Find of the week: 2Pac ft. Notorious B.I.G, DMX & Ed Sheeran - I See Fire (Shota Mix)

Historical changes of the music industry impacted by the digital revolution

Since the dawn of the internet there have been significant changes to the way music has been consumed.

One of the first companies to adopt the internet for music sales was Ritmoteca in 1998, who had agreements with Universal, Sony, Warner, and Bertelsmann Music Group in order to use their artists in their catalogue of 300,000 songs available to buy. However the company became defunct in 2003, but was able to inspire others to create similar services. With MyCokeMusic launching in January 2001, followed by iTunes music store in June that year. MyCokeMusic sold over 100,000 songs in the first 3 months, but Itunes in the UK sold over 450,000 songs in the first week alone.

Before the internet era began, the main consumption of music would have been through the CD format, or in some cases tape or vinyl. However, with the internet making it easier to access the music you want almost immediately, it has become the most consumed format.

Initially this could have been seen as a positive change, as online downloads has “allowed for potentially lower expenses such as lower coordination costs, lower distribution costs, as well as the possibility for redistributed total profits “ O'Reilly, R. (2014). Now the issue that is faced here is that despite the drop in distribution and production costs to distribute physical records, for any singles or albums going through the iTunes route, every artist and label has to give iTunes a cut in the sales, which on average is a “30% cut of sales” Billboard. (2013).

iTunes was seen as providing “a place where we were going to monetize music and in theory stem the tide of piracy. So, it was certainly a solution for the time,” Mcdonald, M. (2013). Before services like iTunes, it was all too easy to illegally download the music you wanted, with sites such as Limewire and Napster offering 24 hour services for file sharing. There were very few precautions in place to punish those who were downloading illegally, and there were very few online legal substitutes that offered such a wide range.

The main companies in the music industry at the early 2000's took a long time to adapt to the changes brought about via internet and rather than seeing its positive attributes and utilising these. They didn't invest enough time in the idea of online distribution, which paved the way for piracy sites set up by people who noticed the need of the consumer and created sites to cater for this at a large scale:

“So far they have been slow to embrace the internet, which has seemed to them not an opportunity but their nemesis. Rather than putting their product on file-sharing applications, they are prosecuting free-download users for theft.”

The Economist, (2004)

At the forefront of the digital downloads in the late 90's to early 00's was Napster.

Defined as a peer-to-peer service, they specialised in MP3 files allowing “IT people to dip into each other's hard drives, and share their MP3 music files.” Lamont, T. (2013). and at their peak had around 80 million registered users. This is not to say that piracy wasn't available prior to the internet era, as consumers could copy CD's etc from friends onto blank cassette tapes and discs, but peer-to-peer online sharing sites made the piracy game a lot quicker and therefore took a massive market away from the recording industry. It now meant that just 1 person would have to buy the records to begin with and from there 80 million people had free access to this.

Napster were closed as a peer-to-peer service in 2001, but until the big companies were ready to go along with this change in music consumption there would be new sites cropping up constantly and a growing number of consumers ready to risk being fined in order to gain the easy and free accessibility of pirated music.

In the year 2000 72.8% of record sales were in CD format and the value of recording sales across the world was at $36.9 billion. However according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry “World sales of recorded music for the year 2000 fell by 1.3% in value and by 1.2% in units compared with 1999.” IFPI, (2001). This suggests that global sales were already being affected by factors such as online piracy.

If we were to compare those figures to the most recent sales, the world value of the recording industry for the year 2014 was $15 billion - less than half the income made 14 years before and with a equal split of 46% each for digital revenues and physical sales.

Although the industry have begun to grasp at services such as iTunes and digital sales have shown that they are a convenient and sought after way of consuming music, the music industry now have further progressions to utilise streaming:

“Subscription services, part of an increasingly diverse mix of industry revenue streams, are going from strength to strength.” IFPI, (2015). However streaming services are causing an issue in the recording industry, with labels only getting a certain cut in sales and with a consumer audience who have since the late 90's been accustomed to getting what they want, when they want, for free.

In 2005 we saw the launch of Youtube, a free video sharing online platform. A year later, this service was bought up by Google. With millions of users already visiting the site regularly, Google decided to get the major record labels involved, offering them a cut in revenues in order to use their artists' music videos on their site. The great thing about Youtube was that it was feeding this need for free content, but at the same time keeping it legal and getting revenue streams through advertisements which could then be generated back to the content owner.

“It has been speculated on the webvine that YouTube is willing to pay its users at the very least $1 per view. This only goes into effect if a user reaches a minimum number of views which seems to be in the vicinity of 1,000. The snag comes in the site’s payment terms. YouTube only issues checks when a user has earned $100.”

Somoso, E. (2013).

In the case of many labels, they didn't agree with the cut that was being offered to them, and Warner Music pulled all their videos from the site when they weren't offered the substantial amount per stream that they asked for. Months after this Youtube had a similar dispute with PRS in the UK and for a while had to block the viewing of music videos by major labels in the UK.

By taking their artists off the site, all the labels did was lose out on an extra revenue stream at a time when sales were declining and the recording industry was needing extra revenue. “Musicians get less exposure. YouTube gets less usage. Fans are left in the dark (or hunting around on less reputable sites for music videos).” Masnick, M. (2009).

It has taken a long time for the major labels to come to terms with the fact that consumers no longer want to pay for music and would prefer the option of a free, accessible service. With high speed internet and open access wifi for home devices, mobile phones and more recently the introduction of the tablet, the need for a separate device such as a CD Player or tape player has become obsolete and services that can be accessed through apps and the internet have become far more convenient.

Despite being a video-hosting site for all different entertainment purposes, Youtube has become known as being a huge platform for musicians. Allowing musicians to get their music heard by global audiences whether they have label backing or not, along with being a brilliant promotional tool. “A recent report by tracking firm Visible Measures found that nine out of the ten most "viral" videos in 2009 were music-related” Masnick, M. (2009).

The issue Youtube has had however is after spending ten years being a free service, their revenue only goes as far as deals they make and advertisement. The service is also only available online, leaving the audience rendered without music in a situation where they are offline.

