Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2007

« Becky, Quick! | Main | Walk, Don't Run »

March 10, 2008



So, you are shilling for your buddy's business by making it sound like you want to start a dialogue about whether this is good for the consumer or not? Please, I expect better from you bean.

Let's privatize the Poste instead.



I'm tired of being treated like a sheep. I don't purchase items because I hear about them. Hell, I LOVE TEVO so I can slide right past every commercial! I don't want to hear or see adverts for most products they seem to make commercials for. And I don't want my 2 1/2 year old to see or hear ANY adverts. (Damn you, pharmaceutical companies.) If I need something, I'll find it without the help of a lame advert.


I am thoroughly disgusted. Not surprised, but disgusted. Rest assured no "musician" who accepts money for product placement will ever see a dime from me. And I'd hope that none of the bands that i like will ever shill their music like this. Music is very important to me, and I can't express enough just how much this will cheapen the experience.

I understand why a musician might be tempted, and i understand that marketers and agencies are constantly searching for new ways to bombard the consumer with messages, but seriously, I won't take any musician seriously who compromises their music like this.

I have a degree in marketing, and I'm not some street punk claiming bands for myself, but this "lyrics marketing" crap crosses the line of integrity and self interest into just plain greed.

As for jill sobule, it's her choice. if she cares more about selling records than making music, then that's fine. Getting fans involved = good. Relinquishing control of the process of making music for a price = bad. That's all.


I'm having a hard time figuring out who the company is targeting. I think this is something that would appeal to the marketing folks for high-profile brands, and possibly for well-established artists looking to get some big promotional deals in place. But for emerging artists, I think it's an interesting idea that came along about 15 years too late.

Say I'm an up-and-coming singer/songwriter. It wouldn't be a total waste of time to meet with this company; I might even get a few bucks to work in Fox's U-Bet Chocolate Syrup or something. But you know what would be an even better time investment? Learning ProTools and making a demo that a label could theoretically release as-is.

I think Jill Sobule is doing something a little different, much more in line with selling shares in the final product. If you look at her donation level list (posted on the Wired site), you'll see that she's not really relinquishing creative control. The name-mentions will all go into one special song at the end of the CD, which I think actually sounds like an interesting little writing exercise.

For someone like Jill Sobule, who's pretty well-established (come on, guys, you know you've listened to that "I Kissed A Girl" song a thousand times), releasing an album is going to involve touring, promotion, hiring musicians -- all things that cost money. She could go to a major label and give up a chunk of her financial stake... she could sign a distribution deal and take her chances... she could go to a lyrics marketing company and risk alienating her fans... or she could get creative.


I suppose that the issue of integrity only comes into play if the artist decides to add a product placement in the song purely for the additional revenue. Brand names in song lyrics are certainly nothing new - in fact, there was a recent Chevy commercial that highlighted songs over the last 50 years or so that named Chevy or Chevrolet models in the song lyrics. So why can't an artist get a little bit of money for their help?

Also, how is this different from artists getting paid to have their songs used in advertisements? Goodness knows I can't get that damn John Mellencamp truck commercial song out of my brain - I now only associate that song with (Ford or Chevy?) trucks. But it has not made me any more or less likely to buy a truck.

I just don't see it as the world coming to an end. Business is not all evil -they need to advertise to get people to learn about and ultimately buy their product. And that is getting harder and harder to do. I say an "A" for creativity.


So, you don't think that those that listen to country music don't ALREADY buy their kids happy meals? HEEELLLLLOOOO! I think you're preahing that one to the choir!!


First of all I give this about a C- for creativity. There is no innovation here; nothing new. Product placement is everywhere else, within music is the next logical step. After that, maybe literature? Implications there are pretty scary...

And no one claimed the world was coming to an end because of this. However, it is a great insult to my intelligence and i'm pretty darn sick of being assaulted with constant marketing messages. Will corporate america leave anything alone?

I don't object to artists allowing their music to be used commercially. But this is profoundly different. There is implied editorial influence whenever a company pays for content in music. In the same way that certain tv, radio, and personalities in other media have to concern themselves with offending the sponsors. I can easily see how having an advertiser can affect a musician's work, especially lyrically. Because it happens everywhere else that there is advertising. Better not offend the sponsors or they'll pull their ads.

I don't know, the whole thing really rubs me the wrong way. I just hope it's contained to music I don't listen to. But I see it as an attack on one of the last areas where we can speak freely without fear of repercussions...

The comments to this entry are closed.