Celebrity Endorsements

Celebrities are always faced with a camera whether it be the paparazzi, a camera crew on a movie set or shooting their next celebrity endorsement deal. Celebrity endorsements have been used by almost any brand you can think of or any brand that you may use on a day-to-day basis. This type of endorsement is unique because it provides consumers with the powerful association of the celebrity to the product or the brand. According to Brand Communications in Fashion Categories Using Celebrity Endorsement by Angela Carroll “For the consumer, the brand functions as a means of identification, reduces search costs, effort and perceived risk, thereby facilitating a shortcut in decision making, and represents a guarantee of quality and reliability”. When a brand takes on a celebrity they generally are looking to use his or her fame and fan base to generate popularity for the brand or the new product of promotion. In addition to generating popularity celebrities also can help create particular images for a brand. These images can help market the product and will stick in the heads of the consumers and become memorable.

Just as the brand benefits from using a celebrity to serve as a positive image and spokesperson for a new product, celebrities also reap the benefits of the endorsement. Carroll writes in Brand Communications in Fashion Categories Using Celebrity Endorsement, “Celebrities can command large fees for celebrity endorsement contracts, making this an attractive and lucrative career dimension. The benefits of using celebrity endorsement to support a brand strategy can include increased attention, image polishing, brand introduction, brand repositioning and the potential to underpin global campaigns”. Celebrities may look to endorse a brand for an additional revenue stream and opportunity to make money beyond their traditional talent avenue. Endorsements are also a good idea for those celebrities struggling after a negative publicity stunt or bad performances. Endorsements strive to put the celebrity in a positive light, which is exactly what a celebrity may need if they are struggling with their image or stuck in a rut or some sort.

Two celebrities who have recently had success landing endorsement deals are Justin Timberlake, and Katie Holmes. Justin is an example of a celebrity who has taken control of his brand and Katie is the first celebrity endorser for a specific brand. Both are memorable celebrities who have positively impacted the brands and products that they represent.

As we have all seen Justin Timberlake has made the ultimate comeback with his newest album, “The 20/20 Experience”. The album according to Nielsen SoundScan sold 968,000 copies in its first week in stores. To promote his new album Timberlake partnered with Target to release an exclusive version of his CD featuring bonus tracks. According to an article, The Timberlake Brand, Carried Along on a Media Storm, in the New York Times, “Mr. Timberlake was in commercials for Bud Light Platinum and Target, and made a breathlessly promoted appearance at the Grammy Awards. ITunes streamed the album before its release, stoking huge advance sales. Then there were his performances around the Super Bowl and South by Southwest, his fifth time hosting “Saturday Night Live” and a full week as a guest on “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” (New York Times). As an entertainer who has been in the industry for many years Timberlake really knows what he is doing when it comes to his brand and promoting others.

In his partnership with Target he released an exclusive version of his CD with two bonus tracks. Not only did this draw the attention of his loyal fans to buy his CD at Target but it brought in much revenue for him as well. By encouraging people to buy his CD from target he is bringing in more revenue than those entertainers primarily selling music on iTunes and online. 

What is truly unique about Timberlake and his recent promotions is that he was appointed creative director at Bud Light Platinum to direct a new, classy black and white advertisement. According to Mashable, “The ad, which broke during the Grammys Sunday night, is the first to feature J.T. in his new role as Bud Light Platinum's creative director. That appointment came about a week after BlackBerry made Alicia Keys its creative director. Apparently, you can't be in with the kids these days unless you have a pop star calling the shots for your marketing” (Mashable). Although not all celebrities have the luxury of controlling their brand as Timberlake does, they certainly strive to be as successful as him.