The way Google are getting around this is by working on releasing Youtube Music Key, which will turn your Youtube app into a streaming music player as well as a video app. Offering an “ad-free, premium streaming for $10/mo (starting out with a promo price of $8/mo)” Henry, A. (2014).

Services such as this have been copied from companies like Spotify and Deezer who had seen the success of Youtube and the limitations it has and have built streaming platforms dedicated to music which can provide a online and offline service, whilst giving free service along with also getting consumers to pay for music.

“People thought it was OK to steal with The Pirate Bay. It wasn’t nice going to international meetings. Was it close to killing the industry? Yes. Then Spotify came and it was better than illegal downloading. It was super-fast, almost everything was on it, and it was free.”

Sundin, P. (2014).

In the year-end report for the year 2008 – the year the Swedish streaming service Spotify launched and the year after the french service Deezer was launched – there was a prediction that:

“Advertising-supported services are a potential way to wean habitual non-payers on to legitimate music services. Research in the US suggests that at least 45 million US consumers are willing to view adverts as the price of listening to music.” IFPI, (2009).

In 2008 Spotify was still finding its footing, with the service only launching the October after managing to make deals with the major record labels. The initial subscription was under invitation-only free service for beta-testing purposes. Which when the paid service became available, the beta-testing community had their “existing accounts immediately transition to become a free Spotify account.” Spotifysehr, (2008). – although the free service was still under invitation only in the early days.

They have made their name by being one of the biggest freemium services - meaning that the service is free of charge, unless you choose to subscribe for the premium services. The major difference between the free and paid service at the beginning was that the free service is supported by advertisements and the paid service is interruption free.

Over time the premium service has begun to offer different services, such as offline listening, where you can listen to playlists offline without needing to pay per song to download it onto a device.

Along with being able to skip as many tracks as you like (instead of only being able to skip 5 tracks per hour on the free version), there is also the option of HD music, and Spotify Connect which allows you to control music between devices.

Like piracy, streaming has created a way of users listening to music for free (or through a monthly subscription basis) but due to advertisement revenues and the income from those who pay subscription fees it allows consumers to listen to music conveniently without downloading illegally.

Between March 2011 and August 2012, Spotify rose from around one million paying subscribers to four million. This may have contributed to the reports that in 2011 “the number of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharers fell by 26 per cent” IFPI, (2012). With the number of subscribers through the different streaming companies rising by nearly 65% from the previous year. By the end of 2011, Spotify had accounted to 2.5 million of the noted 13 million paying subscribers across all global streaming companies, making them the most subscribed with Deezer coming up second with 1.5 million subscribers.

In 2011 Spotify also announced a partnership with Facebook, integrating music streaming services into the social media market.

Streaming services are seen to be the future of the recorded music industry, and have given artists a good promotional platform with features like the radio stations on Spotify (where you can find new artists by listening to music similar to the artists you are already listening to), along with giving consumers a good service.

“I love the way music turns all these techie devices like PCs, mobile phones and iPads into personalised juke boxes and I love how the internet lets me connect with fans wherever they are in the world.” Bedingfield, N. (2012).

Not everyone is happy with the way streaming services are currently being run though. There have been multiple complaints from different artists on the amount of money that is generated via streaming services and how much of this reaches the artist.

Spotify for example keep 30% of the money from subscriptions and advertisement revenue and “pay out nearly 70% of all the money we earn in royalties," Spotify, (2013). On average they pay per recording a fee of “$0.007 per play” BBC, (2013). This means that a recording would have to be played just over 140 times for the fee to reach the usual 99 cent price that a single would be sold for on iTunes.

For major artists, Spotify have revealed that in 2013 through the pay per play agreement, several artists had been paid more than $3 million that year alone.

Geoff Barrow from Portishead has been the most recent to claim to have received an unfair sum of streaming revenue, as from 34,000,000 streams he has only received £1700 after tax. The problem here is not specifically how much revenue goes to the artist from the streaming companies, as we already know how much Spotify for starters give per stream, but more so that the money must go through the record company first, and how much of that money will then make it to the artist once the record company have deducted their fees.

In the case of a recently leaked copy of Lady Gaga's contract, there shows a clause that any royalties would not be payable if generated from “any blanket licenses under which the licensee is granted access to all or a significant portion of Interscope's catalog” Resnicoff, P. (2014).

As it is the record label that have made a deal with streaming services and not directly the artists, the record label are free to offer their artist whatever deal they like when it comes down to revenue generated by streaming. This could be an amount where the label pay the royalties on the same basis as they would any other recording revenue, by taking cuts for areas such as distribution and marketing for the record. Or it could even be a deal such as the supposed Interscope deal, where they offer no royalties at all, as they are licensing their catalogue as a whole and not just a specific artist’s works.

This is where the criticisms begin for the new streaming service Tidal, which launched last month. There are two main selling points for Tidal, the first being their high fidelity sound and the second being that they are supposedly more artist friendly.

According to their twitter page 75% of their revenue generated will go to labels and they will keep just 25% themselves. The problem with this being that once again the licensing deal is with the record label, so despite being a higher percentage of royalties reaching the labels, that does not necessarily mean a higher percentage will reach the artists.

Another controversy surrounding Tidal is that there is no free option as there are with other services, there is a two tier payment option. With normal quality sound being $9.99 monthly (same price of Spotify premium) and premium high fidelity sound being $19.99 monthly.

With artists such as Taylor Swift taking their entire catalogue off other streaming sites and being exclusive to Tidal, this means that for many fans they are left with fewer options than before. Of course a lot of this music can still be accessed on Youtube, but with artists bringing out exclusive tracks just to Tidal this brings to questioning; will this be an incentive for fans to subscribe or will it push them back to piracy.

As Lily Allen recently argued on Twitter that music fans “won't be able to get the exclusive content on spotify, so they'll go to torrent sites and pick up some other stuff too” Allen, L. (2015).

The marketing focus has very much been around it being an artist friendly company, but when the artists involved in the marketing are already some of the richest in the business, and with smaller artists criticising the company over social media and interviews it would have been better for them to focus on the quality of the sound.

