Dissertation 2 - Report

Throughout this report I will be discussing the workings of a business that operates digital marketing within the music media industry. With the use of academic debates and concepts I will identify connections and analyse the relevance of these throughout the industry; focusing on Matchbox Music P.R as an organisational case study. Additionally, this report will contain my own research, providing insight into the fundamentals of digital music promotion as well as how it could further benefit a higher variety of musicians. Furthermore, the final two sections of this report will discuss the relationship between my own research on Web 2.0 and the music industry; exploring the impact one another has had on how we produce, promote and consume music at all levels. This analysis will also provide insight into how the music industry could utilise digital marketing in a more favourable and authentic way to communicate with artists and audiences.

1. Industry

Within this section I will outline the music marketing industry, touching upon current trends displayed within academia and wider research. Web 2.0 is defined as the second stage of Internet development, leaving behind one-way communication and static advertisement and introducing transmedia experiences and accessible self-promotion to audiences. Digital marketing has naturally been influenced by Web 2.0 and within this the music media landscape has experienced many changes within the last decade. Some theorists, such as Sargent (2008. P. 17), engage with this concept in terms of fragmentation; “The prevalence of on-line distribution companies and direct/viral marketing companies may capitalize on the cultural productions of local musicians by turning it into taste information, but it nonetheless has become a new support system for local musicians to distribute their work themselves”.

It is difficult to argue that the prevalence of Web 2.0 has had a negative impact within music marketing. IFPI’s 2018 report states “Record companies are working with existing and start-up technology companies, licensing their music to create great experiences for fans. This is happening with traditional partners, such as audio streaming services, and new ones, such as social media platforms” (IFPI. 2018. P.7). Fragmentation between creative businesses are proving to be a thing of the past, the exponential growth of online marketing, especially within the music industry is driving collaboration and advancement, Universal Music’s EVP of digital strategy, Michael Nash states that, “Technology will continue to change the marketplace at a dizzying rate and this is just the beginning of creating alignment between our business and the dynamics that are driving change in a larger digital media marketplace”. (IBID. P.19) With technology and markets changing frequently, development of digital music promotion is constantly evolving, however, I will now discuss key online attributes used within the industry and their successes based upon wider research.

Web 2.0 has not only advanced the music industry in terms of collaboration but also has provided a gateway enabling musicians to create, produce and promote their music to a wide audience without compromising their authenticity by selling out to conglomerates. When regarding music value and dominant power relations, mediation of the music industry portrays that the “disintermediating nature of the internet should be a boon to musicians beyond the major label system” (Marshall, L. 2015. P.178). However, both major and indie artists are gaining more control over their careers than ever, “this growing crop of independent musicians signals seismic changes to come in the music industry”, these seismic changes are already evident within the market with independent artists alone generating “£643 million in 2018” (Daniels, M. 2019).

The emergence of long tail economics has enabled musicians to sell their products to a wide audience, not only does this generate revenue but also provides further platforms for musicians to advance their careers, when reviewing music as a human brand audiences engage on a personal level, “where they perceive, feel, and value their belongingness with a music artist and engage in a range of social media behaviors”, these actions are only possible due to technological advancements and content generated within advancements by the musicians themselves (Saboo, Ar. Kumar, V. Ramani, G. 2016).

2. Organisation

To cross-examine these trends within music marketing I will focus on Matchbox Music P.R as an organisational case study. Matchbox Music P.R is a UK based music promotion company, digital agency, independent publishing and advertising company with associates all over the world, Matchbox provide a range of release and promotion services and have become known worldwide as the “original Label and Artist Services company” (Matchbox. 2020). Matchbox’s objectives are innovation and utilising digital technology, marketing new music to build clients and brands profiles, while also adhering to traditional practices, enabling independent artists and labels to release their own music while maintaining copyright, merchandise and income.

This company has a respectable client base and has produced products for companies such as Warner Music and artists with the likes of Madonna, The Weeknd and Oasis. Matchbox Music P.R offers its clients the following five services: Music Video Promotion, Release and Combo Promotion Package, UK Radio Plugging, UK Club DJ Promotion and Independent Music Blog Publishing. To represent the final thematic focus throughout the remainder of this report, I will focus on the Release and Combo package as it encompasses music promotion, PR, digital music distribution and marketing. As will be outlined shortly, these areas of music marketing are emerging to be of high significance throughout the industry, and of which I believe my own research into Web 2.0 and the music industry has most prevalence and chance to enhance the future of the music landscape.

3. Literature Review

Within this section I will analyse the common themes displayed within academia, debates explored within my literature review and Matchbox Music P.R as an organisation. Within my literature review chapter I defined four sections within the music industry directly impacted by Web 2.0, these were: Accessibility, Ownership, Authenticity and Products, I will base this analysis around these debates. The music media landscape is developing, however this is not primarily due to technological advancements but also as Sargent states “how technologies are put into the service of organizations, such as businesses seeking new markets, cities seeking affluent consumers and grassroots organizers seeking mass participation in cultural and social events”, companies such as Matchbox are doing this by seeking new markets and mass participation for their clients; creating online campaigns which are far from fragmented (Sargent, C. 2008. P.4).