A second celebrity who has become a familiar face for a brand is Katie Holmes partnering with Bobbi Brown cosmetics. According to multiple sources he actress signed a deal back in September 2012 with the cosmetic brand and will be the first celebrity face for Bobbi Brown Cosmetics. According to the New York Daily News, “Holmes, who’s been in the media’s spotlight since her high-profile split from actor Tom Cruise this summer, says she’s excited to work with the 21-year-old brand”. The actress must be excited to do something that makes new headlines and gets the attention off her recent headline-making divorce. As the first celebrity face for Bobbi Brown Cosmetics Katie Holmes will not be compared to any past celebrity endorsements for the brand, which is favorable for her. Her past fan base from Dawson’s Creek is sure to look into purchasing the cosmetics Holmes models in recent advertisements, which is always a plus for the brand. “The actress looks so effortlessly flawless that she definitely has us considering reaching for the Long-Wear Even Finish Compact Foundation she wears in the campaign”, E-Online writes about how easily the actress can persuade any to buy Bobbi Brown cosmetic products.

            Holmes made a smart business move by accepting a partnership with Bobbi Brown cosmetics in a new industry she has never been involved with before. Her timeless beauty helps the cosmetic company as well as markets herself as a happily divorced celebrity not afraid to take risks and take on new projects.

Both Justin Timberlake and Katie Holmes have used their fame and fortune to bring them even more fortune for their careers. Bud Light Platinum, Target and Bobbi Brown Cosmetics utilized the popularity of these two celebrities to increase the reputation of their own brand. Consumers will now associate the brand with the celebrity and continue to make that association for quite some time. We have gotten so used to viewing celebrities in the headlines for their entertainment success and now for endorsement deals. I don’t think there will ever come a time that we, as consumers, will encounter an advertisement or product that is celebrity free. What do you think? 

Works Cited

Carroll, Angela. "Brand Communications in Fashion Categories Using Celebrity Endorsement." Journal of Brand Management. N.p., 12 Sept. 2008. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.

Curiel, Rosie. "Katie Holmes' First Bobbi Brown Ad Revealed—See the Pretty Pic!" E! Online. E! Online, 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Murray, Rheana. "Katie Holmes Signs on to Be Face of Bobbi Brown Cosmetics, Makes First Public Appearance since Tom Cruise Split." NY Daily News. NY Daily News, 6 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

Sisario, Ben. "Justin Timberlake’s ‘20/20 Experience’ Album." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 29 Mar. 2013.

Wasserman, Todd. "Watch Justin Timberlake's First Ad for Bud Light." Mashable. Mashable, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

Paparazzi and Privacy

Raquel Doering

Celebrities are in the public eye and subject to gossip.  As a society, we enjoy learning about this gossip, thus creating an industry for the paparazzi and tabloid media.  While celebrities choose to put themselves in the public eye much more than the average person, sometimes the actions of the paparazzi are overwhelming and may invade the decreased amount of privacy a celebrity enjoys.  As a result, anti-paparazzi statutes are being created to offer celebrities more privacy and safety.

According to P. David Marshall’s “The Promotion and Presentation of the Self,” celebrity gossip functions as an “explanation of personality that went beyond [celebrities’] onscreen personae” because celebrities were revealing part of their private lives “to heighten the connection to an audience” (Marshall 428).  In other words, through celebrity gossip, celebrities became more relatable to the general public.  Also, celebrity gossip produces social order “through its representations of the problems and unhappiness of the rich and famous” (428) and can actually be considered “an extension of the uses of gossip in a community as a form of social control” (429).  Do you feel celebrity gossip makes celebrities more relatable?  Does society need this gossip?

Because of our societies interest in and dependence on celebrity gossip, “celebrities are under constant and regular surveillance” and thus their more mundane and personal activities are “the subject of a gaze” (Marshall 430).  The “gaze” that is provided by the paparazzi and distributed to various tabloid media “makes [celebrities’] often everyday activities a performance” (430).

The paparazzi have become extremely competitive and hence, can be overly invasive in their competition for the best footage or photograph of a celebrity.  According Lauren Effron’s “9 Memorable Celeb vs. Paparazzi Clashes,” we have witnessed nine recent “memorable clashes” between the paparazzi and celebrities.  Some incidents, such as the shaving of Britney Spear’s head, are unavoidable by the paparazzi (Effron).  However, there are incidents in which celebrities truly felt that their right to privacy was invaded and even felt threatened by the paparazzi. For incidence, when Kate Middleton’s topless pictures appeared in a French magazine, the royal family referred to the incident as "reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi” since the death of Princess Diana (Effron).  Furthermore, Justin Bieber made a 911 call for help and protection from the paparazzi after engaging in a car chase with the paparazzi to try to escape their intrusion (Effron).  What is your opinion of such incidents?