For a major music fan, the type that already own a high quality sound system and headphones, $19.99 a month might be a reasonable price for being able to have unlimited streaming without having to subsidise the sound quality.

And clearly there is a large audience for hi-fi sound as continued sales of hi-fi equipment show, and Deezer are doing a similar thing with Deezer Elite at the moment.

There are still however several types of audience of music consumer, even within the audience that are looking for high sound quality you have both an audience who want all their music on the same device where they can listen to unlimited music without filling up their phones with massive memory eating files, and then you have those who prefer to physically own a recording whether that be on physical format or digital.

To cater for this market another company Pono Music launched like Tidal in early 2015 and with a catalogue of 2 million tracks are also catering for that second audience by selling high quality downloads online. Their albums are roughly around $18 each, so this is also an issue worth considering as many Tidal sceptics have said they wouldn't spend $19.99 a month buying a physical record let alone want to spend that much on a service where they can't even own the music (which of course is a criticism of streaming services as a whole).

We are at a time in the music industry where there has been one of the fastest technological progressions: from fifteen years ago when the first mobile phone was released with mp3 capabilities to now when smartphones dominate and you can get millions of tracks available to you any time of the day wherever you are.

“Through the internet, which more than anything else creates access to things, limitless music eventually became available for free. The big record companies didn’t see how to make money from online distribution so they effectively ignored it, leaving it to the hackers and the audience to populate a new landscape of downloading....In the blink of an eye music went from being rare, expensive and only available through physical media in controlled outlets to being ubiquitous and free worldwide.”

Albini, S. (2014).

The technological world is progressing, technology is getting cheaper, consumers are constantly looking for best deals for their money and the future of the music industry is to learn from their past mistakes and follow the market and support innovation rather than clinging to old models of consumption.

We've seen that almost half of the revenue being generated in the past year have been by digital revenues and that streaming is getting more popular year on year.

So now is the time for the music industry to look at its current business model and address issues such as the legal status of streaming licensing deals and to maximise the amount of revenue generated without alienating the consumers once again.

Reference List

Allen, A. (2015). Lily. Available: https://twitter.com/lilyallen/status/582983427210772480. Last accessed 1st Apr 2015.

Albini, S. (2014). Steve Albini on the surprisingly sturdy state of the music industry – in full. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 

Pono. (2015). Home. Available: https://ponomusic.force.com/. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Harding, C. (2015). Tidal wave or shallow pool. Available: https://medium.com/cuepoint/tidal-wave-or-shallow-pool-27f148337cc7. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Spotify. (2015). Premium. Available: https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Hampp, A. (2015). What Jay Z Tidal Means for the Freemium vs. Premium Debate. Available: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/what-jay-zs-tidal-means-785378. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Milne, R. (2014). The Spotify Effect. Available: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/59e6e6d6-5a49-11e4-8771-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F59e6e6d6-5a49-11e4-8771-00144feab7de.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&site. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

BBC. (2013). Spotify reveals artists earn $0.007 per stream. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25217353. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Resnikoff, P. (2014). Streaming Services Screwing Lady Gaga.Available: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/06/10/streaming-services-screwing-lady-gaga-every-artist. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 

IFPI. (2012). Digital Music Report 2012. Available: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2012.pdf. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Betters, E. Smith, J.. (2015). Spotify Free vs Spotify Premium, whats the difference. Available: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/125771-spotify-free-vs-spotify-premium-what-s-the-difference. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Spotifysehr. (2008). We’ve only just begun!. Available: https://news.spotify.com/uk/2008/10/07/weve-only-just-begun/. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

IFPI. (2009). Digital Music Report 2009. Available: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2009.pdf. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

IFPI. (2001). World Sales 2000. Available: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/worldsales2000.pdf. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Henry, A. (2014). Google turns Youtube into a music streaming player.Available: http://lifehacker.com/google-turns-youtube-into-a-streaming-music-player-with-1657932818. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 

Masnick, M. (2009). How the record labels spurned the YouTube opportunity. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6832196/How-the-record-labels-spurned-the-YouTube-opportunity.html. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Somoso, E. (2013). How Many Views Do You Need to Get Paid on YouTube?. Available: http://boostlikes.com/blog/2013/11/views-need-paid-youtube. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Le Sac, D. (2015). Geoff Barrow says he made £1700 from 34 million streams. Let’s do maths!. Available: http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/dan-le-sac-writes-geoff-barrow-says-he-made-1700-from-34-million-streams-lets-do-maths/. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Resnikoff, P. (2014). Music Industry 99 Problems. Available: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/09/02/music-industry-99-problems. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Klosowski, T. (2013). Why I Stopped Pirating and Started Paying for Media. Available: http://lifehacker.com/5990525/why-i-stopped-pirating-and-started-paying-for-media. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

IFPI. (2015). Facts and Stats. Available: http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Knopper, S. (2011). The New Economics of the Music Industry.Available: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-new-economics-of-the-music-industry-20111025?page=2. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Kreps, D. (2015). Streaming, Vinyl Rises Amid Declining Album Sales in Nielsen's 2014 Report Available: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/streaming-vinyl-rises-amid-declining-album-sales-in-nielsens-2014-report-20150108. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Lamont,T. (2013). Napster: the day the music was set free. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/24/napster-music-free-file-sharing. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Kieldson, S. (2014). Why you should be pumped about (and just a bit sceptical of) Hi-Res Audio. Available: http://www.stuff.tv/features/why-you-should-be-pumped-about-and-just-bit-sceptical-hi-res-audio. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

The Economist. (2004). Musics Brighter Future. Available: http://www.economist.com/node/3329169. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Goldman, D. (2010). Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half. Available: http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Tschmuck, P. (2013). is streaming the next big thing? – what consumers want. Available: https://musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/is-streaming-the-next-big-thing-what-consumers-want/. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

O'Reilly. (2014). Internet-Based Music Distribution. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/rickyoreillypmh2/home/digital-distribution/internet-based-music-distribution. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

Pham, A. (2013). iTunes Crosses 25 Billion Songs Sold, Now Sells 21 Million Songs a Day. Available: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1538108/itunes-crosses-25-billion-songs-sold-now-sells-21-million-songs-a-day. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. (2013). iTunes at 10: How Apple's music store has transformed the industry. Available: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/itunes-transformed-music-industry-article-1.1326387. Last accessed 20th Apr 2015 .

