Artists should not have their music used in advertising. This can ruin their reputation and music career. Their fans can then lose interest in their music. Music advertising also isn't as profitable to musicians anymore. This puts too much stress on the artist, who have to promote the company, while keeping an audience entertained. Sometimes the advertisements deal can result in negative feedback from the audience. Finally, by signing a deal the artist no longer has control over their own music. Becoming a successful artist is already a complicated task itself. Musicians have to work in order to profit off of their creations. However, music streams on apps like Spotify or YouTube are it as profitable as having their music downloaded. Some artist …show more content…
Fanatics may lose interest in the music of an artist is they hear it over and over again everywhere they go, therefore the music is not as appealing and becomes a matter of boredom. According to Selling Out Not Worth the Risk "Endorsement deals can keep a musician afloat, but can also take the focus away from what really matters—the music."(Johnson). Consequently, artist don't make music their number one priority, resulting in the making of music that is not at full potential, which likewise results in fans losing attraction towards that artist. Well known artist can have their careers and reputation ruined with endorsement deals. According to Selling Out Not Worth the Risk "Take U2 for example—one of the world’s most popular rock bands who, after landing a deal with Apple that had their 2014 album Songs of Innocence installed into 500 million iTunes subscribers’ libraries for free, faced a storm of negative feedback from fans and critics alike." U2 and Apple both had their reputation unfavorably devastated. Furthermore, endorsement deals also guarantee no control over your music and how it is used by the
"Artists." Jonathan Green Studios. Jonathan Green Studios, Inc, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
Celebrity endorsements can make or break a product and even a company. Especially in today’s world many teens will buy a product just predominantly based on who endorses it. For example, Beyoncé promotes both Pepsi and H&M. She is a great representative for both because she is a really big celebrity and she is very well known. She also has a lot of influence. Young girls would love to dress like her and with H&M endorsing her they get that demographic. Pepsi made a good choice because she, like the previous celebrities they endorsement deals with, is a very public figure with a very big name. Many teens and young ...
According to Dr. Susan Krauss Whitbourne, a psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Advertisers have known for decades that the image of a celebrity, royal or otherwise, can help sell products, especially when the celebrity involved has a reason to claim the status of being an expert” (5). Therefore, ordinary athletes may want to buy Gatorade to be just as good as the star athlete that is featured. According to Mark F. Zander, a researcher of The University of Freiburg, Germany and author of Musical Influences in Advertising: How Music Modifies First Impressions of Product Endorsers And Brand, he states that, “Classical conditioning implies that pairing a product (neutral stimulus) with a well-liked piece of music (unconditioned stimulus) will produce an association between the two, and therefore a preference for the product (a conditioned response)” (3) and according to JR Thorpe, “Accumulated evidence is refining our understanding of how radio hits and repeated beats really do affect our bodies when they're pushed to their limits” (2). Therefore, music depending on how the music is aimed emotionally, can serve multi-purposely, to persuade or dissuade the audience to take any action.
For a start, sponsorships can be risky. For example, overexposure can take a negative effect on the artist and his or her song. Many people are tired of hearing the same song on the radio, television, and at the movies after a countless amount of times. According to paragraph 8 of “Selling Out Not Worth the Risk,” Moby, an electronic artist, released his album called Play in 1999. He licensed each one of his 18 tracks. Fans then lost interest because they heard this everywhere on the radio, on commercials and movies. In many other cases, a record label who owns the rights to the artist’s music licenses the song to another company. Once this happens, the artist would not have any control over how the music can be used. According to paragraph 9
Sponsorship and advertisement music more or less do good for artists. From loss of money from album sales, advertising and sponsorships in music often put money in the artist's pocket. This is good for most artists struggling from album sales to make a living.
The music industry has changed in more ways than we could imagine. At first we started with artists just selling singles, then it transformed over to people buying albums, and then on iTunes started to sell songs for just cents. In the year 2005, Pandora was launched on the Internet and later they created a mobile app. Most of the artist’s music can be found on YouTube. Free downloads have affected this industry as well.
