time with brands they like. Brand marketers have to be ready for that. They must build “round characters” – the kind with depth, complexity, even flaws. This is why many people define the new branding as more conversational, more social. What they really are describing is the process of brands shedding their archetypical trappings and becoming more like real people.
Two good examples that go part of the way, but perhaps not far enough, are a couple of great efforts by Dos Equis and Palm. Dos Equis’ “The Most Interesting Man in the World” is a crusty old guy who looks like a cross between Chuck Norris and Antonio Banderas. He is surrounded by women, and described by phrases like “his blood smells like cologne” and “his personality is so magnetic that he is unable to carry credit cards.” He’s a great character for beer drinkers, myself included. You can become a fan of him on Facebook, and you can visit a website where he is featured, but you quickly get the sense that, well, he’s not really that interesting. While I give kudos to Dos Equis for some great ad spots and a slick website, opportunities are missed here for a deeper and longer-term engagement. A similar treatment was given to Claus, Palm’s metro-hip version of Santa Claus. Great character, but a bit flat for the web.
So what is a “round brand” on the web? Isn’t it a huge effort to develop all the backstory on your character for the few that are interested? Actually, it might be less work. By merely pulling back the marketing curtain and exposing the personalities and voices of the interesting people on your marketing team (through social networks and through your own socially-enabled website), you can contribute those personalities to your brand – rounding it out. Just look at what Dunkin Donuts is doing on their Twitter account. And it might be more than just a few that become interested, as word-of-mouth spreads at the speed of the web.
What brands do you think have character?
Guest Blog on Austin Startup
June 19, 2008
As I mentioned in a previous post, Twitter’s best application for me so far has been for business – and that continues to be the case. Noticing this past weekend that I was twittering from ProductCamp Austin, the editor of the Austin Startup blog and area entrepreneur (Bryan Menell) asked me to write a guest blog on it. I did, and it’s up now with a byline for my current company and company blog.
The Austin Startup blog played a key role in allowing me to assess the startup community in Austin and find job opportunities here when Megan and I decided to become Texans (again, for me) 8 months ago. For that reason, it’s a real pleasure to be able to make a contribution back to it.
The moment of discovery
April 2, 2008
One of main reasons I like to watch biopic movies about bands or musicians is because I like to see two scenes that are always part of those movies – the scenes that have to do with discovery.
The first scene is the part of the story where someone first listens to the music and realizes “damn, this is good.” It’s that scene in Walk the Line where the producer first hears Johnny Cash play, or when Ray Charles finally gets to take centerstage in the movie Ray. It usually takes place in a smoky club or a tiny, ramshackle recording studio. It’s that first intimate moment of virtuosity and greatness. The best biopics usually place that as the first time the viewer gets to see a full performance as well, so as you watch you share in the wonder of the first person who discovers a future legend. It’s the best expression of the importance of music to the listener.
The second scene is the part of the story where the public-at-large first listens and realizes “damn, this is good.” One of my favorite movie scenes in this category is in the cheesy-but-lovable That Thing You Do, where the band (The Oneders) first gets played on local radio (in the 1950′s, mind you). All of the band members are going about their normal non-rock-star lives in town, cleaning shop floors or running errands, and suddenly their song crackles to life on the radio. They all drop what they’re doing, drive and run to the drummer’s parents’ appliance store where they turn every radio in the place on and dance wildly in collective victory. It’s not an intimate type of discovery, but it does mean they have found an audience and now have that ability to finally afford to do what they love for a living. It’s the best expression of the importance of music to the musician.
The interesting thing about discovery is how it has changed. Now that first intimate moment might happen in a lonely, out-of-the-way website or MySpace page. The second moment, when an act hits it big, might happen on YouTube when a homemade music video “goes viral” or when a big brand like Apple picks up your song for a commercial spot. Where the first and second moment might have been a couple of years and hundreds of thousands in marketing dollars apart a decade ago, now they might be a week to a couple of months apart as friends share with friends and everyone from ad execs to label execs comb social sharing sites looking for the next big thing.
Also, the idea of where that discovery might lead has changed. Of course you will still have your big success stories – the U2′s, Coldplays, Kanyes, and Red Hot Chili Peppers. But the internet has given birth to a musician middle class, where artists distribute cheaply, find fanbases all over the world efficiently, play more, smaller gigs and publicize them to local fans easily. A musician can make a good living as a mid-sized band without ever needing to really hit it big 1950′s style. And there is more variety and inspiration for all of us.
Some people say that the internet is killing the music industry. Yes, the economics that depend on mass physical distribution and mass marketing are going the way of the dinosaur. But the economics that depend on those magical moments of discovery, and the best expression of what is important to listener and important to musician, are thriving in ways they never did before.