The Importance of Branding in the Music Industry

Executive Summary

The aim for this research project was to discover the importance of branding in the music industry.

To test this theory, I have analysed the relevant literature already available in this topic along with the necessary secondary research that has been conducted in order to find a connection that will give a better insight into this question.

The main conclusion I have made from the study of this research is that it is extremely important - especially in the progressive time we are in during this digital era – for artists and music business professionals alike to understand how to structure their branding around their target audience and to know their brand in order to gain secondary revenue streams.

Introduction

Branding has been key to the success of businesses for many years, especially when it comes to corporate businesses. It is described as to aim to “establish a significant and differentiated presence in the market that attracts and retains loyal customers” Business Dictionary, (2015).

Most successful companies have worked hard to create a brand that is memorable and influential. For example, in 1931 Coca-Cola got a Swedish-American artist to paint Santa Claus as part of their advertisement campaign for Christmas, the artist as portrayed Santa dressed in a red suit “Prior to this, Santa had been portrayed in a variety of ways throughout history: tall and gaunt; short and elfin; distinguished and intellectual; even downright frightening.” Coca-Cola, (N/A). Since then, Santa is now associated with a red suit and at Christmas the Coca-Cola Christmas adverts are greatly anticipated, along with the Coca-Cola Christmas truck which travels the UK at Christmas time.

Coca-Cola are just one of the many companies that have successfully made themselves into a well-known brand. The question is how do these companies manage to create these sought after brands? and how does it relate to the Music Business?

Branding has become very important in the music business over recent years, and can be seen at all parts of the music industry, whether it be artist branding, genre branding, or company branding.

In this project I will be looking at literature and research into just how important this branding is for not only sales, but also other revenue streams for musicians and businesses in the music industry.

My objectives are:

• Find out how well music and consumerist companies affect the success of one another's' brands
• Find out as to whether branding is something that is only recently affecting the industry
• Find out if it is more important to find a marketable musician than a talented one.

The reason this topic is worth researching is that those who are hoping to make a career in the Music Industry – whether it be as a manager, or artist, or A&R scout – must be able to understand how to gain more sales for an artist, and for the company as a whole through marketing and branding.

One of the main controversies that will be discussed is the idea of music companies taking on less talented artists because they are easier to market. One theme that will also be focused upon is branding in regards to businesses as a whole and how this is being used in the music industry.

Within this research different themes will be discussed, compared and contrast in order to find common themes which relate to the research question and fulfil the objectives.

This project will begin by finding the gap in current research and follow on to discuss any further research done through secondary data.

The majority of the research will be through qualitative data, through articles, interviews, and discussions online, quantitative data used will be data such as sales statistics and video views.

Literature Review

Throughout the different literature upon the subject of branding in the music industry, there are different themes that relate to this subject. These include the past artist management style of Svengali managers creating a style and brand around their artists, the idea of branding programs, and the relation that branding has upon the need for new artist revenue streams.

In PSPrint it is discussed that “In business, a branded image is your logo, tagline, colors, fonts/typesets and other attributes that visually represent one’s company. In music, the same is true: Every band should develop at least a band logo to instantly gain recognition and set a mood for your audience.” PSPrint, (2015). This shows an aspect of the first of two different types of branding that relate to musicians; traditional branding (the other type being person branding).

Traditional branding is based upon building brands that may have a life span of 50 years or more, this is usually the type of branding used for brands such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds, but in the music industry icons like Elvis Presley and the Beatles can also be seen as a product of traditional branding as it is argued that “their brands arguably became stronger after their respective deaths, and thus their brands have the capacity to live on indefinitely.” Lieb, K. (2013).

And the lifespan of a musician who has been branded in the way of person branding is

supposedly “constrained in the long term by three main factors:cultural changes, physical changes, and their biological lifestyle.” Lieb, K. (2013).

Svengali Managers

The term Svengali manager is a very old one and actually originates from an 1895 novel and play about the Victorian music industry where the sinister Mr Svengali moulds and manipulates a naïve young girl into a famous singer.

There are three key artists/bands that are discussed when past artist branding is discussed, these being; Elvis, Sex Pistols, and The Beatles.

All three of these were managed by Svengali Managers, who like their fictional model aimed to be the puppeteer for the whole look, sound, and actions of the artists.

In many ways the Svengali manager can still be seen in ways of boy bands where the manager will “conceive the idea and image for the group before knowing its members, seeks each boys participation separately through some form of audition, and trains them to perform a predetermined set of songs and dances prepared for, not by, the boys.” Sanders, M. (2002).

This style of managing however has been going on for many years, and was the norm for the era that artists such as Elvis rose to fame. It is believed that Elvis became an “American icon for the following two reasons:

1. his image matched valued characteristics of the group it symbolized (i.e., whiteness, beauty, rags-to-riches success, which were highly valued by mainstream American culture in the 1950s), and
2. his meaning uniquely aligned with the ideas shaping American cultural identity at the time (i.e., dramas of gender, race, and class that had been suppressed in the conservative and conformist 1950s)” Torelli, C. (2013).

This suggests that the way Elvis was branded was a product of the wider American society and culture he was born into. He began as an ordinary working class boy from Memphis Tennessee who however didn't sound like any white artist of his time as he “crystalized a new music rhythm that had already emerged among black musicians” Torelli, C. (2013). Thus embodying the image, traits and values of the mainsteam white American audience at a time where the “music industry was looking for a white boy who sang black” Torrelli, C. (2013).

He also changed his physical style to become more attractive by dressing in “outlandish costume of a pasha, if not a harem girl. From the make-up over his eyes, the hair falling in his face, the overwhelmingly sexual cast of his mouth” Marcus, G. (2006).

