Sarah Gavigan » Music in Advertising

Licensing music of deceased artists to Advertising; moral or not?

admin — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:20:22 +0000

I am not the best at checking on my social media channels, but today as I was working today I checked my YouTube page and found that the Chevy Corvette spot I finished last month and posted to my YouTube page had some serious comments on it. I felt the need to share this. First, take a look at the spot:

This track is unmistakable if you have ever been a fan of folk or bluegrass from the 60′s and 70′s. It’s timeless.

Here is what my commenter had to say:

A trend in the commercial music industry I have become greatly upset with is the using of classic American music, largely from the 60′s, to sell things on TV. After hearing the Stones or Nick Drake or now (sadly) John Fahey, countless times lined up with AT & T or Chevy I can’t help but think of their products when I listen to these artists albums at home. This makes me sad.

I don’t want to think of AT & T when I listen to Nick Drake, and I certainly don’t want to think of Chevy when I listen to John Fahey. It’s one thing for the Stones to sell the rights to their songs as they’re living, but lending deceased artists’ music to products in a manner they probably wouldn’t approve of is a morally dubious endeavor.

The two recent and unfortunate choices ( Nick Drake & John Fahey) of using tragic folk musicians, (Drake suicide, Fahey died alone and penniless) to sell items for large multi-billion dollar corporations smacks of a sad irony that plagues today’s commercial industry.

It is important that we do not treat art as a mere commodity. Most certainly John Fahey’s music has nothing to do with selling Chevy’s and I hope in the future you consider the importance and seriousness of the artists and their music whom you align with advertisements on TV. I ask you to think twice before lending deceased artists music to TV ads, ( especially people like John Fahey)

MY REPLY:

I think it is an extreme view to say that using their music is a “morally dubious endeavor.” When a piece of music is used, the rights holders are paid quite well. The music is used legally and the rights are given by the “owners” of that music.

As a matter of fact, one of the gentlemen who helmed this project is the son of one of the former members of The Kingston Trio, whom many consider to be as important a touchstone to folk music as Mr. Fahey was. I think he would agree, if the estate needs the money and the music is reflected in a positive light, it is a great thing for all parties.

So, let me repeat – the rights holders AGREED and they were paid well for the use of music in this commercial. I hope that Mr. Fahey was smart enough to see to it that his estate was set up in a way that his loved ones will get to see that money.

Music Licensing is one of the only consistent and reliable sources of revenue and marketing for artists today, and as the music business does, licensing in advertising follows the trends, and dare I say, sometimes we help set them. There are hundreds of artists who will see this spot and be inspired by the music. There are thousands of people who will see this spot and go buy John Fahey’s record, or even pull their old record back out.

You see this as a tragedy, but we see it as an homage that is one way to keep his spirit alive and back into the collective conscious of the music lovers everywhere. For the record, due to the resurgence in popularity of Nike Drake’s music after the Volkswagen commercial “Pink Moon” (which is arguable one of the best commercials ever made) the record label re-released his music with great success.

HIS REPLY:

You seem to miss my point. My point was not that the estates of Nick Drake and John Fahey may or may not being compensated nicely, it is that these artists, especially John Fahey, would not have wanted his music used to help sell Chevy cars. His music has nothing to do with Chevy cars. Fahey was an avidly independent and non-commercial artist by principle. It is simply inappropriate to use his serious and important music for a car commercial without his permission.

You repeatedly point out that , “everyone is paid nicely” . This however misses the principle of my point : John Fahey certainly would not have approved of his music being used to help Chevy boost its image.

MY REPLY

Your point is taken, but how do you know that Fahey and Drake would say no if they were alive today? There is simply no way to know. I staunchly (as said here) support artists right to say no to music licensing in ads or any other medium. I personally have worked with bands that have turned down hundreds of thousands of dollars based on principle. But I, again choose to see this as a positive broadcast of John Fahey’s music. Albiet that I am slightly biased, being a music supervisor in commercials.

This brings me to a larger point that you have helped me make sir:

ARTISTS AND MUSICIANS, be clear in your contracts and in your will what you ARE willing to have your music used for. If you have sold your publishing, then you may have lost creative control. The only REAL way we are to know your wishes is if you clearly leave them behind.