Wicksite: Other writings from across the web
March 28, 2008
I realized recently that I had just passed the one-year anniversary of my first blog post, a day that will go down in history I tell you! That first post was for my previous company closerlook, on their Work + Play blog. I enjoyed it enough that a few months later, I started this one.
Most of the time I’m writing for other blogs along with wicksite, most of them associated with my current or past employers. Alas, the hazards of working for someone else for a living. Here is where else you can find me, and a comprehensive list of posts from other sources up until now. This is a big dump of links, going forward I’ll try to cross-post or link out as I write them.
The Engaged Consumer (Powered’s corporate blog) - We just recently started this blog, and so far, so good.
Five lessons from social marketing disasters (March 12, 2008)
Social networking vs. social commerce (February 22, 2008)
Outspend or outteach? (February 15, 2008)
The new focus groups: social networks (February 1, 2008)
The two voices of social commerce (December 14, 2007)
Work + Play (closerlook’s corporate blog) - We started the blog in March of 2007, and I left in September to move to Austin. It’s a great blog at a great company!
It’s no fun to be alone! (August 7, 2007)
Gmail goes viral with “behind-the-scenes” video (August 3, 2007)
Firing a customer? Are you crazy? (July 12, 2007)
Keeping the questions golden (July 3, 2007)
Paying something for nothing (June 22, 2007)
Viral campaign freaking my mind (May 30, 2007)
Seth Godin and The Dip (May 22, 2007)
The strategy disconnect (April 28, 2007)
Now I finally know what Kurt Cobain was singing (April 26, 2007)
Saying “I do” to your customers (April 11, 2007)
Gimme some IMAX (April 7, 2007)
The trap of “what clients want” (April 6, 2007)
A song heard round the world (April 2, 2007)
Starbucks speaks its own language (March 30, 2007)
Powered: Social commerce out-of-the-box
October 9, 2007
This past Monday I started my new gig with Powered, an Austin-based company that creates social commerce web destinations for big brands (Sony, HP, etc.). I’m currently a “Business Architect” – which basically is another way to say strategic pre-sales, or even better, the guy who does the demos.
I’m really excited about the company and the role I’ll be playing. Social commerce, which is basically social networking wrapped around online shopping for products and services, is a part of the web that is really on the upswing. Powered is an emerging company in this space, and offers a unique service by bundling a strong content development offering with a social technology platform.
Basically, if you are a marketer scratching your head about how to leverage this Web 2.0 business for the benefit of your brand, Powered can have you up and running with a fully loaded social site driving interest and business in three months (mileage may vary). Do I sound like a sales guy yet? I’m working on it.
Powered has roots in “Online Consumer Education,” and if you go to the website now you’ll see it still reflects that content-focused approach. But next month we’ll be relaunching with a push into Social Commerce and a brand new technology platform named Panorama. Exciting times.
Beyond the impetus to join Powered because it’s a well-positioned company in a rapidly growing area of the internet, I joined up mostly because I was really impressed with the management and leadership here. People is always the first place I look to not only know if I will be happy somewhere, but also to know whether a company is going to ultimately succeed or not. I have a good feeling about this one.
More about Social Commerce at Micropersuasion and DMNews.
The glory of football season, and Nike ads
September 11, 2007
The long-awaited football season is upon us, and I spent last weekend planted in front of the TV taking in some fantastic games. Part of watching football (for me, at least) is watching the new crop of ads that various companies roll out to coincide with the new season – What is their brand? Who is their audience? What are they trying to do? Are they accomplishing this goal elegantly or stumbling?
Nike’s new commercial for Nike Football featuring Shawne Merriman and Steven Jackson, directed by Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral, Miami Vice), is brilliant. In it, the two players are shown running seamlessly through different games of their season as their uniforms, opponents, and the weather changes. First we follow Merriman, as he makes a series of great defensive plays. When he finally sacks a quarterback and causes a fumble, Steven Jackson recovers the fumble and starts to run as our perspective shifts to follow him. Jackson vaults a defender, spins and jukes and finally gets stood up at a goal line by a big group of white-jerseyed defenders. He seems consumed by them, until at the last moment his arms, holding the ball, emerge and stretch toward a touchdown. He seems sure to make it, but right before he does the screen goes black and the words “Leave Nothing” appear. The sounds in the commercial – from the churning orchestral soundtrack (from Last of the Mohicans) to the grunts and explosive collisions of the players – speak to the toil and effort of the game.
Nike is known for this type of ad – and their ability to form an emotional connection with the viewer using dramatic imagery from sports. With their diverse businesses (apparel, shoes, etc.) it is all about relating their swoosh to a feeling. That way, a t-shirt with a swoosh is no longer just a t-shirt. It’s Steven Jackson stretching for a touchdown against all odds.
