How to Market an Artist Today?

[REX]

It seems that with the way things have changed in our world today artists have needed to become much more "obvious" and complete characterizations of the genres or styles they represent. Much like the movies and actors where you have "Action Movies" and the stereotypical action star.

Now in the music business you have the successful artists and acts becoming the epitome of characterization, or creating a total character to their identity. It becomes obvious that this opens more and different revenue streams for them. It's everyone from Gaga with her Madonna evolution, to Ray LaMontagne with his "authentic" retro Neil Young thing right down to the period style album covers and his little Deadwood outfits hat and all, to the Gorillaz whose success relied heavily on their entire character concept. I could go on with Lenny Kravitz, DMB etc.

I think this has become a prerequisite in an increasingly mixed media business and virtual world.

Besides great music it seems like an artist needs a more complete vision for his identity, look, videos, and narrative in general. I wonder how much of this comes from their own drive and creativity and how much from management and labels?

What is essential today? What would you guys recommend an artist include in crafting a plan or vision? Live performance, Internet presence, videos, books, stories, products, charities....

[yotonic]

I know what you're saying, it seems like an artist can spend a year creating a great album - release it and even if it's good and people like it they forget about it in 6months and are on to the next thing. It's this disposable or instant gratification world we live in. Lady Gaga and those concept acts have a lot of extra drama and ways to keep themselves remembered and in front of people. That's a big part of the game. There's not a lot of money in the songs alone anymore you do need to become a reality star of sorts. People do love their comic book heroes it seems that's the big trend in movies. Make everybody a stereotype, the country guy, the Rock guy, Jack Johnson the surfer guy. Regular people need not apply.

[Wiguan]

In my opinion, is to make full use of social media power.

Make frequent release.

Interact 2 ways communication with fans and sell other thing other than the music itself... Like for example an own branded perfume perhaps?

[AcoosticZoo]

Youtube videos.

[Bassmankr]

A sex tape and paying to have your name mentioned everyday on the entertainment gossip TV shows seems to have worked well for a few with no talent or other accomplishments in life (pure marketing only). Then ghost a project, have the "star" be able to lip sync and dance a couple steps on stage. It takes some capital to go this route but it seems to be a common formula that works. All you need is some idiot kid who wants to be a star sign a completely one sided contract that puts them in indentured servitude for years. OP, if you are asking your question about how to market a real artist with musical talent then don't expect them to be in competition with the major's manufactured acts as that's a pay to play system. Real talent and low capital means gorilla marketing and lots of bookings/touring to build a base of fans. Work on the material because a good song stays a good song for a long shelf life. Disposable music is just that so learn to tell the difference.

[yotonic]

I actually like Ray LaMontagne, but like Bassman said, I think he pounded the pavement for a long time too building a following (I could be wrong). I forgot who the label exec was that got his demo CD and put him together with Ethan Johns. But nonetheless I don't think you heard much about him in the mainstream until he was on a major. I do think you need to be your own marketing strategist until you can find management. And I'm not sure how you would find a good management company here in the States today.

[initialsBB]

Yes, an artist needs to have a look. This is nothing new. They made Roy Orbison wear dark shades to cover up his wonky eyes.

[yotonic]

I think another way to look at this OP, is if the business is built on 360 Deals today so that labels can find more ways to make money then the concept and marketing strategy of the artist should be more broad in scope so as to gear itself to more of these varied revenue outlets.

[newdigitaluser]

Originally Posted by yotonic

I think another way to look at this OP, is if the business is built on 360 Deals today so that labels can find more ways to make money then the concept and marketing strategy of the artist should be more broad in scope so as to gear itself to more of these varied revenue outlets.

true
most new acts make the money in merch not tix

[newdigitaluser]

Originally Posted by REX

It seems that with the way things have changed in our world today artists have needed to become much more "obvious" and complete characterizations of the genres or styles they represent. Much like the movies and actors where you have "Action Movies" and the stereotypical action star.

Now in the music business you have the successful artists and acts becoming the epitome of characterization, or creating a total character to their identity. It becomes obvious that this opens more and different revenue streams for them. It's everyone from Gaga with her Madonna evolution, to Ray LaMontagne with his "authentic" retro Neil Young thing right down to the period style album covers and his little Deadwood outfits hat and all, to the Gorillaz whose success relied heavily on their entire character concept. I could go on with Lenny Kravitz, DMB etc.

I think this has become a prerequisite in an increasingly mixed media business and virtual world.

Besides great music it seems like an artist needs a more complete vision for his identity, look, videos, and narrative in general. I wonder how much of this comes from their own drive and creativity and how much from management and labels?

