CNET recently published an article about how musicians must engage in rather aggressive marketing in order to survive, let alone flourish, in the modern media world.
The
key point to me made in the article is the author's assertion that:
"In the case of music, there's a core audience--I'll be
generous and say it's around 1%--who understand and care deeply about music,
who use their ears more than their other senses, and who couldn't live without
it. The other 99% attend shows and buy CDs for other reasons--to fit into a
peer group, to stave off the boredom of another evening at home watching TV, to
attract a mate, and so on.
Art's not food. It's a luxury, not a necessity. Which means that
the only way for an artist to make money is to draw some of that 99% who feel
they don't need it.”
Marketing
is the way to reach that 99%, but because that less-passionate 99% may not be as reliant on the
music as the owner would like them to be, that “marketing” must almost occur in
reverse.
By that I mean that the member of the 99% is more than happy to
include music as part of his life and the owner must see and know how it has
been, then engage in “conversation” rather than guess an throw a message at the
fan/user/consumer/prosumer.
- ‘How do I better understand those
who would like my music’
- ‘How would they display that affinity’.
Hopefully that display is in the form of some type of indirect or direct compensation in line with
consumer expectations; but the owner can only learn that through observation.
When I see traditional music models of radio and records drop even
further in industry revenue, the lack of understanding of the actions,
interactions and desires of the fan are obvious.
In
addition to the cost savings, increased efficiency and new revenue support that new services can provide, it is the ability to observe so that the owner can design and employ the
best marketing strategy for the highest ROI that will drive value across the board.
Comments