4 ms·

I think you're underestimating the role marketing plays in demand generation. It's not that Taylor Swift is "better" than the local jazz guitarist, she's just m

I think you're underestimating the role marketing plays in demand generation. It's not that Taylor Swift is "better" than the local jazz guitarist, she's just more heavily marketed. Music labels know that the mass audience doesn't appreciate musical complexity so they market simple music with attractive performers. Then the Clear Channel/Ticketmaster... machine takes over and handles the promotion and distribution. I'm actually a big fan of pop music, but that doesn't mean that non-pop is financially unsuccessful because it's "bad", it's just not put into the marketing machine because it very well may be too good.

CPLX 3y ago
I'm probably not underestimating the role marketing plays in music. I'm the former head of digital at a major music agency, and I handled campaigns for multiple album of the year Grammy winners and household name artists, almost certainly including music and artists you consider important in your life. It's not really about marketing. Everyone thinks that and they're wrong. You learn this instantly when you are actually in the business and see all the artists and projects that get the exact same amount of marketing effort as the massive hits and go literally fucking nowhere. It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate. Audiences have a mind of their own, they like what they like. The problem people have with understanding this is usually that they don't like the same thing that mass audiences like, and they consider what they do like higher quality. So in their minds the masses are being duped, marketed to. Which is true to a point, they are being marketed to. And having resources and labels and monopolies behind you can definitely expose you to more people. But it's not enough, at all, if people don't respond to it. And conversely, if you have no resources whatsoever it's way harder, but it's not impossible at all and stuff that really has wide appeal most of the time really does bubble up and catch attention pretty quickly.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  > It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate. Mass market success is basically a crap shoot and doesn't really reflect the quality of the musician. You said: > Playing music badly is utterly worthless from an economic standpoint. And that's not true at all, being a virtuoso is pretty much worthless from an economic standpoint. It's pointless to try to equate skill to economic success because in pop art they don't have anything to do with each other. It's all about marketing and distribution. Not to say that the studio musicians that make the pop music aren't virtuosos, but they're definitely playing simplified songs.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    I never said being a virtuoso was worth anything, that's a new discussion. My point is just that some music is incredibly valuable economically, and most is not worth anything at all. Which is clearly true. As such, music is not an interchangeable commodity it's an extremely idiosyncratic and heterogenous market. I've heard the argument about how nobody cares about "better" music and so on my whole life. It's like the thing people like to talk about. But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. For example I think Pitbull fucking sucks, deeply and profoundly, and objectively. When he rhymes Kodak with Kodak in the song "Give Me Everything" I want to throw rocks or other durable objects at whatever speaker is subjecting me to that fucking song. Somehow, 12 years after its release, this is still happening to me on a regular basis, usually within the first 2-4 hours after entering the state of Florida. But people seem to like it. So that's the only actually objective way to determine the value of music. All the other ways are just people talking.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      > But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. I agree. Part of that is that economically successful music also isn't "better", it's just making money. I like Madonna but she's an objectively crap singer. Just because something is popular, it doesn't make it good. That's like saying Coke is the best drink in the world because it makes the most money. Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck.
      - CPLX 3y ago
        > Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck. But we're back here. I still disagree with this, it's a poor analysis of what's actually happening. In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. If you can make music like that you'll probably have commercial success.
        bluefishinit 3y ago
- rjmunro 3y ago
  > the exact same amount of marketing effort It's not really about the quantity of marketing effort, it's a butterfly effect. Of all the marketing effort that is put in, it might be the tiniest thing that makes the difference, it's not a linear relationship.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  Grammy winners are generally not that great musicians, they are great products.
dahfizz 3y ago
You're not understanding. Commodity has a very specific meaning in economics. You can very easily tell that a Taylor swift song and a local jazz song are not the same song. They are not interchangeable. If someone replaced some songs in your playlists, you would notice. Therefore, not a commodity.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  To argue that the technical meaning of the word "commodity" doesn't fit what OP is saying is to completely miss the point.
- 8note 3y ago
  > If someone replaced some songs in your playlists, you would notice. I don't think this is true. In the Spotify world, people have playlists where the songs sound similar to a certain song or band, rather than a hand curated one.