What is essential today? What would you guys recommend an artist include in crafting a plan or vision? Live performance, Internet presence, videos, books, stories, products, charities....

success means 360 (or better 4pi) marketing
every piece supports and sells the others

you need a good PR machine and support to make it at the gaga/bieber level

kiss (i think it was thm) makes a billion bux in merch
special on tv showing some famous groups marketing and how it works

many successful bands plateau and finally just give up
even after thousands of concerts and a dozen cds.
just cant make enough for them to live on.
and never caught on like gaga.

LUCK is a big factor but you ahve to help it happen. doesnt mean you can make it happen but what you do can keep it from happening.

[JoeyXoto]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

A sex tape and paying to have your name mentioned everyday on the entertainment gossip TV shows seems to have worked well for a few with no talent or other accomplishments in life (pure marketing only). Then ghost a project, have the "star" be able to lip sync and dance a couple steps on stage. It takes some capital to go this route but it seems to be a common formula that works. All you need is some idiot kid who wants to be a star sign a completely one sided contract that puts them in indentured servitude for years. OP, if you are asking your question about how to market a real artist with musical talent then don't expect them to be in competition with the major's manufactured acts as that's a pay to play system. Real talent and low capital means gorilla marketing and lots of bookings/touring to build a base of fans. Work on the material because a good song stays a good song for a long shelf life. Disposable music is just that so learn to tell the difference.

Poetry.

[oweng]

And I'm not sure how you would find a good management company here in the States today.

[top] $$$$$$$$$$$ works every time.
----------
actual letters....

--- Can we ask how old you are?
"44, this instantly and automatically puts me in the garbage can."
--- Not really. Are you interested in hiring us to guide you?
"I am penniless"
( crickets )

Songs + talent + hard work + more hard work + even more hard work

maybe 50/50
or
..wear crazy clothes and wiggle your butt - = maybe 50/50

choose your path -do both = mutual self annihilation

[login]

Interaction for me is key, keeping contact with your fans in facebook, answering, sharing tastes.

Things I haven't seen too much and could be good:

Share in video the recording of an album.

Engage people in some kind of colaborations with fans and other artist: a contest for the album front design, a context ofr the lyrics of a song, contest for remixes, for video...

Offer a one of a kind show live

A conceptual album-videogame

[Beat Poet]

Originally Posted by yotonic

Lady Gaga and those concept acts have a lot of extra drama and ways to keep themselves remembered and in front of people. That's a big part of the game. There's not a lot of money in the songs alone anymore you do need to become a reality star of sorts.

I can't help but think that Twitter has helped Gaga, Bieber, Swift and Perry - they seem to have emerged at the same time as Twitter did. The whole mid-2000s pop/punk/scene/emo thing coincided with the rise of MySpace, so maybe knowing what the next big social networking site will be will be could be key.

[iduran]

I guess it all would depend on the artist and the crowd you are trying to reach. A friend of mine helps run a music marketing company; their blog has a lot of cool info on this stuff.

Famehouse

[razorboy]

Gee, there are lots of great ideas here. I've been thinking, and I think that, for example, a Tweet Your Meat campaign might be great, which would center around an artist's brand of spicy meat snacks. Think of Lady Gaga's Hot Meat Jerky, Modonna's Mutton Sticks, or Bieber's Hot Beaver Bars (he's Canadian and a lot of them eat beaver.) A day or two before gigs, tweet that the special snacks will be available, and where. Fans can then order the snacks online, which will not only be profitable, but it will keep the artist in mind every time the fan needs a snack.

It's just an idea.......

[Adrian14]

This is a great music it seems like an artist needs a more complete vision for his identity, look, videos, and narrative in general. I wonder how much of this comes from their own drive and creativity and how much from management and labels?

[rack gear]

Home | Maker Studios

Big Frame

The Myth of Free Music... Case Study Mia Rose

[gagashe]

Originally Posted by rack gear

Home | Maker Studios

Big Frame

The Myth of Free Music... Case Study Mia Rose

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Yes, an artist needs to have a look. This is nothing new. They made Roy Orbison wear dark shades to cover up his wonky eyes.

And Elvis Costello wear plain glass ones and covered over his wonky name.....

[thefunnel]

What happened to being happy making great music and "settling" for an independent, but middle class income? It's definitely possible and far more achievable. And oftentimes, if you just do it for the love, you may just leave a major mark in history by surprise.

There's a difference between working hard and trying too hard. Most people try too hard but don't do the work.

I'd rather be doing it 'til I'm old and dead, making a "paltry" 50-60k per year, enjoying a small but dedicated fanbase, and occasionally playing some big gigs from time to time, than blow up, make a couple mil, have my ass shown to the world, every move analyzed, and then go on to vanish in a year or three after I'm all used up. Long term, the less for longer is the better path. But the music biz, much like the rest of corporate America, is focused on huge short term gains without much long term strategizing.

If you do what's real, you might just end up as the gamechanger if the time is right.

