Interesting Industry Insights from a major label worker

[AfaraWayland]

Hello all,

I found this quote on another forum, from a bloke who knows a bloke...

It justifies my views on the commercial music industry, specifically, Major Labels, and what they are looking for.

What do you guys think about this quote...(there were some interesting and differing opinions about it on the other forum.)

Getting signed to a major label

If you are an artist, you have to consider your marketability, which I will delineate below, as well as providing some links that fall exactly in line with what I am saying. There are trends to what acts tend to get signed, and what just doesn't fit in today's synergistic world of media.

I also want it to be clear that I am discussing strictly major labels and mainstream acts that normally populate the likes of MTV.

THE NEW ERA OF MARKETING
Before, it didn't really matter unless you had a good song to sell. How times have changed! In the mid-nineties, media companies, along with MTV (as well as several colluded mega-majors like Universal, and Time Warner) made qualitative analyses of the lives of youths usually between the ages of 12-17, or the "teen" generation if you will. They went into kid's houses, asked kids about what they liked, didn't like, trends in clothing and consumption of goods, and came back to the table with two distinct psychological profiles of female and male teens that would be a cookie cutter methodology to which female and male teens could be marketed to by record companies in collusion with major brand giants like Procter and Gamble, shoe companies, etc.

What came out of the research was a change in MTV as well as the signing of acts by record companies. Record companies and MTV sought talent that appealed to either one of the following:
1. A disassociated, angry teen male. (known as a "MOOK")
2. A hypersexualised, pierced, "belly showing," sophisticated, teen female. (known as a "MIDRIFF.")

Know, the recalculation of programming at MTV was changed to fit such predicates, as well as programming for a more brand friendly a promotional program approach. That's why they don't just "show music videos" on MTV. They have 1/2 hr. to 1 hr "shows" that are meant to appeal to either the MOOK or the MIDRIFF. "Jackass" was meant for teh MOOK, and the MIDRIFF had other shows as well. Furthermore, advertisers could do pertinent brand placement and MTV which would make MTV have higher advertising rates than before, because they are appealing to the consumption habits that teens make during their "brand formation" years. That's basically where teens get brand identification that they will hold on to later in life, like using Guess? jeans, Ralph Lauren or even Phat Farm, and having an affinity for it.

How does this all fit in to getting signed?

MARKETING AND GETTING SIGNED TO A MAJOR
Korn, Staind, Eminem, Metallica, 50 Cent, most gangsta rap, Linkin Park, appeal to the MOOK. Most acts signed have to fit into this generic category that promotes anger, depression and violence, because that is what the MOOK has been psychologically profiled as by researchers.

Haven't you ever accused a band or act for getting "soft" if he/they come out with a "love song?" Why would Ja Rule switch from his harder image on Venni Vetti Vinci to the "Thug Love" he croons now?

The midriff!

Female teens are the largest consumers of music in Western Europe, the United States and Australia. That's why N'Sync was so successful. So is Britney Spears and Hillary Duff. That's why Fabolous raps love songs, B2K sings, or Ja Rule sells 6 million love raps, and you hate him, but your girlfriend loves him. They are all appealing to the midriff demographic, and love songs about relationships, etc., are all appealing to the female teen demographic, and if they like the image of the artist, then you're even a bigger star.

An group I think treads finely between the MOOK and MIDRIFF is Nickelback, who tended to make sappier love songs, and now is trying to get "harder" a little bit with their last single. ("I Know Who You Are")

SO GOD, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME?
This means that YOU as an artist, if you want a higher probability of getting signed, and I mean this... have to throw away your "artistic" idealism and indeed think if you want to "sell out" and actually make some money by formatting your music to sell to a MOOK or to the MIDRIFF

Usually an exec won't let you do both, it's increasing the probability of failure if they try to market you to both, plus it's cheaper to promote you in one way than both. Remember, you're selling your image, and that image has to be consistent. Either your appealing to angry kids who can identify you, or to females that identify with your love lyrics.

