I totally agree in that this wasn't a 'musical' movement in that the core product – a music single – and how it is marketed has been altered or changed by this campaign (in a traditional marketing sense), or that it can be replicated for other singles or artists in the future … It's evident that this would be very hard to do and is dependent on so many other factors. Most importantly it happened in real time and was about being real.

In essence the implications for marketing of music (or any product offering for that matter) begs the very question you raise – what is it that is in fact being purchased, consumed, endorsed or promoted through e-WOM. It's not just about a tangible product like a CD, or even a digital product like a music single, as you say, it's the idea, attitude or position that is being purchased, consumed and/or promoted. This is something marketers have for years based many marketing campaigns on. You don't just buy Nike shoes – you also buy what they represent – an attitude or representation of your sporting prowess. Or sponsoring a child through World Vision – you are not just helping a child through a monthly financial transaction, you are buying the feeling/emotion of being selfless and giving. Or the Apple MacBook – is it a computer you are purchasing, or an innovative, creative and trendy attitude towards information processing and networked communications.

In essence the RATM campaign has implications for how the music industry see's the nature of what it is in fact selling and how it produces, manufactures and positions it's product offering. For too long consumers have been at the hands of music executives and music labels – be it Sony, Virgin, and how they control the music industry – what we hear, buy, how we buy it and what is and isn't ranked in the charts. For upcoming artists, it poses a difficult road.

As such this campaign has implications for how key players and executives in the music industry regard what consumers value and want from them, therefore what they produce and market. In essence, it is about being 'REAL' – not manufactured, controlled or mass produced.

Hence, 1 million active and interested people who placed increased value on 'Being Real' and a music single that represented this (it might not have been as successful if the single chosen didn't represent these values), WON against a staggering 19 million passive TV viewers who while being entertained, didn't place enough value on what in fact the music being played represented.

Thanks again for posting and raising one of the core marketing implications of these campaign – evolution in what is valued and how we, consumers, like to be treated!

Smiles
Kelly

I totally agree in that this wasn't a 'musical' movement in that the core product – a music single – and how it is marketed has been altered or changed by this campaign (in a traditional marketing sense), or that it can be replicated for other singles or artists in the future … It's evident that this would be very hard to do and is dependent on so many other factors. Most importantly it happened in real time and was about being real.

In essence the implications for marketing of music (or any product offering for that matter) begs the very question you raise – what is it that is in fact being purchased, consumed, endorsed or promoted through e-WOM. It's not just about a tangible product like a CD, or even a digital product like a music single, as you say, it's the idea, attitude or position that is being purchased, consumed and/or promoted. This is something marketers have for years based many marketing campaigns on. You don't just buy Nike shoes – you also buy what they represent – an attitude or representation of your sporting prowess. Or sponsoring a child through World Vision – you are not just helping a child through a monthly financial transaction, you are buying the feeling/emotion of being selfless and giving. Or the Apple MacBook – is it a computer you are purchasing, or an innovative, creative and trendy attitude towards information processing and networked communications.

In essence the RATM campaign has implications for how the music industry see's the nature of what it is in fact selling and how it produces, manufactures and positions it's product offering. For too long consumers have been at the hands of music executives and music labels – be it Sony, Virgin, and how they control the music industry – what we hear, buy, how we buy it and what is and isn't ranked in the charts. For upcoming artists, it poses a difficult road.

As such this campaign has implications for how key players and executives in the music industry regard what consumers value and want from them, therefore what they produce and market. In essence, it is about being 'REAL' – not manufactured, controlled or mass produced.

Hence, 1 million active and interested people who placed increased value on 'Being Real' and a music single that represented this (it might not have been as successful if the single chosen didn't represent these values), WON against a staggering 19 million passive TV viewers who while being entertained, didn't place enough value on what in fact the music being played represented.

Thanks again for posting and raising one of the core marketing implications of these campaign – evolution in what is valued and how we, consumers, like to be treated!