Elvis’s manager ‘Colonel’ Tom Parker also changed and adapted the image as Elvis became older and pushed him into a film career where he took increasingly wholesome parts that appealed to older audiences too (and to his original youthful audience as they like Elvis got older) – and eventually he headlined to affluent and middle aged audiences at Vegas shows and was photographed with the President.

It is important for an artist to have the right image as it can be said that the image is more important than the quality of sound in the case of an artist or musician that sound-wise is similar to others in the same genre. With Steve Jones discussing “Wicked Lester didn't need to improve their musicianship expotenially to go from unknown bar band to world-dominating rock band. They did, however need to differentiate themselves in a substantial way to become KISS. KISS is living proof that a brand's unique image is more important than a brand's level of quality.” Jones, S. (2011).

By the time the Beatles and their manager Brian Epstein came on the scene Elvis had set the model and like him the Beatles quickly diversified their brand into films (although Beatles films were far quirkier and more inventive than the very formulaic romantic movies Elvis found himself contracted to appear in) and made a lot of secondary revenue and promotion with Andrea Shaw claiming that The Beatles “set the standard for the various types of films (and music videos) made by rock groups” Shaw, A. (1996).

For instance the Beatles in 1965 released the comedy/musical film Help! which was a major box office success, the album Help! which was #1 in LP charts, the #1 singles Help and Ticket to Ride - and performed the album in the set list for their famous 1965 US Tour where for the first time a pop band were able to fill sports stadiums.

It has also been stated in regards to The Beatles that “their films were vital in communicating and showcasing the group's ever-changing array of images, attitudes, ideas and musical styles.” Neaverson, (2000). A similar view is that The Beatles “fame coincided with an expansion of global media (Gripsrud 2002)” King, M. (2013). and that this would have contributed to their global fame. Another report states that “Hoberman (2003) outlines the relationship between US politics, social change and a number of films produced in the 1960's.” King, M. (2013). Suggesting once again that the Beatles branding helped them to achieve this ideal of a dream life of the 1960s.

That the Beatles were able to break out of the Svengali mould and become globally successful counter-culture figures is not unrelated to the death of Brian Epstein in 1967 and them taking direct control over their own image and output with their own Apple label (and at one point an Apple store) – although without Epstein the band gradually fell out with each other and had broken up.

The Sex Pistols are another version of the Svengali model – their manager Malcolm MacLaren saw his new band as a whole multimedia and counter-culture package bringing together punk music, revolutionary situationist politics, film and fashion (his wife the famous designer Vivienne Westwood owning the SEX fashion shop in Chelsea where the band and its original fans hung out) and he had a genius for publicity and organising stunts which got them outraged attacks in newspapers and on TV that were worth far more in sales than any marketing campaign.

But MacLaren and the Sex Pistols soon fell out and the band broke up.

These three examples show I think a real tension between the desire of a Svengali manager to mould an artist into a successful brand and the artists need to rebel against that to assert their own identity as musicians and individuals – even in Elvis’s case while he kept his manager he relaunched his career as a pure performing artist rather than an actor who still released music albums, in the Beatles case they lost their manager and found eventually that they couldn’t agree a direction to go in without him, in the Sex Pistols case they rebelled against their manager and broke up shortly after.

Which I think is a big difference with normal branding where the products don’t generally have minds and ideas of their own and while Svengali managers like Simon Cowell are still very much with us modern music industry managers has to take a lot more account of artists own vision.

Branding Programs

The energy drink Jägermeister is a brand that has related itself as a rock and metal band, which is said to have become one of the biggest drink brands in the past few years due to “an intensive campaign in our beloved music scene.” Steven, L. (2009). Jägermeister have created local programs such as The Jager Uprising as an attempt to “engage with tastemakers in local music scenes in Australia's capital cities” Carah, N. (2010). Along with huge American and UK tours featuring the best acts of Rock and Metal music.

Musicians must be careful when choosing brands to work with, as musicians are now brands of their own right so must stay true to their own brands. “If done correctly, where there is a synergy between the brand and the band, it will no longer be seen as selling out for the musicians to team up with a commercial company now.” Williams, E. (2015).

It is believed that different advertisement campaigns and branding programs have begun to demonstrate “for consumers that making tunes is a meaningful part of their marketing DNA” Diaz, A. Pathak, S. (2013). Showing how branding programs have become hugely important not just in relation to an artists brand but also in the shaping of a companies brand.

American Express have become another brand in the past several years to have jumped on the idea of incorporating music into their branding. By integrating two different art forms; film and music to create a “livestream experience of concert performances by major musical acts.... with the brand bringing in notable directorial talents to shoot the shows.” Diaz, A. Pathak, S. (2013).

Revenue Streams

These branding programs are just one of the secondary revenue streams that artists are now utilising.

As said by Peyton Paxton; “many professional musicians know today, the key to making a living from their music is not by selling their songs; it is, increasingly, other revenue streams.” Paxton, P. (2010).

While record sales are on the decline, due to many consumers pirating music online, Paxton discusses the different ways in which an artist can get revenue despite the lack of sales. “Musicians can still sell concert tickets, t-shirts, and bumper stickers to fans. Musicians can also license performing rights to their songs to those who produce television shows, movies, and advertisements.” Paxton, P. (2010). This relates back to the usage of musicians sharing their brand with company brands for extra revenue and advertisement.

A further insight into licensing of performing rights comes from Kembrew McLeod and Peter DiCola in their discussion of a songwriter or musician licensing their music to be sampled in other songs. “The licensing of samples has two sides. While it has created complications and expenses for musicians who sample, the sample clearance system has also generated meaningful revenue for musicians who get sampled.” McLeod, K. DiCola, P. (2011).

Another revenue stream that can be utilised by musicians is the idea of the Superfan. “To stay relevant, modern musicians need to build a social fabric: they want as many people as possible talking about the same thing.” Gandhi, K. (2015). Messrs Cassidy and Sider along with many music industry peers say that “time is better spent using available technology to pursue super fans who have disposable income, are keen to spend it not just on products but on immersive experiences—like living-room performances—and have vast social networks that bands can tap into.” The Economist (2015). This is paving the way for musicians to create extra experiences for their fans, such as charging a little extra for pre-show acoustic sets, and for skype calls etc. As Social Media has given a realm of consumers that are constantly wanting more intimacy with a band.