According to William J Seiter’s “A Celebrity’s Map to Right of Privacy, Publicity, and Trademark in the United States,” California was the first state to enact an anti-paparazzi statute in response to Princess Diana’s death and celebrity anger “over the reckless and obnoxious tactics of overaggressive photojournalists” (Seiter).  The statue specifically exempted a publisher from being held liable for “publishing an image it obtained from a paparazzi, as long as the publisher did not direct the violation” (Seiter).  However, the new anti-paparazzi law, signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and effective as of 2010 (Seiter), allows celebrities to “sue tabloids, televisions, and other media outlets who pay for and use material they know was improperly obtained in violation of a person’s right of privacy” (Seiter).

Paul Raef, the paparazzo involved with Justin Bieber’s car chase, was the first to be charged under the 2010 California anti-paparazzi statue, according to Julie Hilden’s “Can California’s Anti-Paparazzi Statue Survive a First Amendment Challenge?” (Hilden).  The statute attempts to stop the paparazzi from dangerous car chases in which they follow celebrities (Hilden).  The statue makes it a misdemeanor for a paparazzo to interfere with a drive, to follow a car too closely, and to drive recklessly “with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person for a commercial purpose….” (Hilden).  If a paparazzo is found guilty of this misdemeanor s/he can be sentenced to six months in jail and fined up to $2,500 (Hilden).

A trial court, asserting that the statute violated the first Amendment, dismissed the charges against Raef.  The California appellate court directed the trial judge to reconsider his ruling; however, the trial judge stood by his ruling.  The issue will now return to the appellate court for a full appeal (Hilden).  Do you think such anti-paparazzi statues are in accordance with or in violation of the First Amendment?

Thus, our society’s need for celebrity gossip has allowed the paparazzi and tabloid industries to flourish.  Because paparazzi are always in competition for the best footage or photographs of celebrities, their methods of collection can be slightly over-invasive to celebrities’ rights to privacy.  Some areas, such as California, are attempting to offer celebrities more protection against paparazzi with anti-paparazzi statues.  However, such statues are still in debate as to whether they are in accordance with or in violation of the First Amendment.

Works Cited

Effron, Lauren. “9 Memorable Celeb vs. Paparazzi Clashes.” abcNEWS. ABC News Internet Ventures, 18 Sept. 2012. Web 30 Mar. 2013.

Hilden, Julie. “Can California’s Anti-Paparazzi Statue Survive a First Amendment Challenge?” Verdict. Justia, 4 Mar. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

Marshall, David P. “The Promotion and Presentation of the Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media.” Celebrity Studies. Routledge, Jan. 2010. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

Seiter, William J. “A Celebrity’s Map to Rights of Privacy, Publicity, and Trademark in the United States.” The IP Litigaor, 16.6 (Nov/Dec 2010): 14-22. ProQuest. 30 Mar. 2013.

Reality TV Relationships with the Paparazzi

The celebrity-paparazzi relationship has always been questionable. Yes, it must be difficult to live your life under a public microscope and have millions of cameras zooming in on you at all times, however, I question if some celebrities expose too much of their personal life, inviting this constant scrutiny and attention? 