In terms of strategy Matchbox Music P.R isn't unlike other major P.R companies, or even self promotion by labels and musicians - utilising technology accessible to a wide audience to gain recognition, entertain and gain revenue. Accessibility in this sense refers to how digital content can be used and found, transmedia channels are vital in the success of online music promotion, Henry Jenkins’ work on convergence cultures states “Convergence doesn't just involve commercially produced materials and services travelling along well-regulated and predictable circuits... It also occurs when people take media into their own hands” (Jenkins, H. 2006. P. 17). This same process of taking control of media produced is what Matchbox Music P.R through the online distribution of music promotion. Matchbox Music P.R’s website displays their commitment to cross-channel branding, from social media to radio, also stating to “promote and place your music releases in front of fans and users that listen to your genre of music” (Matchbox. 2020). This coincides with research done by Negus, “commodities produced by the music industry are actively ‘appropriated’ by various groups and individuals and used for the expression of subjective identities”, consumers identify a sense of belonging to brands/genres, advertising to audiences with appropriately themed traits such as commitment to genre aids in distribution and user accessibility (Negus, K. 1995. P. 321).

A key debate discussed within the music industry is ownership, the switch from vinyl to online streaming has made the concept of ownership much more complex, Matchbox Music P.R states that they enable you to “distribute your own music release worldwide using the best team available”, not only does this enable musicians full creative input and ownership of their own music but also provides a service which allows musicians to seek benefits of professional online music promotion (Matchbox. 2020). It is well known that the music industry is considered ‘cut-throat’, many artists struggle to commit fully both artistically and commercially, relying on streaming services to provide them with commercialisation, and therefore receiving less profit for the content they own. “Rights holders argue that their revenues should not depend on the skills of the service’s advertising sales team, but they should simply get paid for the music distributed to customers”, within the concurrent music media landscape there is a discourse concerning how the distribution of income should be mediated based upon ownership and distribution (Wikström,P. 2013). Matchbox Music opposes such debates, allowing artists full creativity over the content and distribution of their work while administering the return of 80% of sale and stream revenue.

The relationship between ownership and authenticity within the music industry is extremely important, Web 2.0 has provided musicians with a platform to create and promote music without interference of larger companies, however, it can be disputed that this rise in authenticity may not benefit artists commercially:

• “They navigate the tension between a desire to make music for the sake of art and the need to make music that will gain recognition or remuneration. While in many ways this is the age-old discourse of authenticity outlined in Bourdieu’s literary field, what these musicians experience occurs in the context of increasing creative agency and populist participation while the rules for what gets recognized and rewarded are shifting” (Sargent, C. 2008. P.4).

With Matchboxes list of established clientele their outlook on authenticity could be questioned. While there are many benefits of using a P.R organisation there is still the remaining argument of how much of the promotion created for an artist is true to who there are as a person and what their music was intended to reflect, Wu, Spieß and Lehmanns work argues that personal authenticity is established by a consumer dependant on how true the artist stays to their originally, both personally and musically (2016. P.445). Therefore an independent artist who seeks no outside/commercial guidance is seen as more authentic and therefore more attractive to consumers, however, lack of experience and contacts in the wider media industry may limit this artist, unable them as much of a wide audience reach.

Products created both by musicians and Matchbox Music P.R play an integral role within the industry and audience base. Web 2.0 has broken down the barrier between artist and fan communication, platforms such as Youtube can be used to promote music through music videos, interviews and advertisements, and allows fans to create personal attachments therefore reinforcing musicians as human brands. Matchbox not only helps clients create these products to reinforce music brands, but also provides testimonials on their website to reinforce their own brand image. Saboo, Kumar and Ramani’s research into digital products re-establishes the importance of consumerism, “shopping from social media websites provides instant gratification to consumers”, this ease to engage and own products allows audiences to further promote for the musicians and PR companies (2006).

4. Findings/Analysis

My literature review highlighted four concepts which are integral to the music media industry and workings of Matchbox music P.R, These concepts are: Accessibility, Ownership, Authenticity and Products. Furthermore, these four concepts can be broken down into subcategories dependent on the perspective taken and during this final section I will build upon these notions utilising my own dissertation findings. I will support and suggest further action that could be taken to strengthen how musicians, whether independent or major, can best benefit from self-promotion through the use of Web 2.0. I will discuss the difference between independent artists' self promotion and how it compares to that or major musicians whose promotion is influenced by labels or marketing companies. This approach for-grounding the variation of promotion throughout the industry emerged from a discussion with Oscar Merry, an independent artist, that produces and promotes his own music, who I interviewed as part of my research to identify changes within the music media industry dependent on level of fame.