Findings and Methods

The research methods used for this project are both qualitative and quantitative.

With qualitative referring to a method of analysis with data providing subjective results by gaining narrative data in a more descriptive way, through ways such as interviews and questionnaires. Whereas quantitative data refers to research findings that are obtained through numerical measurement and analysis. This results in objective results used to test the hypothesis and research objectives.

This project is based upon secondary research, meaning all research has been conducted by a secondary source.

PRS for Music have released their statistics for brand investment into music for the years 2009 – 2012.

Their findings showed that in the year 2012 33.57% of investment went into Live Music Sponsorship, with examples such as Blackberry Summer Daze sponsoring 8 UK Festivals. Event Creation (the creation of custom experiential activity) investment was 10.40% for events such as the iTunes Festival. 4.74% went to Artist Endorsements which covers the use of image rights and appearances so that artists like One Direction can endorse specific brands/products/services like Pepsi. Followed by 10.47% in creating “specific music-focused digital and mobile activities, as stand-alone platforms or within wider music campaigns” PRS (2013). 23.65% in TV sponsorship on either music specific or music focussed TV programmes and ad-funded TV activity like Volkswagen's 'Abbey Road' C4 program. The final 23.27% was on advertising support using “above the line (ATL) advertising and Below The Line (BTL) promotions to support existing music campaigns” PRS (2013).

PRS (2013).

This shows the spend that goes into brand investment on a year by year basis and how this has changed in each channel. The next question is whether this branding is worth it in regards to the music industry and how it affects the companies that sponsor each section.

Jennifer Rowley and Catrin Williams (2008) researched into the impact that brand sponsorship of music festivals has upon a companies branding.

They questioned 138 respondents between the ages of 16 – 35, with 60% of the respondents being 16-21 years. The respondents had eclectic music tastes, with a mixture of males and females among different locations of the UK. Around 85% of their respondents were students. They found that when “Respondents were asked whether sponsorship had affected their brand awareness (Table II). The average response lies between “some” and “very little”, which suggests that overall that respondents acknowledge some small impact on brand awareness,” Rowley, J. Williams, C. (2008). Although despite this they say that 73% of the respondents were able to correctly identify the sponsor of the most recent festival they attended and they believe that the responses to Table VI. suggests that “sponsors have been successful in weaving brands into the consumers’ experience of the entertainment” Rowley, J. Williams, C. (2008).

Rowley, J. Williams, C. (2008).

Another research project by Iveta Karailievová also discusses how music can lend itself to the marketability of consumerist companies. After questioning 102 respondents they found that 89% considered jingles to be an effective advertising tool, concluding that “The usage of music and jingles in marketing has proven to be of importance. It helps to create the products or brands image and it also helps together with all of the other marketing tools to promote the product and to make it memorable for the consumers.” Karailievová, I. (2012).

Rethink Music discusses their findings after attending a discussion by brand and label representatives from companies such as Nike, Pepsi, and the beggars group. The discussion was regarding the relationship between Music and Brands and how this has created a new vibrant ecosystem of brands and music. He found that “Panelists agreed there is no “one size fits all” model for brands working with artists and bands. Complementary partnerships are borne of common goals, such as Converse’s open-to-all, free of charge Rubber Track recording studio. Known as the go-to sneaker brand of choice for punks and rockers for decades, the brand opened recording studios to support independent and developing acts, strengthening their image as an alternative, youthful company.” Rethink Music. (2013).

Outside of revenue from other company brands, a musician being a brand in their own right can bring in further revenue streams if they are able to understand their own brand and what their fans want from them.

Kristin Thomson interviewed a number of different full time musicians and found that each of them have an understanding of their particular personal or band related brand. With a hard rock band saying that they were “seeing the value in limited edition merchandise, only sold at specific shows or via their own website. Not only was it making them more money, but they were increasing their connection with fans.” Thomson, K. (2012). They also found that “some managers and attorneys talked about the differences in opportunity by genre, especially about unique ability of rap and hip hop artists to forge these relationships.” Thomson, K. (2012).

They also found that much of the branding income comes from foundation, state, or federal grants, but that a fair amount also comes from fan funding in the form of campaigns such as kickstarter.

Thomson, K. (2012).

One of the differences however between an artist and the companies they create deals with, is that a company has a hard time changing their branding overnight. Whereas artists like Miley Cyrus can stage events that will instantaneously change the way they are branded.

William Arruda has analysed the changed in Miley Cyrus' sales and social networking figures after her much talked about performance at the 2013 VMA awards, where she rid herself of her brand as Disney sweetheart and through the racy performance managed to create a new wild brand for herself. In the week following the performance, Cyrus had sold 90,000 digital downloads of her record 'Wrecking Ball', had a rise of twitter activity by 112%, and had 226,273 new Facebook fans and 213,104 new Twitter followers.

Arruda concluded that “Most of all, this episode on the VMA was the rocket fuel that has propelled her new career into the stratosphere. Disney’s branding power is monumental; it takes rocket fuel to overcome that kind of gravity.” Arruda, W. (2013).

The evidence from these secondary sources demonstrates how important it is for a musician to be able to understand either their existing audience or the audience that they are attempting to gain in order for them to create a structured brand and marketing scheme which will target these audiences.

Another area that has widely affected the music industry, thus leaving the industry with needs for new branding opportunities and revenue streams is the introduction of easily accessible internet.

Emiko Terazono has noted the analysis of Enders Analysis who noted that between 2000 and 2006 there has been a steady decline in album sales. They concluded that "The labels' business model is at a very uncomfortable juncture” Enders, (2007). With music companies beginning to look at share revenues from tv performances, tours, film licenses, and merchandising – with Warner creating a shared revenue deal with My Chemical Romance where they “brought in video content experts in order to benefit from digital downloads of music videos, and has also created a 50/50 joint venture with a telecoms company in South Korea, sharing revenue from ringtone sales.” Terazono, E. (2007).

