January 30, 2006

all marketing is disruption. everything else is secondary.

zzzmkghilkj03.jpg
[Haven’t pos­ted this car­toon for a while. It’s one of my favo­ri­tes.]
The Artic Mon­keys make pop music his­tory by having the fastest-selling Bri­tish sin­gle since The Beat­les.

Wha­te­ver Peo­ple Say I Am, That

13 Responses to “all marketing is disruption. everything else is secondary.”

  1. Hugh
    Thanks for pos­ting this, since it fits per­fectly with a cus­to­mer I’m approaching in New Orleans.
    There’s a recor­ding stu­dio here, one of two left stan­ding in a music busi­ness city. I’m telling them that they could syn­di­cate the sha­vings on the cut­ting room floor, and draw the atten­tion of musi­cians, their true cus­to­mers, and their fans.
    Hugh, I’ve been able to sell myself, by quo­ting you, and sen­ding peo­ple to your blog. You’ve really crea­ted a busi­ness model for blog­ging.
    Heh. Maybe I can get a Glo­bal Mic­ro­brand rese­ller arrang­ment. Have you con­si­de­red a cer­ti­fi­ca­tion program?

  2. Eric says:

    Perhaps the num­bers would have been even higher were US iTu­nes users not gree­ted with: “The item you’ve reques­ted is not currently avai­la­ble in the US store.” when trying to purchase this album. As a Ame­ri­can music fan who has often been dri­ven to ille­gal file-sharing by late or non-release of UK tit­les here, I look for­ward to the day when I’ll be able to actually *pay* for an album on the day of its UK release!
    I’ve also always felt vaguely insul­ted by the “Why would you even be inte­res­ted in something we haven’t tried to SELL you yet?” atti­tude that this policy seems to imply.
    I sup­pose the real bogey­man of internet-driven mar­ke­ting is that it will make so many location-specific, but func­tio­nally redun­dant jobs (i.e. plug­gers, payola-whores) unnecessary.

  3. Nice post as usual, Hugh. But I’m trying to figure out which is more cringe-worthy: “dis­rup­tive media/technology/markets” or… “2.0″?
    I think the jury is still out, but whe­ne­ver I hear the terms being used, red flags go up… and there’s always that unmis­ta­ka­ble stench of hucks­te­rism (by any other name).

  4. hugh macleod says:

    I know Brad­ley. “Dis­rup­tion” is the new “Para­dignm Shift”… Heh.
    [NOTE TO SELF:] Use fresher buzz­words, more often.

  5. Adrian Lee says:

    Hmmm, I don’t know if this is anything beyond a good pro­duct and word-of-mouth.
    The band aren’t/weren’t inter­net savvy. They didn’t post their music online.
    All they did was dis­tri­bute free­bie CD’s at their gigs, and the fans did the rest.
    So, that to me sounds like word-of-mouth. Peo­ple liked the pro­duct, peo­ple told other peo­ple about said good pro­duct. Mar­ket dis­rup­tion?
    They then relea­sed a very limi­ted edi­tion sin­gle, before sig­ning to a record com­pany I believe, which sold out on pre-order, and could’ve sold many more times what were actually pro­du­ced.
    With record com­pa­nies falling at their feet, they were in the novel posi­tion of being able to dic­tate terms of con­tracts pre­su­mably, and the hype was already star­ting in the music press.
    Then with big­ger record copany bac­king the next sin­gle is pro­du­ced in pro­per quan­ti­ties and goes to num­ber 1, and is a big hit with ever­yone. But it was star­ted by their fans sha­ring music from some freebies.…

  6. john says:

    Don’t believe the hype! The Arc­tic Mon­keys are not a pro­duct of the inter­net — that is just a savvy bit of music industry PR. I saw the touts selling tic­kets to their Asto­ria gig in Sep­tem­ber at four times face value just like they do to all non-manufactured bands that build a follo­wing by live gigs.

  7. john says:

    The first-time most peo­ple heard of them was later in the year when all the press sto­ries about a band brea­king via the inter­net were floa­ted by the record com­pany. Floa­ted so that the band got mains­tream media cove­rage outside the music press. The inter­net was crea­ted as the hook, it was not the cause of the success.

  8. Adrian Lee says:

    Most peo­ple may only have star­ted hea­ring of them once all the major media hype star­ted, but that doesn’t disc­lude the fact that there was something going on before that.
    Before they were sig­ned to Domino they were in music publi­ca­tions like NME saying how their gigs were sold out because so many peo­ple had found out about them through the sha­red files online.
    The record com­pany may have fed off that, but they did not start it.
    MANY peo­ple (maybe not most, but a lot more than nor­mal, that’s for sure) heard about them before they were sig­ned to a record com­pany (myself for ins­tance) and before all the hype in the mains­tream media.
    Peo­ple were going along to gigs in much lar­ger num­bers than nor­mal BEFORE the hype in the music press, let alont the mains­tream media.
    I’m sure they wouldn’t have sold 360k albums in the first week without all the mains­tream hype, but there is more to it than just that.

  9. Jud Branam says:

    They write great songs. It’s the one ingre­dient peo­ple don’t talk enough about when dis­sec­ting what gets word of mouth, what goes viral, etc. Start with a great product.

  10. john says:

    Their demos were pla­yed on Radio 1 in March 2005 so we can argue till the indy cows come home about what came first. I am enti­rely in agree­ment with Jud — the most impor­tant P of the archaic 4 Ps of mar­ke­ting has always been the pro­duct.
    Many bands before and in the file-sharing era have han­ded out free­bies– the good ones got pas­sed around and copied, the bad ones were bin­ned. The Artic Mon­keys are not part of the long tail and the­re­fore I would argue would have come to the fore in non-internet days and that surely is the test of whether the mar­ket has been actually disrupted.

  11. hugh macleod says:

    John, I think you’re mis­sing the point. This isn’t about the internet.

  12. Adrian Lee says:

    March 2005 sounds about right for when I heard them on Radio1, but that was without the hype. I heard the song, liked it, went online to try and find out more. It seems a fair few peo­ple had already heard them, been to gigs if they could, and were sha­ring mp3’s.
    A few months later NME are sud­denly pos­ting artic­les about how they’ve been having pac­ked out gigs due to peo­ple fin­ding out about the music from peo­ple online. Then the hype star­ted.
    My only argue­ment here is that they are not a pro­duct of hype. It’s just con­tri­bu­ted to it.
    I don’t know if just having a good pro­duct counts as mar­ket dis­rup­tion. 10 years ago they could’ve been Oasis or something perhaps, without the Inter­net they would pro­bably have still made it, as Oasis did, because the pro­duct is good (as far as a lot of peple are con­cer­ned any­way, music is a won­der­fully sub­jec­tive topic), but it wouldn’t have hap­pe­ned as fast without the ridi­cu­lously easy means of dis­tri­bu­tion some web sites pro­vide now (MyS­pa­ces for exam­ple).
    Perhaps you could argue it’s the web sites used to dis­tri­bute the music (such as MyS­pa­ces) that are dis­rup­ting mar­kets, rather than the Artic Mon­keys them­sel­ves.
    Artic Mon­keys are just pro­du­cing music, the same as other bands have been doing for quite a long time. The dif­fe­ren­ces are the tools ena­bling fans to more quickly share it.

  13. fred says:

    here is some word of mouth mar­ke­ting for you hugh
    http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/02/so_great.html