The Mariah Carey Ad Controversy

Detouring momentarily from my series on "selling stuff," I wanted to put down a few thoughts on the idea of including a mini-magazine, complete with ads, in CD packages and attached to digital albums.

The first deal, created for the Mariah Carey release Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel on Sept. 15, is a 34-page co-production with Elle magazine that includes lifestyle ads from Elizabeth Arden, Angel Champagne, Carmen Steffens, Le Metier de Beaute and the Bahamas Board of Tourism. Providing the experiment goes well, the label is eyeing bigger brand deals for booklets of CDs by Rihanna, Bon Jovi, Kanye West and other artists. "The Monetization of Mimi: Mariah CD to Have Ads," Brandweek, 8/1/09

The reaction has been very negative in most circles. Typical comments: Greedy labels. Crossing the line between art and music. Foisting ads on a public that doesn't want them and is already paying for the music.

Being the marketing person that I am, and a strong believer in sponsorship support of sports, music, art, and non-profits, I don't have a problem with the concept. But I see a lot of problems with how it has been presented in the media and, as a consequence, how it is being perceived among music fans and critics.

I'll point to this as the primary offending comment:

“The idea was really simple thinking: ‘We sell millions of records, so you should advertise with us,’” said Antonio “L.A.” Reid, chairman, Island Def Jam Music Group, a unit of Universal Music Group. “My artists have substantial circulation—when you sell 2 million, 5 million, 8 million, that’s a lot of eyeballs. Most magazines aren’t as successful as those records.”

There is nothing being said about benefits for fans. How does this promotional package bring value to them? If it is being done well, it should be offering something to them. Discounts? Limited edition offerings? Unique content?

This is as close to fan value as it gets:

The mini magazine contains Mariah-centric editorial (“VIP Access to Her Sexy Love Life,” “Amazing Closet,” “Recording Rituals”) and lifestyle advertising along with lyrics and other CD booklet elements. Elle contributed the editorial and designed the layout.

Granted this article was directed to advertisers and marketing professionals rather than fans, but even so, why is this idea being touted as a way to benefit labels rather as a way to improve the relationship between fans and artists? Why is it being sold as another form of print advertising rather than something else?

On the other hand, maybe we should give credit to Reid for being honest rather than trying to spin the story. In a world where product placement on TV and in movies is common, where there are weekly promotional tie-ins with fast food kids' meals, and where print magazines have long looked for added value packages to offer advertisers, this development is basically business-as-usual. He's touting the millions of eyeballs that these ads will reach, which has been the premise of mass media advertising. And perhaps the fan base for mass market artists is so used to non-stop ads that they aren't offended anyway.

Unfortunately, instead of being accepted by fans/critics as business-as-usual, the concept seems to highlight everything that is perceived to be wrong about major labels, celebrity culture, and mass marketing.

If this had been an independent artist or even one on a small label, the reaction might have been more favorable. Sponsorship and advertising have long gone hand-in-hand in action sports, so I feel the right pairing will be accepted in music as well.

And if this had been presented as a benefit to fans and as a way to support an artist and/or cause, I also believe the reaction would have been different.

Therefore, my advice to anyone exploring music-related sponsorships and advertising: Put the fans first. Don't bother to do it if they don't benefit. When you are touting the idea to the press, if you can't come up with a single fan-focused aspect to your promotion, this is not the right project for you to pursue.

Suzanne Lainson
@slainson on Twitter

Can Sponsorships Convert the Sponsor?

This last week there were stories about De La Soul working with Nike to produce a training album. "Hip-Hop Trio De La Soul Works With Nike for SportMusic LP," Advertising Age, 4/27/09.

Writing about the deal, Scott Thrill raised the issue of "selling out" in an article for Wired. He pointed us to an interview he did last year with Saul Williams, who allowed Nike to use one of his songs in an ad.

In that interview, he asked Williams, "Do you think working with a company with a questionable labor history skews strange with 'List of Demands,' which I read as a commentary on poverty and oppression?"

Williams's response puts an interesting spin on music sponsorships.

I think it guarantees that the people in power in that corporation are listening close to what I'm saying and what their kids are dancing to. I think it makes them question their ethics as much as fans or reporters question mine. It also exposes a whole new world of people to my music, my thoughts, my world view which will perhaps enlist more casual listeners into questioning authority, realizing their power, and all of the things that my music demands.

At the end of the day, I think its a dangerous decision for Nike to popularize a song like "List of Demands." My belief in the power of music tells me that it could possibly work against them. So I applaud their courageousness. My intention remains for these songs to be heard by as many as possible. They are the virus that I wish to spread. I've infected Nike and all within their reach with a song that raises awareness as well as fists. It is indeed written in the voice of the impoverished and oppressed, which includes the factory worker. They know its their song when they hear it. The last thing it does is make someone want to go buy sneakers, but it may encourage someone to hit their boss over the head with a tennis racket. So be it. "Infecting Nike, Initiating Obama: An Interview With Saul Williams", Huffington Post, 9/28/08

I've long been a proponent of sponsorships because I come from a sports marketing background; sponsorships fund a lot of athletes and their events. It's a necessary and usually very productive alliance among all parties. There are rarely, if any, true ethical compromises. Generally either the companies are a perfect fit for those they sponsor, or at least the sponsors have enough redeeming characteristics that athletes/artists taking the money can justify the arrangement in some fashion.

Looking for an example of a potential sponsorship which was deemed too compromising to accept, I found this case of a someone offered an opportunity to work with a cigarette brand.

[Leslie] Nuchow, a powerful throaty singer-songwriter, had been bouncing around New York City's music scenes like many other talents, looking for the break, trying to scrape enough money together to get a CD made, playing often at the Mercury Lounge.

A 'scout' approached Nuchow and asked her to participate in a three women competition for the best unsigned singer-songwriter and the ongoing promotion had a number of great elements -- including tours and a potential label -- but there were two big hitches. The first: the whole effort was sponsored by Virginia Slims, owned by Phillip Morris. and second, Virginia Slims Women Thing music was to produce a CD that would only be available with the purchase of two packs of Virginia Slims cigarettes.

Nuchow said no way. "Virginia Slim SLAM,"AlterNet , 4/26/00

Thinking about sponsorships and this issue of ethical compromise, I've listed a series of questions those being offered the sponsorships might ask themselves:

1. Are you being compensated?
It's unlikely you are going to enter into any sponsorship agreements if you aren't being compensated in some way (e.g., money, free goods, promotion). And if you aren't being compensated, there's no incentive to agree to any partnerships you don't fully embrace, so it's a non-issue.

Accepting compensation, on the other hand, is a double-edged sword. Payment makes the deal worth your time, but it opens you to criticism that you are either only doing it for the money or your values are so malleable that you'll adjust your thinking to fit the situation. Still, many people who work regular jobs have been hired by companies they don't fully embrace. Being paid does not necessarily mean we have lost our identities to a company.

2. Are you donating money?
If you are ambivalent about a sponsorship deal (i.e., perhaps you like some aspects but not others), you can go the charity route. You can donate some or all of your compensation to a cause you believe in. It allows you to play the system for a greater good. It's an example of "the ends justify the means."

3. Are you speaking out?
Saul Williams felt having Nike using his song would generate more interest in his work and his world view. The arrangement gave him a bigger platform to speak from. His take on the situation is unusual, but other artists could try a similar approach.

4. Have you discussed the issues with the sponsor and said that you want to raise awareness?
If you are going to be outspoken about an issue and it appears to run counter to your potential sponsor, you might want to let the company know before signing any contracts. This could avoid future conflicts. And if the company wants to change its image in that regard, perhaps it will even back you on your position.

5. Is the company willing to work with you?
This is an extension of the above point. If you feel strongly about an issue, you might want to talk to a potential sponsor about creating a campaign that supports and incorporates your beliefs. With the right company and the right cause, there could be positive benefits for all.

6. Are you helping them maintain the status quo or are you helping them make changes?
If the sponsor has had a poor track record in some areas and wants to sponsor you to modify that image, do you feel there are real changes being made, or are you being used as camouflage to allow them to continue questionable practices?

7. Do you see your music as a subversive act?
If you consider yourself a guerilla warrior, you may want to take on incompatible sponsors either to embarrass them down the road, or because your hardcore supporters already know you so well that they are able to interpret your sponsored message as a call to action to work against the company and/or what it stands for. Using a sponsorship this way is highly unlikely, though. Relatively few artists are so motivated as to infiltrate the system and put their careers on the line. Some may imagine such a scenario as a justification for signing a questionable deal, but then never carry it out. A more plausible situation is where the artist has a profound change of values after signing and then makes public statements which run counter to the sponsor.

As I have stated, I'm very much in favor of sponsorships. I think they can add value to everyone involved when done correctly. But artists and sponsoring companies should think through any real or potential conflicting values and either find ways to deal with them or not work together.

Suzanne Lainson

Short-Term Versus Long-Term Music Branding

A few weeks ago, SOUNDS LIKE BRANDING™ published the results of a survey of 70 global brands concerning their views about music as a branding strategy. Key findings:

97% think music can strengthen their brand.
76% use music actively in their marketing.
68% consider music to be an important tool for building a consistent and unique brand.

But 71% spend 5% or less of their marketing budget on music.

Why so little if they believe music is a good branding tool? The primary reason, according to 41% of respondents, is difficulty in measuring return on investment.

Unfortunately, music is used in so many different ways, there is no "one size fits all" measure of effectiveness.

Percentage of respondents using music in these formats:

TV commercials 20%
Websites 16%
Commercial locations 13%
Artist sponsorships/collaborations 12%
Music events 11%
Radio ads 10%
Music products 10%
Sonic branding 6%
Other 1%

A topic not covered in the report, but which I think is relevant to any discussion of music as a branding strategy, is how long the music will be called upon to deliver a brand association.

I want to suggest four types of music branding tactics, with their corresponding timeframes:

1. Sonic branding is the most long-lived, presumably for the life of the company. Typically companies commission a unique sound or song as a form of corporate identification.

2. Next in permanence is the jingle. Generally the intent is to create a sonic tagline which will be used for at least a year and often as long as a decade or more. Here are some well-known jingles. And this list ranks the top 30, with introduction dates included.

3. Sponsorships often run on a year-by-year basis, although they can be shorter (perhaps the length of a tour or promotion) or longer (extending over several years). Sponsorships can be quite elaborate, with a company entering into a relationship with an artist/band that extends through multiple presentations and platforms. The sponsorship may involve music for a website, for multiple commercials, and with artists appearing at events. This article mentions a number of sponsorship deals with bands.

4. Song use is generally short-term, often for just one commercial. A song may be chosen to augment a specific concept rather than reflecting a more comprehensive corporate image. Sometimes the songs are classic, but more often than not, they are momentarily popular and are forgotten as soon as the ads disappear. A good resource for the latest in music and advertising is Advertising Age's Songs For Soap blog.


The purpose of the above list is to show that music as a branding strategy can be as simple as picking the right song for an ad running only once, or as complex as finding the right sound to be incorporated into corporate branding for decades.

The "try today and gone tomorrow" scenario allows for experimentation. The "tie your corporate history to a sound" scenario should involve far more deliberation.

Suzanne Lainson