Celebrity reality TV shows have become extremely popular over the last few years. Celebrities claim they want to have an open relationship with their fans and allow them to see all aspects of their lives. Some of the most recent celebrity reality TV shows include: The Real Housewives, and all of their many seasons, Snooki and Jwow, Jon and Kate plus 8, later known as Kate plus 8, and of course, the infamous, Keeping Up with the Kardashians. The “celebrities” in these shows aim to act as they do in their everyday lives, pretending the camera is not even there. However, one of the first problems P. David Marshall discusses in his chapter, The Promotion and Presentation of the Self,” regarding the celebrity lifestyle, is the fact that they strive to lead a normal life, but often do not succeed. David states, “The gaze provided by the paparazzi and distributed to magazines, television programmes and on-line sites makes their often everyday activities a kind of performance to be read further” (Marshall, 430). He then dissects a study done by Erving Goffman, that examined the presentation of the self in a social setting. Goffman claims, “performance of the self is a conscious act of the individual and requires careful staging to maintain the self - a composed and norm-driven construction of character and performance” (Goffman 1959, cited in Marshall, 431). What do you think? Can you see the truth behind this “staging” in current celebrity reality TV shows?

One A-lister who is stepping forward to defend the claim that her families reality TV show is fake and scripted, is Kris Jenner, the matriarch of the Kardashian clan. Chloe Melas reflects on Kris Jenner’s appearance on The View, where she repeatedly denied any accusations of her families show being staged. In Chloe’s article,“Kris Jenner On ‘The View’: ‘Keeping Up With The Kardashians’ Isn’t Fake,” she recalls that anytime Kris was asked about certain scenes being staged or scripted, she firmly stated, “No Way!” (Melas). Kris also stated, “there is no chance any of this is scripted because there’s too much going on all the time to make this all up!” (Melas).  

So, if their show isnt’t fake, and all of the crazy and dramatic antics that happen inside of the Kardashian household aren’t all grand performances, then why all of the cries for help when the paparazzi come running to continue the exclusive look into their personal lives? Kim Kardashian has frequently blamed the fame and the paparazzi for her failed relationships. In an article, “Kim Kardashian blames paparazzi for ruining relationship with ex-boyfriend Reggie Bush,” the author, Samantha Greaves, remembers one particular episode of KUWTK, when Kim explained to her friend that the paparazzi constantly snapping photos of her and Reggie together and always following her around proved to be too much for Reggie who was much more reserved (Greaves).

Another celebrity who has suffered severe attention from the paparazzi, is Kate Gosselin, the mother of the famous twins and sextuplets. Kate has also been quoted standing up for her reality TV show, stating it is as real as it gets. Then why, if she is so willing to allow cameras to follow her and her family on a day to day basis, does she get so irritated when the paparazzi come to do the same thing? In a recent article by The Huffington Post, Kate is quoted, stating, “If I could minus that part it would be the best thing ever. And I will tell you why -- they are only harmful” (The Huffington Post). She continued to say, “They never post the truth so how is that helpful to me?” (The Huffington Post).

How do you feel when celebrities that have their own reality TV shows, claim the paparazzi is too invasive? Do you feel sympathetic for them having to deal with cameras that they haven’t signed up for, following them around all of the time, or do you feel that in some way, by creating and allowing their lives to be open to the public via a TV show, they know paparazzi are part of this deal?

Goffman, E., 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, Doubleday.

Greaves, Samantha. “Kim Kardashian blames paparazzi for ruining relationship with ex-

boyfriend Reggie Bush.” Examiner.com. 2 August 2010. Web. http://

www.examiner.com/article/kim-kardashian-blames-paparazzi-for-ruining-

relationship-with-ex-boyfriend-reggie-bush

Marshall, David P., “The Promotion and Presentation of Self: Celebrity as Marker of 

Presentational Media,” in The Media Studies Reader, Laurie Ouelette, ed. (New 

York: Routledge, 2012), 427 - 438. 

Melas, Chloe. “Kris Jenner On ‘The View’: Keeping Up With The Kardashians’ Isn’t 

Fake.“ Hollywood Life. 7 February 2013. Web. http://hollywoodlife.com/

2013/02/07/kris-jenner-keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-fake-the-view/

Unknown. “Kate Gosselin Won’t Miss ‘Kate Plus 8’ Fame.” The Huffington Post. 19 

September 2011. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/kate-gosselin-

plus-8-cancelled-fame-money_n_969624.html

What Do Celebrities Promote through Social Media?