Smiles
Kelly

I totally agree in that this wasn't a 'musical' movement in that the core product – a music single – and how it is marketed has been altered or changed by this campaign (in a traditional marketing sense), or that it can be replicated for other singles or artists in the future … It's evident that this would be very hard to do and is dependent on so many other factors. Most importantly it happened in real time and was about being real.

In essence the implications for marketing of music (or any product offering for that matter) begs the very question you raise – what is it that is in fact being purchased, consumed, endorsed or promoted through e-WOM. It's not just about a tangible product like a CD, or even a digital product like a music single, as you say, it's the idea, attitude or position that is being purchased, consumed and/or promoted. This is something marketers have for years based many marketing campaigns on. You don't just buy Nike shoes – you also buy what they represent – an attitude or representation of your sporting prowess. Or sponsoring a child through World Vision – you are not just helping a child through a monthly financial transaction, you are buying the feeling/emotion of being selfless and giving. Or the Apple MacBook – is it a computer you are purchasing, or an innovative, creative and trendy attitude towards information processing and networked communications.

In essence the RATM campaign has implications for how the music industry see's the nature of what it is in fact selling and how it produces, manufactures and positions it's product offering. For too long consumers have been at the hands of music executives and music labels – be it Sony, Virgin, and how they control the music industry – what we hear, buy, how we buy it and what is and isn't ranked in the charts. For upcoming artists, it poses a difficult road.

As such this campaign has implications for how key players and executives in the music industry regard what consumers value and want from them, therefore what they produce and market. In essence, it is about being 'REAL' – not manufactured, controlled or mass produced.

Hence, 1 million active and interested people who placed increased value on 'Being Real' and a music single that represented this (it might not have been as successful if the single chosen didn't represent these values), WON against a staggering 19 million passive TV viewers who while being entertained, didn't place enough value on what in fact the music being played represented.

Thanks again for posting and raising one of the core marketing implications of these campaign – evolution in what is valued and how we, consumers, like to be treated!

Smiles
Kelly

X-factor is entertaining, and it dominates Saturday night TV viewing for a lot of people. It's an incredibly polished PR machine for the eventual winner, and no one involved in the TV industry saw this coming – how could it? But it did. HOWEVER, let's look at what was being sold…

RATM's “Killing in the name” is a classic rebel song – “Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me” is a great lyric for sticking it to the man. It wasn't the song, but the sentiment that was being sold – a way of saying something we could all agree with – we DON'T like our culture being overwhelming schmaltzy sentimentalism synthetically created on a production line – it lacks authenticity. The same thing happened in 1976 when punk destroyed glam rock, the early 80's when Joy Division and the Smiths ploughed the future of indie music in the face of dire happy-happy pop and in 1990 when acid house gave a whole new meaning to the idea of a party. It's a reaction to dreadful, industry dominated periods in music history when shallow marketing execs dominate – bringing grass roots creativity, raw nerves, chaos and raw emotion back into the room.

Only now, there's no (musical) movement behind this – just a new form of media, that enables people to talk to each other – and a good idea can take off virally. So we all wanted to buy our own middle finger to stick up to the industry that dominates the charts. The choice of song was genius – it was a Ronseal promise – buy this and the can say “fuck you” directly to Simon Cowell. It was also interesting to see how almost all of the mainstream broadcast media saw this as a hostile attack and completely failed to understand the popularity and grass roots nature of the campaign.

How does this translate into the marketing futures of music – not sure, but it's not a classic case study of selling music online – it wasn't the music that was being sold – it was the attitude and the statement. I'm not sure how often people will be able to do this using social networks, and I'm sure that the average artist trying to sell their song wouldn't be able to replicate it.

But: 19 million vs 1 million – and the 1 million won – through using much smarter many to many communications technology. It certainly represents a moment in the history of media when the internet proved it's power in the face of old one way broadcast technology. And that is really very significant.