Should it be Allowed? Suppose an artist or band sold their music to a record label or landed a deal with a company. Should this be allowed? Artists’ music should be used in advertising. It offers smaller artists a chance for their music to get heard by a wider audience and it is accepted nowadays for bands and artists to put their music in commercials or promote products for sponsors.
The strategy helps artists because loyal fans are the ones most likely to head to shows (and buy a t-shirt). It benefits fans because they get much more back from artists they love dearly. The Gorillaz released an entire album free last Christmas as a tribute to their fans.
When it comes to the music industry, an artist makes a song, the label sells the song and then the listener buys it? In the world today, the music industry is knowledgeable of digital downloads, music videos, file sharing, and now social media. Social media is the voice of an individual and captures joy, emotions or thoughts in pictures, tweets or status updates. It is a reachable space that is used to keep in touch and to reach out. Social media allows listeners to shares their favorite artists, post their favorite songs and really created a genuine connection with the artists. The music industry has changed because social media is a tool needed to connecting with the listeners. Social media is necessary to maintain a career in the music business.
People pay low subscription fees to streaming services, and as a result of this, listeners can be exposed to new artists and help these artists become popular (“Music Industry”). New artists are exposed to more people as streaming services often increase the amount of artists that people listen to. While streaming services do result in more exposure for an artist, that’s where the benefits stop. One of the issues with streaming services is payment issues. "Public relations missteps in the early 2000s kept many musicians from speaking out about economic issues, artists and executives said... But the shift toward streaming in recent years has prompted many musicians to investigate the changes in the business and comment online (Sisario)." Artists are not being paid much for providing their music to streaming services, but these issues and artist protests are being ignored by executives of the services until a high-profile artist makes the wage disparity public. "Streaming services pay a lot less than downloads, with the artists receiving a fraction of a cent per play on the service. Newer artists could struggle with the level of payments offered by the services, opponents have argued (O’Brien).” Hardworking artists are not receiving as much money from streaming services as they did from people purchasing their albums. This
"The Value of Music in Advertising." White Papers. Ervin Marketing, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2015.
Many well-known artists including Taylor Swift are against Spotify and have her music catalogue removed from Spotify, because by letting people listen to your music for free you undermine the value of art. But Taylor Swift is one of not so many artists that could pull such thing off and still remain popular. After all, her removing her catalogue from Spotify was a huge scandal and one of the most important happenings during the last year in the music industry. This move of hers affects Spotify in a bad way, as she was one of the most popular artists on spotify and her songs were on 19 million playlists. It is also thought that taking her music catalogue from Spotify could be related with her own record label, Big Machine’s sale. As instant income from digital music download could be financially more beneficial, and increase value for her record label more than, “steady streaming” income. But for such popular artists like Taylor Swift, such streaming model earns millions. According to Spotify real life artist who wasn’t named was earning $425,000, per month for a hit album that was on top charts. And that category surely
Television is also a very effective way for artist to get their albums sold. Not only do people get to listen to the music, but they also get to see a video of the musicians. People are known to have short attention spans, so sometimes people don’t listen to a whole song on the radio, but if there is visualization too it is more likely they will concentrate on the video. If a person concentrates on the song they are more likely to actually enjoy the song. Music videos are more effective for this reason than just hearing a song on the radio. While listening to the radio a person is usually doing others things, such as driving, talking with friends, and working. All of that person’s concentration ...
...uld emphasize the negative aspects of downloading music for free, research shows that the benefits will greatly conquer the drawbacks. By letting people download music for free, the artist will have a better chance to have his music out faster and have his music gain popularity quicker. The local bands can be heard by having free songs. Also, you’ll have your favorite song in the palm of your and. Now it’s up to the record labels and artist to not be greedy and let the music be free.
Spotify is on-demand streaming music player. After registration and downloading the desktop application user gains access to more than 20 million songs that are currently available on Spotify [1]. The main characteristic of Spotify’s streaming service is that it does not sell music, but it gives access to it. Streaming digital music is based on agreements with content owners - record labels, digital distributors, aggregators and publisher collecting societies, to whom Spotify pays out royalties [2]. Without these agreements there would be no music to stream. Basically, Spotify has an intermediary role as it distributes music content from right holders to listeners.