A recent post on my musical tastes elicited an interesting reply from “Anonymous” about the predominance of indie acts that struggled with maintaining early critical and/or commercial success. The question was what these bands could have applied from business strategy to improve their longevity. Here are a few thoughts:
- In applying business strategy, most of these bands are “product brands” (Liz Phair, Cracker, The Lemonheads, Crowded House, etc.). Records labels are the businesses. They Might Be Giants is probably closest to a true business with its diversification into other mediums.
- Based on the first point, most indie bands don’t subscribe to typical business objectives initially (i.e. Liz Phair disavowing interest in selling records early on, only to realize later that it’s okay). As such, the indie strategy is typically “build it and they will come” – far from a successful long-term marketing strategy.
- How achievable long-term success is for indie bands seems tied to how their brands are defined:
- “How” oriented bands – a brand built around style whether musical (M. Ward, Fatboy Slim) or visual (while not on my list, Flock of Seagulls is the ultimate footnote in this category).
- “Who” oriented bands - built around individuals or groups of individuals (Lemonheads, R.E.M.).
- “What” oriented bands – the brand is tied to the group’s structure and form. The Clash was about its members and a point of view; U2 is another example. “What” oriented bands seem to have the most viable options for growth and staying power. “How” and “Who” acts seem more hemmed in by fans unwilling to allow change. - Speaking of fans, another factor limiting broad commercial success for indie bands is music’s highly emotional nature. This phenomenon limits maneuver for brands seeking out new stylistic territory. If your bathroom cleaner changes formulation, big deal – there’s no emotional connection. If your favorite indie band tries to change, however, there’s a lot greater likelihood you’ll feel betrayed and look for a new one with which to connect.
- Finally, from a strategy perspective, a business can only afford for its products to be as niche as distribution systems allow for efficiency and profit. When most of these acts became popular, distribution was through physical stores, with higher inherent costs. As a result, bands had to meet tougher sales hurdles to continue recording. With today’s electronic distribution, minimum commercial sales targets have likely declined. The greater distribution efficiency is the only reason most of these acts still even have music available for purchase.
The net of all this suggests a variety of factors that make it tough, albeit perhaps easier today, for an indie band to breakthrough to broad commercial success. But doing so still often pulls a band away from its critical base. The key to doing all this successfully ties to staking out a broad enough structure and form for the band’s brand early on, providing enough room for the expansion necessary to go after commercial success.
As usual, check out Seth Godin’s blog for a couple of intriguing posts that address related aspects of the questions of popularity and targeting your strategy.
Thanks for prompting this response Chris, I mean, “Anonymous.”
1 comment:
First of all, thank you to Mike for responding to my tongue-in-cheek response to his post about music that he likes.
I appreciate the consideration he gave my question, and while I agree with a vast majority of the response, I think that the differences between bands-as-products and bands-as-business are little subtle ones. Music is definitely product, but the experience extends far beyond that single component of the product / service mix. At least that is the only way either my business or musical minds can explain The Grateful Dead and / or Jimmy Buffet. In this regard, bands are more like the personal brands-as-companies we now see from the likes of Tom Peters, Martha Stewart, Oprah and others. It is interesting to me that as these personalities-as-brands grow, they also add layers of corporate structure. Perhaps so too with other Mike Brown Speaks as this forum and the work that it supports grows.
I see the record companies largely as the distribution channel, with sometimes more, sometimes less influence on the end product than we see in business. You can see a great example of a company / product / band rebelling against its distribution channel in the 2002 documentary “I Am Trying To Break Your Heart”, which chronicles Wilco’s break with Warner/ Reprise Music over what the distributor thought was a commercially unviable product. The company in this case (Wilco) was able to take their product to an alternate distributor, to greater commercial success than received with prior efforts.
I agree that it is usually the “what” based bands that are generally able to sustain & grow market presence, though I would contend that they still must change in order to do so. In 1994, Bono claimed at U2’s Grammy acceptance speech that they would, “continue to abuse our position and f*#k up the mainstream”. In 2008, is there any band more mainstream than U2? It is possible that they toned down their message to spread an acceptable portion of it to a larger audience through commercial media. I.e./ bring in John Madden to star in a video, and perhaps people will listen to our message on African debt forgiveness. Of course, anyone who bought “Boy” in 1980 will claim that they sold out, but perhaps it is closer to Adam Werbach leaving the Sierra Club to head Wal-Mart’s sustainability organization. Less intense message, but larger stage with greater opportunity for conversion. In support of your claim on “how” oriented bands, the tremendously talented Ben Folds Five (A “how” band if ever there was one) broke up amicably, citing as a reason that “no-one cares about piano rock anymore”.
It is interesting to me that blogs are not unlike the music that bands produce, in that the blog is the product (music) of a blogger’s strategic direction or intent. Similarly, when they are in the introduction phase (product launch), the blogger has an “indie” label. Readers are generally a few loyal followers that share common perspective, and spread word-of-mouth to people by degrees further from the point-of-view of the blog / blogger. At this stage, (like an indie band) the blogger has almost individual-level accountability to his readership, so much so that he feels obliged to respond to smart ass commentary / questions from every poster.
As the blog gains credibility through positive WOM and expanded readership, the blogger faces a decision point about how (or if) their brand & message becomes relevant to a more mainstream audience. In that sense, this discussion, if not relevant now, is also a discussion on how “Mike Brown Speaks” (or any blog) contributes point-of-view credibility, increases relevance on the subject matter and develops a fan base in support of the overall product / company.
VERY interesting line of discussion, and I appreciate having been able to be a part of it.
Post a Comment