Run DMC liked to keep their product endorsements on the downlow
A few weeks ago a press release landed in my inbox, promoting Bebo's next online drama. According to the PR, it will be set amongst the real-life workings of Universal Music UK's west London headquarters. The producers will use cameos of real life Universal artists to bring "additional authenticity" - and some well targeted promotion for the artists, no doubt - to the show.
Financing for the project follows "Bebo's proven model of brand integration". Sony Ericsson is sponsoring, so "we can expect to see some clever references that integrate the brand or its other properties in to the show - whether it's Sam blagging his way out to an Ibiza Rocks with Sony Ericsson gig or simply winding his boss up with mobile phone-related pranks."
Now, product placement has been used in films for quite a while and some rap artists have even mentioned brands such as Adidas, Courvoisier and Motorola in their lyrics in return for sponsorship. But this blatant use of branding and product placement, which is becoming more and more prevalent, is starting to leave me with a slight bad taste in my mouth.
Yes, I do understand that, as revenues from record sales dwindle, labels and artists have to find new ways of making some sort of money - after all, I'm a musician myself and have many musician friends who are finding it hard to make a living these days. Some say there's an argument that music fans refusing to pay for music have "made their own bed" and will now have to get used to this practice.
But I'm also a thinking music lover who hates having big corporations force-feeding me advertising. And, as a working musician, I worry about the music industry alienating fans even more than it already has.
And herein lies the dilemma. What would you prefer, as a music consumer? Being force-fed advertising to be able to get your music for free, legally? Would you even tune in to a show like this on Bebo, or would the branding and product placement turn you off?
This dilemma doesn't only concern the music industry, as more and more people either download TV shows from the net or use Sky+ to fast-forward through the commercials (I must admit that I love that about Sky+). So now the TV stations and production companies have to figure out new ways to push products, and the advertising that pays for the programming, to the consumers. Product placement is an obvious option to them.
But music has, up until now, been able to operate outside of that kind of "sneaky" advertising, as artists and musicians have been able to make a living from the direct payment, by the music consumers, of the product they produce.
Incidentally, the head of content acquisition for the Bebo-sponsoring Sony Ericsson, Martin Blomkvist, suggested, at this years London Calling music convention, that mp3 device makers should get a cut of downloading revenue. His argument being that they need the money to develop tracking methods to be able to pay the artists per download. A hilarious (and ridiculous) suggestion in my book, since they wouldn't even be able to sell their mp3 devices if they didn't have any content.
Is the Bebo sponsoring-model the template for the future in the music industry? If so, how much of this sponsorship money will filter down to the artists? Will it all go into the "blackbox"? Maybe Run DMC and Busta Rhymes had it right when they mentioned Adidas and Courvoisier in their rhymes. At least they cut out the middleman and made sure they got a piece of the action.
