Filed under: Bad news, Rumors, Products and services, Conventions and conferences, Marketing and advertising, Media World

December has not been very kind to music company EMI Group PLC (OTC: EMIPY) and its new owners, the private equity group Terra Firma, led by Guy Hands. The company has come under fire from former artists like Paul McCartney and Radiohead, and it is now rumored that current artist Robbie Williams is looking to go elsewhere after the release of his next album.

Paul McCartney, that famous Beatle, recorded with EMI for 45 years before ditching the label earlier this year to sign a one-album deal with Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) Hear Music label, then a new creation. McCartney came out last week and vented his dissatisfaction with EMI, though his comments were about the company before Terra Firma purchased a majority holding. In an interview with The Times, the former Beatle “accused EMI of being unimaginative” in the demands that he market the album by speaking to multiple journalists and giving EMI at least six months to market the album. McCartney also bashed the excessive time for marketing by comparing his situation to former band mate John Lennon’s success at releasing a song in 1970 within a week of recording it. Reportedly, Guy Hands concurs with these sentiments about EMI under former CEO Eric Nicoli, but that does not change the fact that artists since the takeover have voiced similar concerns.

In the same queue, Radiohead has now come out slamming Terra Firma’s policies and pushes at EMI since the takeover. If you remember, Radiohead created quite a stir in the music industry, the blogging world, and news outlets, after announcing in early October to immediately release In Rainbows, the band’s seventh album, as a digital download first. Since then, the band has signed deals to release the album physically as a CD, but not with the band’s longtime label EMI. The band’s guitarist Ed O’Brien recently gave an interview to BBC “claiming that [Terra Firma] don’t understand the music industry.” Apparently, EMI was the band’s first choice to release the album, but the new owners were unwilling to give the band what they wanted, and “didn’t comprehend where a band like us sat on a label like EMI, so they weren’t able to give us what we needed.” Front man Thom Yorke mirrored these sentiments commenting, “now you’re in a situation with private equity firms, [Terra Firma] looks at music as something to buy and then sell on.”
It is that statement that speaks directly to the disarray the music industry seems to be trapped in, and that is not because all the companies are owned/managed by private equity firms. The connection between that sentiment and the delay in the music companies realizing that anti-piracy software might have injured sales is obvious. The Digital Rights Management technology is an apparent harmful tactic the labels have taken to prevent consumers, fans from enjoying and sharing music. Unfortunately, that aspect of music is probably the one that the labels should have tried to exploit, rather than selling tracks that consumers couldn’t easily share with one another.

Therefore, the success of Radiohead’s ploy is very meaningful. Not only can fans easily share the new album, but the band effectively shared the album with its fans, giving it to them via the “pay-what-you-want” scheme long before the CD before available. If that’s not instant gratification, or acknowledgment of the importance of fans, I don’t know what is.

Although it is a shame to see EMI under attack like this, especially in light of the fact that the label was the first to fully drop the use of DRM technology, it isn’t impossible to overlook the statements by major artists. They might have more options in the record industry, but if they can push change and succeed, it opens more doors for emerging and potential artists in the future.

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Bad news, Rumors, Products and services, Conventions and conferences, Marketing and advertising, Media World

December has not been very kind to music company EMI Group PLC (OTC: EMIPY) and its new owners, the private equity group Terra Firma, led by Guy Hands. The company has come under fire from former artists like Paul McCartney and Radiohead, and it is now rumored that current artist Robbie Williams is looking to go elsewhere after the release of his next album.

Paul McCartney, that famous Beatle, recorded with EMI for 45 years before ditching the label earlier this year to sign a one-album deal with Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) Hear Music label, then a new creation. McCartney came out last week and vented his dissatisfaction with EMI, though his comments were about the company before Terra Firma purchased a majority holding. In an interview with The Times, the former Beatle “accused EMI of being unimaginative” in the demands that he market the album by speaking to multiple journalists and giving EMI at least six months to market the album. McCartney also bashed the excessive time for marketing by comparing his situation to former band mate John Lennon’s success at releasing a song in 1970 within a week of recording it. Reportedly, Guy Hands concurs with these sentiments about EMI under former CEO Eric Nicoli, but that does not change the fact that artists since the takeover have voiced similar concerns.

In the same queue, Radiohead has now come out slamming Terra Firma’s policies and pushes at EMI since the takeover. If you remember, Radiohead created quite a stir in the music industry, the blogging world, and news outlets, after announcing in early October to immediately release In Rainbows, the band’s seventh album, as a digital download first. Since then, the band has signed deals to release the album physically as a CD, but not with the band’s longtime label EMI. The band’s guitarist Ed O’Brien recently gave an interview to BBC “claiming that [Terra Firma] do not comprehend the music industry.” Apparently, EMI was the band’s first choice to release the album, but the new owners were unwilling to give the band what they wanted, and “didn’t understand where a band like us sat on a label like EMI, so they weren’t able to give us what we needed.” Front man Thom Yorke mirrored these sentiments commenting, “now you’re in a situation with private equity firms, [Terra Firma] looks at music as something to buy and then sell on.”
It is that statement that speaks directly to the disarray the music industry seems to be trapped in, and that is not because all the companies are owned/managed by private equity firms. The connection between that sentiment and the delay in the music companies realizing that anti-piracy software might have injured sales is obvious. The Digital Rights Management technology is an apparent harmful tactic the labels have taken to prevent consumers, fans from enjoying and sharing music. Unfortunately, that aspect of music is probably the one that the labels should have tried to exploit, rather than selling tracks that consumers couldn’t easily share with one another.

Therefore, the success of Radiohead’s ploy is very meaningful. Not only can fans easily share the new album, but the band effectively shared the album with its fans, giving it to them via the “pay-what-you-want” scheme long before the CD before available. If that’s not instant gratification, or acknowledgment of the importance of fans, I don’t know what is.

Although it is a shame to see EMI under attack like this, especially in light of the fact that the label was the first to fully drop the use of DRM technology, it is not impossible to overlook the statements by major artists. They might have more options in the record industry, but if they have the ability to push change and succeed, it opens more doors for emerging and potential artists in the future.

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Rumors, Coca-Cola (KO), Marketing and advertising

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. But no, The Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) didn’t invent him.

It’s hard to argue that Coke’s advertising over the years hasn’t left a big imprint on the American psyche. It’s one of the America’s signature brands, after all. The Real Thing. Indeed, it’s long been rumored that Coke was behind the jolly red and white suit worn by Santa Claus.

Artist Haddon Sundblom was commissioned to create a huge, jovial, pink-cheeked Santa for Coca-Cola ads. He did, and that image of Santa ran in 42 ads on billboards and in magazines from 1931 to
1964, cementing the image of a red-and-white-clad Santa for several generations of Americans.

Coke conspiracy theorists point out that in the 19th century, Saint Nick was a leaner, rather dour fellow, who in fact was often depicted in greens and browns. The rumor that corporate Coke had created our image of Santa Claus has been circulating on the internets for several years. But Coca-Cola denies it had accomplished anything so insidious, even though on its own website, the company admits that the modern-day image of Santa Claus was shaped largely thanks to its holiday-season advertising campaigns over the years.

“The fact that red was our corporate color was just a happy coincidence,” Coca-Cola archivist Phil Mooney told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The fact that millions of us can easily conjure up a Jolly Santa holding a frosty bottle of Coke is simply brand marketing at it’s very finest.

Share This

Share This