What is the real relationship between an artist, their music and a brand? How can we separate an artist 's individual brand from the music they create and which is of greatest value when aligning with a 'corporate' brand?
Though so many music choices are made according to their popularity, artists are the least important component in the sonic branding mix.
At the top of the hierarchy is the corporate brand - they monetize the whole transaction through their clients, they pay the bills. Understanding the business of the brand - how it makes profits from its customer transactions - is the primary task in sonic branding.
Next in line comes the music. The definition of the notes on the page - and the ownership of them - defines how successful the exercise will be...this is a hits business same as any other in entertainment (a nuance for another day).
Last in line is the artist. They are cheap(ish), largely expendable and (usually) only of short term value - can you name a long term artist/brand association?
Where artists work well in a sonic branding sense are launches and PR - reference Justin Timberlake for McDs or U2 for iTunes - but don't look for long term dividends from artist involvement...they probably won't materialise.
So unless Amy starts writing music for Fred Perry (and why not?), as well as designing clothes, we can all dismiss this as just another celeb / fashion tie up with a short shelf life and nothing whatsoever to do with sonic branding. Sorry for wasting your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment