Posts

Perusing Adweek as I often do to keep up with what’s going on in my clients’ world I came across a pretty cool ad Y&R recently did for Craftsman:

The music in the ad was obviously created by editing video of people doing various things with Craftsman products. The composer/editor in this case was Kutiman (the internet sensation from a while back who created music from various YouTube clips he put together).

Adweek’s Mark Dolliver critiques:

But the percussive sounds achieved here by using Craftsman tools in oddball fashion just don’t seem all that interesting. When a saw is used to create a rasping sound as it scrapes a cinder block, I feel like telling it not to quit its day job. No doubt some viewers will feel differently. But the self-consciously artsy approach seems like a mismatch for the audience of people who buy and use Craftsman tools.

While I agree the spot leaves something to be desired I’d offer up that the spot not captivating the viewer has less to do with trying to “artsy” but more because it’s lacking two simple components: build, and melody. It’s definitely edited well and the beat it creates is nice, but when a client asks me for music they typically ask for something that builds (or “goes somewhere”), is relatively positive, and then they’ll drill down to whatever specific sounds strike their fancy for the brand.

If you watch the spot again closely you’ll notice beats being layered throughout but the layering doesn’t really create a build, and serves to muddle sonically as more elements are added. When the spot ends you don’t wander away humming anything, just perhaps thinking “that was clever” or in Mr. Dolliver’s case something written with more @’s and &’s.

Since the spot is focused explicitly on creating music with tools, to my ears the error was made in not creating a more melodic soundtrack that “goes somewhere.”

For a final thought I’d like to throw out this old Nike commercial:

Even something as simple as the squeak of the sneaker allows you to create a melody – a very simple one no doubt, but listen carefully! There’s build, it sticks out above the beat of the rest of the commercial, and also the focus on the underlying beat was a more simple approach and doesn’t take away from the sneaker squeak. In fact when harkening back to this spot, I immediately started humming the rhythm sneaker-squeak melody.

Overall I think the Craftsman spot is still pretty cool and Kutiman definitely deserves kudos for his editing skill, but the music itself leaves a little something to be desired to really drive the commercial home.

Doing my industry reading like a good music biz employee today I came across an article by Paul Resnikoff on Digital Music News. The article – “What Coachella is Telling Us” – speculates that the economics of the current festival/live performance aspects of the music business could be highlighting a trend: Fans discovering music online as freebies causing a drive upward in concert revenue. He mentions that even in the face of the current economic situation ticket prices are still soaring – and selling.

I’ve never been a proponent of artists giving away music in hopes that exposure will grow, however now that I’ve been at my job for 5 years I can definitely see some interesting prospects for acts that are starting to gain a somewhat significant following (we’ll say 1,000+ followers).

While Paul seems to indicate that bands giving away free music could maybe might just somehow lead to increased ticket sales perhaps, I’d argue that music should still never be “free.” However fans can offer a value even if it isn’t in cold hard cash.

Bands looking to gain some sort of monetary value from their music can go about it in various ways and I feel one of those channels should definitely not be selling an album to the mass populous. Well, at least not at first. But what Paul suggests – giving music away can drive concert revenue – is actually getting close to not a bad idea. Let’s take it one step further though.

Value fans can give:

1) Free PR (Word of Mouth, Blogging, Twitter, etc)
2) Free Distribution (burning CDs, emailing files, etc)
3) Money (concert revenue, album sales, merchandise, etc)
4) Connections (Music supervisors, ad agency producers, etc)

I’m sure there are more but these are a good start. As a band on the cusp, I’d say the main goal is to generate money with music. That means doing two things: Live performances and Licensing. Fans can help do both though point 4 above is far less likely until points 1 and 2 have reached a tipping point.

After reviewing this info, a band might then post something on their website offering fans some sort of value (perhaps a few mp3’s or discount code for merchandise or concert ticket discounts) based on the following:

1) Email address entry (increase mailing list/following)
2) Material dissemination (some sort of referral program for the mailing list)
3) Money (naturally, paying for the tracks should always be an option – low cost at first of course. Also, buying them a track could earn them a discount on merchandise or concert tickets)
4) Professional introduction (I’m not sure exactly how this would work, but it could be a very lucrative opportunity for a band so the reward should be fairly high for the connected fan)

In all I think Paul definitely makes some valid points about how the industry is being more and more shaped towards live performances since that’s a great way to make money as a musician. However, giving music away for free, I think, is always foolish. Think about the value your fan-base can bring to you, and reward them for it – quid pro quo. Thousands of businesses do this already (Gilt Group, ING Direct, and more) and the sooner you start treating your music like a business, the faster you’ll start to generate income from it.