« Denver/Boulder: Shows this week | 11.12 - 11.18 | Main | Casiotone for the Painfully Alone/High Places, Live @ the Knitting Factory, NYC 11.07.07 »
November 13, 2007
Record labels and Conventional Wisdom in the public arena
I read this CNN Money article (linked from Brooklyn Vegan, natch) this morning defending the need for record labels. Headlined with the urgent and overused catch-all: “Why record labels matter now more than ever.” Brushing aside the inane conclusion from such a headline – clearly one can make an equally convincing argument how artists now more than ever have a greater opportunity to achieve success without help from record labels – in the way it relates to large acts trying to relive past success in today’s marketplace, it paints an interesting picture on how the publicity hustle is evolving. Jumping off that previous tangent, one problem I have with the piece is that two years ago the same article trumpeted the exact opposite point and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Pitchfork, Myspace et al., featured prominently.
As I step back to observe from a high level I find the most interesting aspect of the article is not the point it makes, but the fact that CNN devoted an article to a band most people thought went away with the late 90s, and how blogs (hi!) will eat this up by either a) cycling the same regurgitative snark in posts on an allegedly “irrelevant band” (without any credence to the history of 28 million units (!) sold), b) respond with earnest condemnation why things such as a 41 page marketing plan are reasons exactly why labels are not needed while devoid of good reasons why other than stroking quasi-anarchist ideals, or c) referencing the “Radiohead model” as an end solution to everything. The blog-oh-sphere has gotten predictable.
In other words when all is said and done, thousands (millions?) more people will know Matchbox Twenty has a new record coming out when they otherwise wouldn’t. For a sizable chunk of the music loving population it’ll be from the conversation it begets rather than any of the ridiculous amounts of media blitz tactics from that 41 page marketing plan. Makes you wonder whether that factored in as part of the goal all along. If so, I tip my hat to the clever marketing people banking on viral coverage of ancillary details in order to push product awareness. Without trying to overemphasize the audience of indie skewing music blogs, my money is that it’s working.
Brace yourself for the campaign strategy condemnation from people that have no idea what marketing is all about, what record labels actually do, and the piles upon heaping piles of steaming rationalizing from people saying “this is EXACTLY why we steal music.” Emphasis will be theirs, no doubt.
Posted by Merry Swankster at November 13, 2007 12:47 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.merryswankster.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1305
Comments
My initial reaction to this article was, "Well, of course matchbox twenty needs a record label with a huge PR wagon: nobody would buy their records if the music had to sell itself." But of course, that's just me being overtly cynical. Right?
But I'm more interested in why a news outlet would write such an article. Is it merely an angle to write about the bracelets, because I don't think I'd consider a new mb20 album to be all that newsworthy. This article reeks of an opinion piece masquerading as news, something those of us that watch FOX News and ESPN should be well accustomed to seeing.
But that still doesn't explain the why. No doubt, CNN Money and Forbes both have an invested interest in the success of record labels. After all, you can't buy or sell stock in things like "amount of people who buy an album directly from Radiohead." Perhaps this article's existence is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Basically, it's to their (CNN Money and Forbes) benefit, financially and professionally, to trump up the importance of big businesses such as record labels.
Posted by: Randall Monty at November 13, 2007 01:31 PM
Monty,
You are right on. I remember reading this article about the bottom line effect of music swapping. Yet again, good old CNN....
[ed note - link removed due to format problems]
Posted by: Kelli Douglas at November 13, 2007 03:47 PM
Why would CNN write this article? Because they're owned by TIME WARNER -- the same company that happens to own ATLANTIC RECORDS.
Essentially this was an INFOMERCIAL for the new Matchbox 20 record.
It's also interesting to note that this article arrived in the midst of Radiohead's victory lap.
Posted by: m bluenote at November 13, 2007 05:32 PM
@ m bluenote:
Not as nefarious as it would appear:
From wikipedia:
In late 2003, Time Warner sold Warner Music Group to a group of investors for $2.6 billion. The deal closed in early 2004.
Posted by: Sebastian at November 13, 2007 05:55 PM
Journalists (40 ft. wide brick wall) Corporate parent
Posted by: Keith at November 13, 2007 06:07 PM
Thanks Keith.
I feel like I should say the motivation for CNN's article is in no way the point of this post.
Posted by: Sebastian at November 13, 2007 06:12 PM
I like how the professional journalist is the one that felt the need to point out that corporate parent companies have no influence on what their underlings report. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Now, this does not mean that every journalistic outlet is nefariously influenced by their parent companies. However, the linked story certainly ain't news, yet it's on a news website and it's posted like a news story. Simply put: it doesn't pass the smell test.
The referenced article reeks precisely of mixed priorities that large media outlets are most often criticized for.
That being said, we should be sure to avoid any consequential fallacies regarding this matter.
Posted by: Randall Monty at November 14, 2007 08:53 AM