Celebrities and media have always had a love-hate relationship. Since 2004, there have been various social media sites that have become the channel where social and friendship circles have flourished (Marshall, 430). Facebook has made connections to all demographic groups and Twitter has made a different type of connection through short messaging and linking to other sites, becoming much more mobile (Marshall, 430). These social networking sites are a form of media and communication (Marshall, 430). Self-production is at the very core of celebrity activity (Marshall, 430). How one presents themselves online now is very important.

            Performance is a critical part to a celebrities’ identity and reputation. How they perform, depending on what type of artist they are, is what gets watched every day.  Celebrities have to make their real life image on-line so fans can connect with them. Many celebrities go on Facebook and Twitter to reveal parts of their private life and professional life. These celebrities realize they have to put on a certain performance when they make these online profiles, they have to make sure they are appealing to the fans. Once fans see celebrities who are sharing more intimate parts of their lives they will gain more respect for these celebrities and become loyal followers. Most celebrities realize they need to be smart about how they portray themselves in the on-line world. Do you think most celebrities represent themselves well on social media or do they need to work on their online image?

            Famous people mention fans on Twitter to perform connection and availability, give back to loyal followers and manage their popularity (Marwick, 145). Fans gravitate towards stars that are authentic (Markovitz, 1). Why do you think this is so important? Once celebrities gain the fans trust then they know they can rely on the fans for support when they need to promote himself or herself or a special cause.

            Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd discuss in “Celebrity Practice on Twitter”, that independent self-promotion is not done by real superstars (155). They said the ones who turn to social media to create and maintain a fan base are up-and-coming bands, fans organizing renewal campaigns for TV programs, and publishing houses urging authors to reach out (Marwick, 155). I don’t know if I agree with them completely but I do agree that musicians seem to dominate on social media. In the article I  found, "A Look at How Celebrities Are Using Social Media”, it talked about how social media has opened a gateway for music lovers and bands. The top celebrity list in social media is ruled by singers (1). Social media has given smaller bands a larger potential audience than they would have had, as well as given well-known bands more control over their music and content (1).

            I found it very interesting that musicians and TV stars are much more likely to self promote then movie actors (Markovitz, 1). Apparently this is because often movie actors are bound to secrecy by a contract, which makes perfect sense. Markovitz also said movie actors don’t like to post too much about their work because they don’t want to be known for just that one role, which again makes complete sense, because as an actor you would like to be playing multiple roles and various parts. Tom Hanks, is however one actor that does have a Twitter and he stated, “ I am more active when I have something to promote” (Markovitz, 1). This is a great example that shows celebrities use social media for self-promotion.

            Another reason why celebrities are on social media is to promote social causes to their audience. Celebrities who are passionate about their cause are often highly successful in spreading awareness. I personally think this is a positive way for celebrities to take advantage of their fame. Their high status will allow their voices to be heard over ordinary people. The New York Times published an article this month that was specifically about celebrities helping Unicef. The Unicef Tap Project is using social media to raise funds for clean water for children worldwide. Once celebrities started to join the cause, the campaign began expanding quite rapidly. This year’s campaign, which only started last week, will be heavily promoted through March until the end of April.

            The numerous celebrities who are promoting this campaign are; Unicef ambassadors, Angie Harmon, Alyssa Milano and Marcus Samuelsson, as well as Heidi Klum, Nas, Judd Apatow, Kristen Bell, Jeff Bridges, Common, Kat Graham, Bridgit Mendler, Seth Rogen, Emmy Rossum, Kevin Spacey, Sting and Kate Walsh all are starting their own water networks or posting on Twitter about the campaign (Levere). Their efforts will be visible on the campaign’s Facebook page through a graphic that illustrates the web of their activity; these also will be promoted on the celebrities’ own Facebook pages or Twitter feeds (Levere). Caryl Stern, president and chief executive of the U.S. Fund for Unicef, said “each celebrity will open up a tap on his or her social media site and encourage friends, followers and fans to keep the water flowing by making a $5 contribution” (Levere). Celebrities are so important for this campaign because they have an influence over millions of followers and friends on their social media sites.