Marketing Week have also discussed the change in revenue due to the digital era, suggesting that

“With the music industry locked in flux as its business model erodes as a result of the rise of digital media, brands are getting into bands as never before, and creating a new kind of "record company" Marketing Week. (2008).

They believe this is done by trying to create a middle ground between both the companies and the bands that create brand deals so as both will stick to their brand values. With Marketing Week quoting the chief executive of Brand Amp as saying "It is within the brand's interest to be part of something inspirational and creative rather than a situation where they dictate the output in a contrived manner... Apple's guidelines didn't seem to hinder the success of U2 with the iPod partnership," Brunini, G. (2008).

Conclusion

As history has shown us, branding has been crucial to the music industry for a long period of time, however the ways the music industry uses branding has changed over the years.

One of these changes is due to the change in revenue streams. As we have seen, artists are now beginning to utilise different and new revenue streams. The reason this has become such a necessity now is due to the decline in record sales. In 2004 there were 163.4m albums sold in the UK, whereas ten years later in 2014 there was only “a total albums sales market of 86.9m units, of which digital albums claim 34.1% and physical albums claim 65.9%.” Ingham, T. (2015).

Much of this drop in sales is due to the accessibility of free music online. Whether this be by those who use online pirating sites such as the recently closed down Pirate Bay, or due to those who consume their music through free options such as Youtube and Freemium services such as Spotify.

Although Spotify as a streaming service does pay into the recorded music industry through their premium paid service, there are still many users who will happily listen to advertisements in between songs in order to get free consumption.

What this research project has shown in regards to Miley Cyrus' re-branding is that it does appear to be more important from a revenue position for an artist to be more marketable than talented as having an artist such as Lady Gaga who has such a strong personality and creative style allows for creative brands to share her fan base in their advertising. Where artists like Gaga are concerned, they can create a strong structure of how best each company can help their own musical brand, for example “Starbucks, known for their easy-listening selections, is not only selling Gaga’s new album, but has organized a digital scavenger hunt to help with album promotion. And Zynga, known for their popular game Farmville, has dedicated a mini game to Gaga, entitled Gagaville.” Gyasi, K. (2012) - plus she has now been cast by Ryan Murphy (who as the producer of ‘Glee’ well understands how important music is to regaining a youthful audience for TV) in his cult TV series American Horror Story which diversifies her brand into a whole new media and associates it with the brands of Murphy, the FX Network and Fox Entertainment.

With the reduction in reliability of sales in the music industry, artists have really begun to rely upon the importance of becoming a sought after brand in order to create opportunities for secondary revenue streams.

Allowing artists to sell their brand to another brand in the way of celebrity endorsements. With brands such as the heavily music infused shoe brand Converse using musicians such as Billie Joe Armstrong in their advertisement campaigns, along with also creating “an innovation in musical marketing” Nagy, E. (2014). in the way of their Converse Rubber Tracks Studio, providing free recording studio time to independent artists. Along with similarly music infused energy drink brand Redbull who host/sponsor music events such as the Red Bull Culture Clash, which recently gave a huge amount of exposure to rap collectives BBK, A$AP Mob, Rebel Sound, and Stone Love in the way of rap battles across the UK.

Despite the decline in record sales, we have also seen that record labels have tried to use these secondary revenue streams in order to put more money back into the recording industry. In order to do this 360 deals were incorporated into new recording contracts involving “artists sharing every type of income stream they generate, whether it is from the sale of recordings, songs, live performances, merchandising, sponsorship or endorsements.” Marsh, D. (2015).

Opportunities for artists to use their own ideas to help brand themselves were also created after a change in managing style, where more personal managers have begun allowing their artists have more creative control over their music, style etc. Meaning that despite Svengali managers and artists still being around, such as the way that One Direction have been put together and structured, we now also have a dominance from self-made brands once again like Lady Gaga – who has her own creative production team under the name of Haus of Gaga who work with her creative ideas to style everything from her personal look to her set design.

The objectives of this project were to discover if consumerist companies and musicians can work well together to affect one another's brands, whether branding has only recently been a new thing in the industry, and whether it is more important for an artist to be talented or marketable.

This project has addressed that if brands find a middle ground that suits both brands, then musicians and music can be lent to over brands as a successful way to increase sales for both parties. Although if this is not carefully structured a band can be in trouble for 'selling out' in the way that Johnny Rotten was accused of by press and Sex Pistols fans with news articles stating things like “One-time punk pin-up and sometime anarchist John Lydon has mellowed further into middle age by starring in a £5m TV campaign for Country Life butter.” Sweney, M. (2008). We have also discovered that if done correctly, artists can make a lot of extra revenue by doing advertisements and deals such as these.

Through looking at the literature regarding Svengali managers and the management of artists like Elvis and The Beatles in the 50s/60s it has also become clear that branding is not something that is only just affecting the industry, but has actually been a big part of the music industry for at least 60 years now. Although we have discovered that due to the advancements in technology, and cultural and economic changes – the extent in which branding is used in relation to music has changed and progressed over time, specifically in the past 15 years.

The objective which I struggled to find prior research or literature into was the topic of talent vs marketability, we can understand that it is important in a progressive industry where social media has become the biggest way for artists and labels to discover critiques about the music or brand they are putting out.

“Measuring online conversation not only provides insight into the popularity of an artist, using measurements such as uplift in buzz, but sentiment breakdown and the level of audience engagement also assists labels to understand the impact of marketing efforts – has the launch resonated with the right people on the right channels what can they learn for future releases” Franklin, K. (2013).

We can make assumptions that record labels and artist managers are looking for a more marketable artist, who already has a bit of a following, and a unique brand surrounding them already in order to fine tune, but unless more research is made it is hard to tell whether this is an accurate assumption.