According to Oscar Merry: “Obviously one of the main differences between grassroot level musicians and those signed to labels, etc is money. There’s almost been a shift in my level, the grassroot level, where selling out brings us more money in. It’s more sellable and the labels recognise this but, it’s a catch 22. By selling out we stop standing out. Being a low level musician is constantly towing the line between self-authenticity and needing to progress so we can afford to live from our craft”. My research brought to light a theme concerning the impact that Web 2.0 has on individual musicians and how what is self-promoted differs depending on level of fame, this however then reapplies itself to the discourse that authenticity is lost when fame is gained, however fame is limited to independent musicians who's fame cannot be brought about without a high level of digital self -promotion. This triggered a shift in my thinking from ‘what different platforms may be used that create such impact on stardom’ to that of whether ‘quality of content and communication, therefore certifying authenticity, throughout the use of said platforms causes the impact on fame’. Oscar states that “Rock stars and the singers we look up to are so different now. Social media has meant that people, fans, feel entitled to see into every aspect of their lives and they may not do their own promoting on social media but, it’s still their face, their lives that they’re putting out there. Having that personal connection, making every fan feel like they’re a friend is what sells, well anything.” Furthermore my own research included that audiences' interactivity with musicians/bands is heightened when such icons are represented as a human brand, allowing consumers to identify on a wider level, whether that is through genre of music, authenticity of the icon, or even accessibility to communicate with the icon themselves. Arguably my research connotes that by targeting audiences through their need to connect and belong to brand ideals should change the process in which musicians/labels promote to their fan base, fore-fronting authenticity and products that certifies a level of trust and loyalty to the artist.

Using these key themes, how might they be applied to the online promotion of music to generate an equal audience response regardless of outside input and level of pre accumulated fame? By online promotion I reference that of the content created by Matchbox Music P.R to build audiences based upon preference of genre and accessibility provided by Web 2.0, however, such promotion created through an outside party requires a level of funding. For ‘start out’ musicians this is not possible, lack of knowledge regarding audiences and utilising online platforms creates a continuous loop that little independent musicians can break through; posing further issues that if musicians are able to break through the current music media landscape alters their aesthetic, sound and creates a stage persona which many audience find factitious.

By enabling more musicians creative input and experience into their own transmedia marketing there could potentially be an enormous benefit, in terms of ownership not only would there be a vast increase to income within the music industry but this income would be evenly dispersed, meaning the artists would receive their fair share. Start out musicians would benefit from providing the same level of promotion to that of established artists, by supplying them with the knowledge and statistics needed self-promotional content can be made at professional level and distributed through platforms provided through Web 2.0, creating their own personal transmedia campaign. With these concepts in mind, I will repurpose my preceding outlook that Web 2.0 has impacted musicians differently depending on level of fame, and acknowledge a more constructive outlook, by developing a promotional campaign for a ‘start out’ independent musician, providing them with the professionalism and knowledge required to create the same level of promotion to that of established artists.

Bibliography

Daniels, M. (2019) Why Independent Musicians Are Becoming The Future Of The Music Industry. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/melissamdaniels/2019/07/10/for-independent-musicians-goingyour-own-way-is-finally-starting-to-pay-off/#56d378a414f2 (Accessed: 02/04/2020)

IFPI. (2018) Global Music Report 2018. Available at: https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/GMR2018.pdf (Accessed: 31/03/2020)

Jenkins, H. (2006) ‘Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide’. New York: New York Press. Avalible at https://www.vlebooks.com/Vleweb/Product/Index/712745?page=0 (Accessed: 02/04/2020)

Marshall, L. (2015) ‘Let’s keep music special. F-Spotify’: on-demand streaming and the controversy over artist royalties’, Creative Industries Journal, 8(2): 177-190

Available at: https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.bathspa.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=51ecf805-4eda-43bf-af96-618a15be49f9%40sdc-v-sessmgr01 (Accessed: 02/04/2020)

Matchbox Music P.R. (2020) Available at: https://matchboxmusicpr.co.uk/ (Accessed: 02/04/2020)

Negus, K. (1995) ‘Where the mystical meets the market: creativity and commerce in the production of popular music’, Sociological Review, 43(2), pp. 316-341. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1995.tb00606.x

Saboo, AR. Kumar, V and Ramani, G. (2016) ‘Evaluating the impact of social media activities on human brand sales”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(3), pp. 524-542. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.02.007

Sargent, C. (2008) ‘Local Musicians in the Age of Digital Reproduction’, Conference Papers – American Sociological Association. Available at: https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.bathspa.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=4ea50884-c9cc-416d-9e9b-ea2203262c53%40sdc-v-sessmgr02 (Accessed: 02/04/2020)

Wikström, P. (2013) ‘The Music Industry in an Age of Digital Distribution’. In Ch@nge:19 Key Essays on How the Internet Is Changing Our Lives. Madrid: BBVA. Available at: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-music-industry-in-an-age-of-digital-distribution/ (Accessed: 02/04/2020)