            Social media has allowed celebrities to promote not only their movies, music, books, and TV shows but also their social causes. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are a great way to reach out to as many people as possible. These platforms are the best way for celebrities to self promote and promote their causes. I think many celebrities realize how powerful social media and the followers are to the success of their careers. I feel celebrities will continue to use these platforms where most of their fans are or bring fans to their own websites where they can form a whole new idea of social interaction.

Works Cited

"A Look at How Celebrities Are Using Social Media." NextBigWhat.com. N.p., 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2013. <http://www.nextbigwhat.com/how-celebrities-are-using-social-media-297/>.

Levere, Jane. "Celebrities Help Unicef Turn On "Taps" for Clean Water." NYT.com. New York Times, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/business/media/celebrities-help-unicef-turn-on-taps-for-clean-water.html?_r=0>.

Markovitz, Adam. "Hollywood's Twitter Jitters." EW.com. N.p., 07 Dec. 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2013. <http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20471622_20654357,00.html>.

Marshall, David P., “The Promotion and Presentation of Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media,” in The Media Studies Reader, Laurie Ouelette, ed. (New York: Routledge, 2012), 427 - 438. 

Marwick, Alice and Danah Boyd, “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter,” Convergence 17.2 (2011): 139 – 158. 

Music Piracy Effects on the Music Industry

Alanna Lawrence 

 With today’s technology growing and expanding, it seems as though everything is at the touch of your fingertips.  One of the popular trends that the music industry seems to be facing is the usage of streaming and downloading illegal music. It has become evident that just about every individual has participated in a form of illegal downloading or streaming, whether it’s transferring files, converting videos to MP3 , or just simply “ burning a free copy” for a friend. It has now become the new craze to be involved as a Pandora or Spotify user. Because of this we easily fall into the category of an illegal user. But has it crossed your mind that we are breaking a law and committing a crime? Or have you ever wondered what really happens when you download illegal music? Do you think this affects music artists’ and sales?

Well with this trend being an ongoing battle within the industry it has become harder and harder to stop. It has developed and evolved so much in time it’s starting to get out of control. Music piracy has become one of the most popular issues going on within the music industry and the concept of downloading and streaming music has spread like wildfire. In this blog it will focus on some positive and negative aspects of music piracy towards the music industry.

According to the article “ Rethinking the Music Industry” , it has been said that apart from the illegal aspect of file sharing it can be a  form of promotion for the new upcoming artists and the old. With music piracy going hand in hand with the expansion of the Internet it supports the idea that this aspect can benefit the music industry.  “ Though the focus has been on file sharing, the real story is how the internet has empowered audiences, allowing them to transcend distance and reach large audiences themselves,….enabling new forms of creative engagement, and lessening the social distance between them and media producers.”  Even though it may be looked upon as an illegal act, these users are promoting the works of artists’ by spreading their music and information through blogs and other social media websites. This can be taken as a positive act because it helps get certain music out there and online, circulating to others worldwide. 

In addition to music piracy being a promotion to artists, the usage of illegal downloading has started to decrease over the years. In the article “Music Industry Sales Rise, and Digital Revenue Gets the Credit” from New York Times reflects back on the idea of music piracy finally dying out.  It was said that for the first time since 1999 there was an increase of 0.3 percent and total revenue of $16.5 billion dollars. Edgar Berger, chief executive of the international arm of Sony Music Entertainment, states “At the beginning of the digital revolution it was common to say that digital was killing music, but now….. That digital is saving music.” Despite the tiny increase in sales, the music industry has come up with new ways to support their industry by combining services with Apple’s ITunes and subscriptions with Google. It is taking some time but the music industry is still going strong regardless of music piracy and streaming.

Apart from music piracy being a lee-way for users to listen and download music illegally there has been a recent update that music piracy is no longer the most popular target out there. Studies have shown there has been a decrease over the last few years. From the article “Music Piracy way down, Study Shows” discusses the new trend that has taken over. It was a study funded by NBC Universal and conducted by Envisional, looking at 10,000 of the most popular files on the BitTorrent tracker PublicBT and found that music comprised just 2.9 percent of the files examined. The most popular pirated material was Porn, which compromised 35.8 percent. (Malone 2011). It’s interesting to see that music piracy isn’t as big of a deal as it was before. It seems as though consumers are starting to shift their habits, whether it is legal downloading or porn but music piracy still leaves a lot of consequences for those left in the music industry. 