My 2 cents.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by thefunnel

What happened to being happy making great music and "settling" for an independent, but middle class income? It's definitely possible and far more achievable.

The problem is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to achieve that "independent, but middle class income".

45.3% drop in musical groups and artists

Today there is very little available between bare subsistence level and stardom. You can't make money selling records, you can't make money touring (expenses eat all the income for a mid-level act), and the money to be made from ads, tv and movie placements, video games, etc, has dropped to 30% of what it was a few years ago, due to the increased competition from artists that can't rely on record sales anymore.

[ray_subsonic]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

The problem is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to achieve that "independent, but middle class income".

45.3% drop in musical groups and artists

Today there is very little available between bare subsistence level and stardom. You can't make money selling records, you can't make money touring (expenses eat all the income for a mid-level act), and the money to be made from ads, tv and movie placements, video games, etc, has dropped to 30% of what it was a few years ago, due to the increased competition from artists that can't rely on record sales anymore.

True. So many here would be amazed at what little money some significant and well known acts can actually take home as a wage. But it seems that more than ever, people are buying the dream, with little or no idea of the cost of actually keeping an act/ performer/ artist running while on tour. I can attest first hand to this in the USA, where I've both lived and toured.

On the punters side, both Ticketing and ancillary Costs are ridiculously inflated in most of the Regional Venues. A fair majority of these venues from Theaters & Civic Centres up to Arenas are under the management of Live Nation or AEG. Ticket prices can often be swayed by sudden bursts of demand, or the lack thereof. Mass Scalping can also sway ticket prices.

On the artists side, Touring Costs are incredibly inflated. Part of this is just the cost of doing Business in this day and age. It's worth focussing on Live Nation and AEG again for a minute here.

The business practices of these 2 companies has been pressuring Independent Regional Promoters everywhere, pushing them out of the market. Both companies have both the market share and control over so many of the key venues and music festivals that they can artificially force Talent Costs down everywhere in The USA, while setting Ticket prices seems to be a Moving Target.

The only exceptions to this are on the Highest Grossing Tours, where acts and their Management can maintain upward pressure on price. The Divide between the 2 market segments is Ridiculous, and is only getting deeper.

People here might be surprised at how many well known artists are NOT rolling in money, and are having a hard time even drawing a wage from their own business, since dealing with the loss of recording revenue in the last 10 years. Probably 99% of musicians and bands that you know are NOT living the life of a Megastar.

The whole point of Recording revenue was it kept your business afloat between tours.

A timely example at this point might be Gotye. I used to work with Wally's band The Basics previous to Gotye.

"Somebody That I Used To Know" is now at Number 1 in The USA, and over 20 countries.

The song has now had more than 200,000,000 Youtube Views. An an utterly staggering number. Yet under the current US legislation, Wally will not see 1 cent from Google's web traffic.

Perhaps as a growing indication of both the ridiculousness of this situation and rampant piracy, this has translated into 550,000 sales of 1 song on iTunes, of which Wally will probably only see $50,000. So, the pressure is on The Tour to cover all the expenses. Revenues are up there for sure.

Speaking from experience though, it doesn't last. Factor in that the window for success for any act in this day and age is drastically shorter, probably a 1 year window at best when the act is new. Smart Managers factor in over-saturation and public backlash. There is an overall long tail of 3 to 5 years at the longest to monetize the success of the act, before you settle in for the long haul.

You can't possibly stay on Tour for that long. Business has to be attended to, and a new album written and recorded. For those who don't know, quite often album sessions are simply depressurisation periods for artists to spend time with their partners, children and families. Oh that's right .. No we don't have lives do we ..

We're SO grateful to provide Google opportunities to massively monetize our music for all the advertising revenue that they will make off our Web traffic. We'll even stay on Tour FOR EVER, losing our own money, to graciously provide that service to Google. Wouldn't you ??

It really is about time for this whole utterly broken business to be fixed.

A rebalance towards a more sustainable business model is way past overdue ..

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by ray_subsonic

True. So many here would be amazed at what little money some significant and well known acts can actually take home as a wage. But it seems that more than ever, people are buying the dream, with little or no idea of the cost of actually keeping an act/ performer/ artist running while on tour. I can attest first hand to this in the USA, where I've both lived and toured.

On the punters side, both Ticketing and ancillary Costs are ridiculously inflated in most of the Regional Venues. A fair majority of these venues from Theaters & Civic Centres up to Arenas are under the management of Live Nation or AEG. Ticket prices can often be swayed by sudden bursts of demand, or the lack thereof. Mass Scalping can also sway ticket prices.

On the artists side, Touring Costs are incredibly inflated. Part of this is just the cost of doing Business in this day and age. It's worth focussing on Live Nation and AEG again for a minute here.

The business practices of these 2 companies has been pressuring Independent Regional Promoters everywhere, pushing them out of the market. Both companies have both the market share and control over so many of the key venues and music festivals that they can artificially force Talent Costs down everywhere in The USA, while setting Ticket prices seems to be a Moving Target.