Who is to be held responsible for an artist or musicians wishes once he is gone? If the use of your music is important to you, then think about it, write it down and place it into the hands of people you trust. Music is immortal, and there is no way to tell what is coming in the future and in what crazy ways your music might be heard, but give it some serious thought. Don’t let others decide for you.

In the case of John Fahey, the executors of his estate (or if they no longer own the rights to the music, then the label and the publisher) are responsible for making the decision to lend use of a song on behalf of the Artist, not the Agency or the Brand.

To those of you out there who have additional opinions, lets here them.

Multiple use for Ads for Music – is it used enough? or even well?

admin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:34:01 +0000

I got my New Music Tipsheet email this morning form Scott Perry. This had to be re-posted. His point is solid and applies to so many different industries right now:

The other night, I’m heading to The Roxy when I see a big ol’ bus sign for the new Courntey Cox series ‘Cougar Town,’ airing Wednesdays this fall on ABC. And so, they’ve got this 8′ x 3′ closeup of CC’s face (yeah, they used to call her CC back when she was growing up in Alabama, so I’m told), and I’m thinking, “Wow, what a wasted opportunity — with a show title like ‘Cougar Town,’ they could’ve showed a vampy picture of Courtney, and left enough space for fans to take their picture next to her, and posted their pix onto Facebook or Flickr!”

Instead, what do we get? A head shot begging to magic marker a good old-fashioned “balls on the chin” on Courtney’s visage (don’t forget the eyepatch and the blackened teeth there, Picasso).

What I’m trying to illustrate is that these days nothing, and I mean nothing, should ever be created for single-use. With the viral capabilities of the web, every single piece created should be used and re-used to promote your product, from the album art to the t-shirt to the banner ad to the show itself.

This should be every manager’s most-often used question — “How else can we use this?”

Every single touch point for your artist should have a takeaway viral marketing aspect — single song streams should be embeddable, trackable; official pix & videos should have your URL in the bottom right; every show should have the band’s name in a backdrop or at least on the bass drum head; t-shirt designs should have the band’s name legible from a satellite, as well as have easter eggs hidden in the imagery.

As crass as it is, I’d have a kid dressed in Bowling 4 Soup’s “My Wena” (totally NSFW, btw) phallus costume, taking pictures at the merch booth with fans two hours before the show, and then letting the kids download the pix from the Bowling for Soup site in exchange for their email address!

Food for thought: The iPhone is the #1 camera used on Flickr; in 10 months, the iPhone will be the #1 camera used on YouTube. What are you doing to take advantage of this trend? You WANT your fans to take pictures & audio & video and pass it along to their friends. Not every show should be an aliens-and-confetti cannon extravaganza like the Flaming Lips, but give your fans something to talk about.

But speaking fan-to-fan, I’d be remiss in not saying this to EVERYBODY (I’ll admit, I’m just as guilty): you ain’t Scorsese, and this ain’t ‘The Last Waltz’. After the first two songs, quit taking pictures of you and your girlfriend in front of the stage. Put down the camera, pick up the beer, and just enjoy the freakin’ show, okay?

I love Scott’s Post for so many reasons. The word ARTIST in his post could be easily replaces with CLIENT and applied to advertising, but this is precisely where Music and Advertising are linked. As creatives in the Music and Advertising business, we must think ahead, be more clever and not so myopic. “This is a TV ad,” or “this is only outdoor advertising” just wont cut it anymore. There have been a few great examples lately. One I remember was a kiosk attatched to a bus stop for Target. You could plug your headphones into the wall to listen to John Legend’s new record. SMART.

Another direct example of the Ad industry point of view would would be common acceptance for “this is only music for my ad.” Let’s face it, Agencies and by proxy, clients spend a lot of money on music, be it Original or Licensed; you should get more out of it. But as any of us in the Commercial Production world know, that would take a lot of forethought that comes in direct connection with MEDIA, and that my friends, it a whole other posting.

The sooner the Ad biz takes cues form Scott’s post, the sooner they will be able to create more engaging ads and make thei clients money go further. It’s ain’t rocket science folks.

Everyone – check out Scott’s New Music Tipsheet, it is a staple in my information highway.

scott@sperrymedia.com

http://www.newmusictipsheet.com

Thanks Scott!