Not only are there consequences for those within the music industry, but it is just as severe to those committing the crime. People are still fighting charges for downloading illegal music and being charged thousands of dollars for committing the act.  A recent article “Consumers Could Start Receiving Anti-Piracy Notices This Week” reveals actions being taken on those committing the crime. They say starting in a few days the five participating ISP’s ((AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable and Verizon) will take matters in their own hands and start sending out alerts and possibly slowing down Internet connection.

Music Piracy has had its share of pros and cons towards the music industry, but it just seems to never really quite die out. Do you think music piracy will continue its success with illegal downloads or do you think over time it will eventually become obsolete?

 

Bachman, Katy. "Consumers Could Start Receiving Anti-Piracy Notices This Week." AdWeek. Technology, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.

Malone, Aemon. "Music Piracy Way Down, Study Shows." Digital Trends Music Piracy Way down Study Shows Comments. Digital Trends, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.

Baym, Nancy, “Rethinking the Music Industry,” Popular Communication 8.3 (2010): 177 – 180

Pfanner, Eric. "Music Industry Sales Rise, and Digital Revenue Gets the Credit." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 24 Mar. 2013.

Music Video Gender Roles

​The music industry is probably the most progressive, forever changing, entertainment industries in the world today. There are constantly new artists, performing new types of music, from new locations all over the world, in a wide array of languages. Subsequently, the music industry has continued to grow, providing newer and more engaging ways for viewers to be entertained. The idea of a ‘music video,’ to go along with an artist’s number one hit from an album is now a more than common occurrence. But what isthe affect these music videos are having on today’s society? Are they having a positive or negative affect on today’s youth? What kind of messages are these music videos portraying?

​These are only a few of the many questions critics of music videos have begun to ask as this form of entertainment has grown exponentially in recent years. If one were to turn on MTV2 (nowadays, the regular MTV no longer shows music videos as it once did) he/she would see some of the most popular videos in the music industry today. Typically, the music derives from: Hip Hop, Country, Rock, Contemporary, and House genres among others. However, a commonality amongst all of these different videos from different genres of music is their portrayal of gender roles.

​ According to an article titled, “Aggressors or Victims: Gender and Race in Music Video Violence,” by Michael Rich, Elizabeth Woods, Goodman, Erans, and DuRant, the male gender was significantly associated with the emotion aggression. 78.1% of aggressors were portrayed by males, likewise 46.3% of victims were females. Among the Caucasian race 72% of aggressors were male and 78.3% of victims were female. As opposed to statistics from the African-American population which read that African-Americans were aggressors in 25% and victims in 41% of music videos.

​In addition to violence, sex is an exceedingly common theme seen in music videos from all different types of music genres. In an article titled, “An investigation of sex-role stereotyping in music videos,” by Steven A. Seidman, a survey was done of 182 random sample of MTV music videos. The results found that males were typically portrayed as: adventuresome, domineering, aggressive, violent, and victimized whereas females were portrayed as: affectionate, dependent, nurturing, and fearful. It was also noted that a large percentage of females in music videos wore scandalous clothing and either initiated or received sexual advances more frequently than males.

​It is clear that music videos portray men and women in a very questionable way. Especially nowadays with the expansion of technology, these music videos are able to be seen by millions of people, worldwide, free of charge, from the comfort of their homes. Internet sites such as YouTube allow individuals to come together to view artists’ material on both a professional and amateur level.  As a result of this, individuals have begun to question what type of messages these music videos are sending. Violence is displayed as “cool” or appropriate in many Hip-hop music videos. Women dress in very provocative clothing and display graphic sexual movements and acts for cash.

​The thrive to continue to produce viable entertainment in an ever-changing society has produced what some may describe as filthy or obtrusive when describing today’s music videos. It is as though it’s not about the music or the actual song anymore, but more about the most eye-popping display producers to create to go along with the music.