CPLX 3y ago

I'm probably not underestimating the role marketing plays in music. I'm the former head of digital at a major music agency, and I handled campaigns for multiple album of the year Grammy winners and household name artists, almost certainly including music and artists you consider important in your life. It's not really about marketing. Everyone thinks that and they're wrong. You learn this instantly when you are actually in the business and see all the artists and projects that get the exact same amount of marketing effort as the massive hits and go literally fucking nowhere. It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate. Audiences have a mind of their own, they like what they like. The problem people have with understanding this is usually that they don't like the same thing that mass audiences like, and they consider what they do like higher quality. So in their minds the masses are being duped, marketed to. Which is true to a point, they are being marketed to. And having resources and labels and monopolies behind you can definitely expose you to more people. But it's not enough, at all, if people don't respond to it. And conversely, if you have no resources whatsoever it's way harder, but it's not impossible at all and stuff that really has wide appeal most of the time really does bubble up and catch attention pretty quickly.

bluefishinit 3y ago
> It's like home run batting, even the best in the world at picking and promoting music are lucky to have like a 10-20% success rate. Mass market success is basically a crap shoot and doesn't really reflect the quality of the musician. You said: > Playing music badly is utterly worthless from an economic standpoint. And that's not true at all, being a virtuoso is pretty much worthless from an economic standpoint. It's pointless to try to equate skill to economic success because in pop art they don't have anything to do with each other. It's all about marketing and distribution. Not to say that the studio musicians that make the pop music aren't virtuosos, but they're definitely playing simplified songs.
- CPLX 3y ago
  I never said being a virtuoso was worth anything, that's a new discussion. My point is just that some music is incredibly valuable economically, and most is not worth anything at all. Which is clearly true. As such, music is not an interchangeable commodity it's an extremely idiosyncratic and heterogenous market. I've heard the argument about how nobody cares about "better" music and so on my whole life. It's like the thing people like to talk about. But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. For example I think Pitbull fucking sucks, deeply and profoundly, and objectively. When he rhymes Kodak with Kodak in the song "Give Me Everything" I want to throw rocks or other durable objects at whatever speaker is subjecting me to that fucking song. Somehow, 12 years after its release, this is still happening to me on a regular basis, usually within the first 2-4 hours after entering the state of Florida. But people seem to like it. So that's the only actually objective way to determine the value of music. All the other ways are just people talking.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    > But it's kind of boring, there's no definition of better that everyone is going to agree on. I agree. Part of that is that economically successful music also isn't "better", it's just making money. I like Madonna but she's an objectively crap singer. Just because something is popular, it doesn't make it good. That's like saying Coke is the best drink in the world because it makes the most money. Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      > Commercial success is due to marketing, distribution and luck. But we're back here. I still disagree with this, it's a poor analysis of what's actually happening. In music, commercial success, more than any other factor, comes from making music that is liked by large numbers of people. If you can make music like that you'll probably have commercial success.
      - bluefishinit 3y ago
rjmunro 3y ago
> the exact same amount of marketing effort It's not really about the quantity of marketing effort, it's a butterfly effect. Of all the marketing effort that is put in, it might be the tiniest thing that makes the difference, it's not a linear relationship.
elzbardico 3y ago
Grammy winners are generally not that great musicians, they are great products.

dahfizz 3y ago

You're not understanding. Commodity has a very specific meaning in economics. You can very easily tell that a Taylor swift song and a local jazz song are not the same song. They are not interchangeable. If someone replaced some songs in your playlists, you would notice. Therefore, not a commodity.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
To argue that the technical meaning of the word "commodity" doesn't fit what OP is saying is to completely miss the point.
8note 3y ago
> If someone replaced some songs in your playlists, you would notice. I don't think this is true. In the Spotify world, people have playlists where the songs sound similar to a certain song or band, rather than a hand curated one.