Rarely is there middle ground.

You have signing potential if you appeal to one and only one of these demographics. Also, it gives you the ability to cross-promote, like signing with a clothing company for men, if you're a MOOK artist, or sell make-up, like Mandy Moore. Also, your image can make you able to be a movie action star (something 50 Cent should do, and DMX tried).

The thing is that if you cater to a MOOK or the MIDRIFF, you more options to make money for your record company, management, agents, and self.

GOD WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT THIS? I'M MY OWN ARTIST F*** EVERYBODY
Hmm, is that what you really want to do? If I want to sign you, and you're a hardcore rapper appealing to the MOOK, I can immediately put you on tour with other harder rappers like 50 Cent/Jay-Z/Xzibit, or if you're a band, I can get you on that Korn/Limp Bizkit tour, which gives you instant exposure for your band, which equates to more money and more sales.

It's about making music that SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES with a target audience, like angry 12-17 yr. old males.

If I represent you, and you appeal to the midriff, I'd have you doing all the cheesy photo shoots, Tiger Beat, your face would be on make-up, backpacks, all the things you hate about "selling out" and going "soft." But guess what, YOU WOULD BE PAID MASSIVELY.

If you do your own thing... great, just don't come looking for a massive deal unless you are so different that it's worth to sign you. That doesn't happen often. That's saying a lot considering most people that do get signed beat dramatic odds over other people.

CONCLUSION
What you should get out of this is that MTV won't play unless your image appeals to the MOOK or MIDRIFF demographic. Your video has to have a certain format, and record companies know that their artists should appeal to such standards because they have a better chance at being promoted and paid by advertisers, etc.

It is the whole "sell out dilemma." But think about it. You're not just an artist, you're an image, you're somebody that a kid should look up to. You're not really yourself, you're somebody else pretending to appeal to a demographic. Dre knows this, look at his artists, they all pretty much cater to the MOOK. Boy bands were great money makers appealing to the MIDRIFFS.

A lot of successful "industry" people know this, in radio, television, and music. THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY HOW MAJORS SIGN THEIR ACTS. Or at least, good A&R.

[brandondrury]

Great post, dude.

I watched a documentary on porn the other night. The general attitude of most of the porno chicks was "I choose to have sex on camera as my career. So what!".

Of course, many of us refer to porno chicks as "whores".

The idea of having sex on camera takes something that most us consider to be a special bond between lovers and trivializes it (if you want to look at it that way).

Porno has, more or less, a formula that works. Blond chicks with big fake boobs getting pounded by big weiners sells more DVDs and memberships than other possibilities.

In the music industry example, many musicians are also taking something that is special to many of us (songwriting, playing our instrument, expressing our anguish through the majesty of song, etc) and trivializing it by catering to a formula that happens to work. These people are also whoring themselves out. (Of course anyone with a job they like is a whore).

I don't see anything wrong with MTV figuring out the formula. It doesn't really matter if the band was custom built for a specific application or it was just coincidence. Who cares if The Beatles, Zeppelin, or Def Leopard were fabricated by a mad major label scientist as long as the intended result occurs. Of course that intended result is providing music that effects people and defines a part of their life.

The problem arises when the concoction isn't effective.

I figured out a philosophy about a year ago that corporations and the government aren't the problem. The people are the problem. It wasn't the "EVIL" MTV that took music videos off. It was the people who said "I don't want to watch videos, I want to watch Road Rules". It's the people who want to hear another mediocre song by Three Doors Down.

So, I think this is a great post. Anyone who really wants to "get in the game" and wants to start an entertainment company (major label band) had better be appealing to their intended audience. As long as they are cranking out effective music, I don't think it makes a difference.

Brandon

[AfaraWayland]

hehe, thanks Brandon!

(Of course anyone with a job they like is a whore)

or...a douchebag...