Sell-Outs or Successes? Branding in Music

Lauren Taylor

You can go to any country in the world and see an advertisement for a musician that is identical to an advertisement shown in America. Why? Branding. Branding has become a necessary element for any musician or band to become successful not only in America, but also, throughout the world.

As stated in an article titled, Musician Marketing: Branding, “A branded image establishes you as a legitimate musician…and it presents upsell opportunities such as apparel, hats and other merchandise. Without a branded image, all you have is a name.” The truth of the matter is that most people will recognize a band first by their music, and second by their brand. If you were talking to a younger kid about the Rolling Stones, they might not know who you are talking about right away. If you explain the Rolling Stones as the band with the lips and tongue logo, there is a better chance that they will know who you are talking about. This might be a dated example, but the Forty Licks cover is an image that is still used on merchandise, online, and in advertisements to this day. Just as some people are visual learners and some are auditory learners, some people remember bands from just their music, and others need something visual to remember them by.

In the article titled, Music and Branding: Sell-out or Buy-in?, the author writes, “Even though there will always be detractors who feel any association with corporate America is a ‘sell-out,’ well, ‘Times, they are a’changin’.” Originally, music and branding did not go hand in hand. Even today, some people may be worried that their favorite rebellious group will be a sell-out if they begin a career by branding their image. The idea of being branded with a corporation can create a negative image about that band. Fans used to view bands that worked on branding as caring more about money than they do about their artistic ability. In a New York Times article by Ben Sisario, Looking to a Sneaker for a Band’s Big Break, it is stated, “And while a generation ago these arrangements would have carried a stigma for artists, branding deals are now as common in rock as guitars.” Today it’s almost seen as though when a band decides to sign with a brand, it is the same decision as when a band decides to sign with a record label (Sisario).

Even artists that have made their mark in the music industry are still benefiting from branding. In the article, Madonna crowned top music earner in 2012 due to world tour, it is discussed how Bruce Springsteen released a number one album in 2012, but a large majority of his revenue came from merchandise sales. The majority of his earnings came from his artistic talent and fame, but because of branding, he was able to bring in even more earnings. Branding gives the musician an opportunity to target fans that may not be able to make it to a concert or tour, but instead can buy merchandise to support their favorite artist. If he or any other famous artist had stuck solely to their music, they would not be nearly as well known, or well off as they are because of the merchandise and memorabilia they get to sell and promote themselves with thanks to branding.

Brands like Converse have begun a new trend of opening studios to try to sponsor new bands. These bands will be getting better record deals while working with through these brands, but are still having all of their own artistic freedom. Converse has said that they are doing this not only to “give back” to its loyal customers, but also to build good will for the brand, and generate future sales. If a band becomes popular through a record contract with a brand rather than a record label, not only will the band will achieve success, but the brand will also benefit from having brought the band to the public eye, therefore giving the band automatic advertising.

A musician’s artistic ability as either a songwriter or performer is what inspires them to be successful in their field. That artistic ability is what brings in fans and creates original pieces that are favorites for years to come. However, music is just as much of a business as anything else. Any artist that wants to be known needs to know how to sell themselves to make a profit. They need to know that their artwork, imagery, and personality are all a part of the product they are trying to sell, along with the music they create.

Based off of this information, it is easy to see how both the musician and the company will benefit from branding. However the real question is: will musicians and their audiences ever truly understand that branding is a necessary aspect for bands to succeed, or will they always place a stigma on the musicians that decide to go the branding route?

Flattum, Jerry. "Music and Branding: Sell-out or Buy-in?" Technorati Entertainment. Technorati.com, 26                Aug. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

"Musician Marketing: Branding." PsPrint.com. PsPrint.com, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

Reuters. "Madonna Crowned Top Music Earner in 2012 Due to World Tour." Yahoo! Music. Yahoo!          Music, 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

Sisario, Ben. "Looking to a Sneaker For a Band's Big Break." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10              Oct. 2010. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.