Overall the conclusion for this research project would be that it is extremely important in such a progressive time for not only artists and music business professionals, but also ordinary businesses to understand how to correctly create a brand. With the fast-pace of the internet generation it is vitally important to understand exactly how to target the right brands, and to always have a focus in every deal made as to how this will effect the brand in a whole. As knowing your brand will not only help draw in the correct ad campaigns etc., but will also stop any fans from being alienated and turned away from the musician as a 'product'.

References

Franklin, K. (2013). Social Media is Revolutionising the Music Industry. Available: http://www.brandwatch.com/2013/08/social-media-the-music-industry/. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Paxson, P (2010). Mass Communications and Media Studies: An Introduction. NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Carah, N (2010). Pop Brands: Branding, Popular Music, and Young People. NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Lieb, K (2013). Gender, Branding, and the Modern Music Industry. NY: Routledge.

Crosley, H. (2008). Billboard. Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AhQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=importance+of+branding+in+music&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jazKVKeKAcW57gaJoIC4AQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=branding&f=false. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Benkovic, A. (2013). Nontraditional Branding: The Future of the Music Industry?. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-benkovic/nontraditional-branding_b_4268647.html?. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Hampp, A.. (2013). Advertising Week: 12 Music Industry Predictions for 2014. Available: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/branding/5740611/advertising-week-12-music-industry-predictions-for-2014. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Music Industry. (2015). MUSIC MARKETING. Available: http://www.musicindustry.ie/music-marketing/. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

WeLikeArtists. (2015). SHOULD ARTISTS ‘BRAND’ THEMSELVES?.Available: http://www.welikeartists.com/index.php/2014-03-03-12-50-32/item/408-can-artists-brand-themselves.html. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Bury, D. (2015). Is it true that Santa traditionally wears red because of Coca Cola?. Available: http://www.coca-colaanswers.co.uk/en/qtile.html/rumours/is-it-true-that-santa-traditionally-wear-red-because-of-coca-coal/. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Business Dictionary. (2015). Branding. Available: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/branding.html. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Hammond, J (2011). Branding Your Business. london: Kogan Page.

Jackson, D. Jankovich, R. Sheinkop, E. (2013). Hit Brands: How Music Builds Value for the World's Smartest Brands. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Sanders, M. (2002). Singing Machines: Boy Bands and the struggle for Artistic Legitimacy. Available: http://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Sanders-20-3.pdf. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Torelli, C (2013). Globalization, Culture, and Branding. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith, E (2013). The Elvis Presley Handbook - Everything you need to know about Elvis Presley. .: Emereo Publishing.

Baladi, J (2011). The Brutal Truth About Asian Branding: And How to Break the Vicious Cycle. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Shaw, A (1996). Seen That, Now What?. USA: Fireside

King, M (2013). Men, Masculinity and the Beatles. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. 

Reading Rocks (2009). Rock 'n' Roll High School.

Williams, E. (2015). Chase & Status on musicians working with brands.Available: http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2015/march/chase-status-on-musicians-working-with-brands. Last accessed 4th May 2015. Williams, E. (2015). Chase & Status on musicians working with brands.Available: http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2015/march/chase-status-on-musicians-working-with-brands. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Jones, S (2012). Brand Like a Rock Star. Texas: Greenleaf Book Group Press.

PsPrint. (2015). Music Marketing: Branding. Available: https://www.psprint.com/resources/musician-marketing-branding/. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Pathak, S. Diaz, A.. (2013). 10 Brands That Made Music Part of Their Marketing DNA. Available: http://adage.com/article/special-report-music-and-marketing/licensing-10-brands-innovating-music/244336/. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Economist. (2015). Super fantasy. Available: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/04/music-industry. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Rowley, J. Williams, C. (2008). "The impact of brand sponsorship of music festivals", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 26 Iss: 7, pg.781 – 792.

Karailievová, I. (2012). “Impact of Songs and Jingles Used in Advertising on Brand and Product Awareness”. pg. 1 – 8.

Rethink Music. (2013). “New Business Models in the Music Industry”. Pg 3 – 40.

PRS For Music. (2013). “UK Spend in Music”. Available: http://www.prsformusic.com/aboutus/press/Documents/FRUKT_PRS%20Report.pdf. Last accessed 4^th May 2015.

Thomson, K. (2012). MIDEM: Bands, Brands and Revenue. Available: http://money.futureofmusic.org/the-new-power-trio-bands-brands-and-revenue/. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

Arruda, W. (2013). Miley Cyrus: Revolutionary Branding. Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamarruda/2013/09/05/miley-cyrus-revolutionary-branding/. Last accessed 4th May 2015.

TERAZONO, E., 2007, Apr 09. Record labels dance to tune of the internet Online access to recordings is forcing traditional music companies to look for alternative revenue streams, writes Emiko Terazono. Financial Times, 22. ISSN 03071766.

THE MUSIC INDUSTRY: And the brand plays on. 2008. Marketing Week, , pp. 20-21.

Ingham, T. (2015). UK DIGITAL ALBUM SALES FALL FOR FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. Available: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/uk-digital-album-sales-fall-first-time-history/. Last accessed 5th May 2015.

MyUberLife-NYC. (2012). The Business of Music: Lady Gaga’s Promotional Push | Music’s New Business Model Has Officially Arrived.Available: http://myuberlife.com/post/6119552829/the-business-of-music-lady-gagas-promotional. Last accessed 5th May 2015.

Jones, S. (2012). UK music sales decline for seventh successive year despite downloads. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/02/uk-music-sales-decline-2011. Last accessed 5th May 2015.

Marsh, D. (2015). AIM JOURNAL - 360 DEGREE DEALS – A LABEL PERSPECTIVE . Available: http://www.musicindie.com/news/1270. Last accessed 5th May 2015.

Nagy, E. (2014). HOW CONVERSE SUPPORTS MUSICIANS WITHOUT THE BRAND-SPONSOR ICK FACTOR. Available: http://www.fastcompany.com/3028602/most-creative-people/how-converse-supports-musicians-without-the-brand-sponsor-ick-factor. Last accessed 5th May 2015.

Sweney, M. (2008). Sex Pistols singer John Lydon flies the flag for butter in TV ad. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/01/advertising.television. Last accessed 5th May 2015.