[siski]

Hi,

In a similar vein, there was a documentry on the BBC recently that was about the affect of advertising on children. The show centered aroung this 10 year old kid in the Elephant and Castle area of South London. The kid nagged his mum for the lastest stuff like computer games, the most expensive trainers and CDs from the likes of 50 cent and the Black eyed peas etc...
The show employed 3 top Marketing Execs to try and sell a Quartet playing Chamber music to the kid and his mates at the local school.

They started by creating a name for the Band "Wolfgang". Not subtle but I guess most kids of 10 have never heard of Motzart.

The graphics for the name were created in the gothic writing of the latest hiphop and R & B bands.

The first day of the show the kids at school were asked to rate a list of band names. Wolfgang was in the list but came at the bottom coz no one had heard of them.

That night the show got a local graffiti artist to spray the Bands Logo on the walk way on the way to the school for the kids to see. They placed posters on bulleten boards at the school, they even held a fake photo shoot of the band outside the school. The band turned up in a Limo, dressed in al the lasted styles. The kids went crazy, autographs were handed out etc...

The next day the kids did the same rating excersise as before. Wolfgang was in the top three along with 50 cent etc...even though none of the kids had heard a note of music.

The show culiminated in a live performance of the band at a local hall. Free tickets were distributed to the school kids.

Most of the School turned up and as soon as the band arrived with Cellos and violins and started to play the kids mouths dropped to th floor. Some walked out but they were all gob-smacked that they had been duped.

Simon.

[brandondrury]

Do you know the name of the documentary? This sounds like the greatest thing I've ever heard!

Brandon

[AfaraWayland]

There was another one by Frontline

The Merchants of Cool

[siski]

Sorry mate,

Can't remember the shows name, I was just flicking through the channels and just came across it. It was on BBC4 I think so I'll keep an eye out for it coz they always repeat.

Si

[brandondrury]

Generally speaking, I find the British documentaries to generally be superior to American documentaries and I'm one of those guys who thinks that the concept of a queen is about as stupid as Americans worshipping Paris Hilton.

------------

Back to the topic. I think the experiment with the 10 year olds illustrates a huge point about the general tendencies of human beings. Being suckers for marketing is something we don't outgrow. Maybe we have more motivation to ask better questions (like....why I on earth do I possibly need a $500 cell phone???) when we get older and maybe a little less motivation to "fit in".

It's unfortunate, but this side of marketing is a huge part of any business, including the music business. If you really want to make money, you've got to get in the game. People just making music to make music are taking a big financial risk by not messing up their hair or whatever it is that musicians who sell records are supposed to do to seam hip.

I remember when the little My Chemical Romance experiment came out. I was repulsed by the tired-5-years-ago goth thing they were using. The kids and MTV seamed to love it. Someone burned me a cd. I gave it a shot. Now, the two My Chemical Romance albums are among the very few albums I've purchased in the past few years. I guess the point is that the same "image" junk that works on kids repels non-kids and it takes a little convincing to get passed it.

Brandon

[AfaraWayland]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Generally speaking, I find the British documentaries to generally be superior to American documentaries and I'm one of those guys who thinks that the concept of a queen is about as stupid as Americans worshipping Paris Hilton.

Yeah, try this one too!

The Great Global ****ing Swindle

I only watched most of it (its like an hour long), but the flow and content are superb.

[brandondrury]

I just watched The Great Global W A R M I N G Swindle last week. The BBC did do an emotion based documentary on global ****ing on their Passionate Eye show, but pretty much every single point they made was shot down on The Great Global ****ing Swindle.

Besides Sopranos, I really don't watch any fiction shows. I go to bed watching documentaries I downloaded. I've probably wanted 200 documentaries in the past year or two. I've learned to point out the signs that a documentary is full of shit or it's really telling the facts. You never really know for sure, really.

The Great Global ****ing Swindle appears to be the most legit documentary I've seen on global ****ing. They don't rely on pictures of a polar bears starving and other emotion targetted tactics. They simply discuss that data that has been in collected in a way that doesn't seam to have an agenda past finding the truth.

Brandon