The only exceptions to this are on the Highest Grossing Tours, where acts and their Management can maintain upward pressure on price. The Divide between the 2 market segments is Ridiculous, and is only getting deeper.

People here might be surprised at how many well known artists are NOT rolling in money, and are having a hard time even drawing a wage from their own business, since dealing with the loss of recording revenue in the last 10 years. Probably 99% of musicians and bands that you know are NOT living the life of a Megastar.

The whole point of Recording revenue was it kept your business afloat between tours.

A timely example at this point might be Gotye. I used to work with Wally's band The Basics previous to Gotye.

"Somebody That I Used To Know" is now at Number 1 in The USA, and over 20 countries.

The song has now had more than 200,000,000 Youtube Views. An an utterly staggering number. Yet under the current US legislation, Wally will not see 1 cent from Google's web traffic.

Perhaps as a growing indication of both the ridiculousness of this situation and rampant piracy, this has translated into 550,000 sales of 1 song on iTunes, of which Wally will probably only see $50,000. So, the pressure is on The Tour to cover all the expenses. Revenues are up there for sure.

Speaking from experience though, it doesn't last. Factor in that the window for success for any act in this day and age is drastically shorter, probably a 1 year window at best when the act is new. Smart Managers factor in over-saturation and public backlash. There is an overall long tail of 3 to 5 years at the longest to monetize the success of the act, before you settle in for the long haul.

You can't possibly stay on Tour for that long. Business has to be attended to, and a new album written and recorded. For those who don't know, quite often album sessions are simply depressurisation periods for artists to spend time with their partners, children and families. Oh that's right .. No we don't have lives do we ..

We're SO grateful to provide Google opportunities to massively monetize our music for all the advertising revenue that they will make off our Web traffic. We'll even stay on Tour FOR EVER, losing our own money, to graciously provide that service to Google. Wouldn't you ??

It really is about time for this whole utterly broken business to be fixed.

A rebalance towards a more sustainable business model is way past overdue ..

+1000
An amazingly factual and balanced post. You can now expect to get hit by trolls and tech supporters from all sides.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by ray_subsonic

The song has now had more than 200,000,000 Youtube Views. An an utterly staggering number. Yet under the current US legislation, Wally will not see 1 cent from Google's web traffic.

why not?

[CISUM]

I have an MBA in business, done lots of research on a lot of waves the industry has taken and have noticed a trend with the way the internet has made stars over night. I can honestly say with the way things look right now I dont see the indi acts gaining much more fame then they did from 2006-2010
Thats just my opinion...
I do believe major labels will be back, they will all figure out a way to not only take acts, build up their brand, and toss them out when done. Its the industry and it wont be changed... I just believe if you want to make it in todays world you really need to take what you want to do, focus, and believe...
Learn the different methods of marketing and advertising through indirect and direct tools of the craft.

Youtube/Twitter/Facebook, everyone has this, but what will make YOU stand out?!? Just have a good story, make the music fit that story, and people will read that book...

[JozTheShark]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Yes, an artist needs to have a look. This is nothing new. They made Roy Orbison wear dark shades to cover up his wonky eyes.

+1

Yes, it's always been this way. Think of the 80's.

[wakestyle]

Pretty thought inspiring thread, and responses here...

I think though, most artist need to be uniquely marketed... But there are all sides to consider - example being pop or not.

Artist need to figure out if they are trying to fit a image/sound or become their own image/sound. There is audience for both...

But, some Artist might need help, for example, if they have intent but poor specialization. Some producer might offer/suggest new direction for to go along with a new sound. This is the job of a producer in this sense. EG, If I were producing Beiber I would make him play more rock-like and far-far less of his existing (yet fan-crazed) styles. See even though it might be what made him popular, it may not be best for his overall style for years to come - in a sense, to mature the artist.

In another sense, a producer might want to make the artist more like a specific pre-tailored sound. This is probably a good thing for *most* artist that want production and marketing. Also, most fan appreciate this, the consumer that want's a particular style and sound can get it, easily.

Lastly, the Artist might not just give-a-rat and want to be really unique and let his music and image do the work for him. This is a artist that wants respect! Hopefully his albums will not be totally alike, yet if a listener likes one, he may still be drawn in by others because of similarities or overlapping, pleasing, talent. Example are obscure artists or rebel-type artists - they want to break the mold and become the new one.

Basically the one thing you don't want is the artist that is compliant 'with whatever', or 'normal'. This is the most likely situation that the artist will become old-hat - uninspired. Ironically it may have worked well for some like Jack Johnson... maybe a bad example though. If a artist truly want to be 'normal' then dammit make them normal as can be, but don't let them blame anyone if they aren't happy with that after the fact.