Chickens or Eggs?

I was reading over at hypebot about a response to a Bob Lefsetz column about the "The Death Of Marketing". In the piece, Lefsetz made the premise that hype marketing is so over. Stunts like Kanye West on the MTV VMA Awards Show are just that-stunts. PR business dreamed up to generate public awareness. Lefsetz believes this "old school" marketing is done because the public is tired of hype, and recognize it as such.

Bob wrote, "In order to truly make it today, you’ve got to be honest, you’ve got to have the goods, which have been honed over years. Otherwise, you’re just another scammer trying to make a buck. And the public knows. Major media companies are complaining about the audience, the mistrust involved. Well, if you were manipulated so many times would you still play along?"

In other words. we know we're being bullshitted., and that it doesn't promote your long term career.

As a matter of disclosure, I receive the Lefsetz Newsletter every post. I read all his rants and personal foible disclosures. I have contributed to the discourse on his blog. I will also admit that some things he writes about I am in total agreement with. Other thoughts of his make me think he's a complete a-hole.

The Lefsetz mantra, if there is one, seem to be there are no new acts as good as the ones that the Baby Boomers developed. That's because today's acts have not put in the time to get really good at what they do. And that to hype yourself without having the talent and proficiency to back it up is fruitless. He wrote, "If you want to make it today, focus on marketing last. And know that online, greatness spreads. Could take a while to catch fire, but if you’re great on a sustained basis, you’ll make it. Although making it might mean being known by a coterie, not everybody, and having one house, not three, still…who’s entitled to all that? The days of more, more, more are over. It’s just that those in the media haven’t realized it yet."

It's tough to debate that. The big news right now is that an act that did their last output of original material 39 years ago has sold 2.5 million CD's of that material in a week's time. Why? Because they are a great band that honed their craft, and were so good and so unique they changed societal mores forever. This band generated its marketing on the strength of its musical ability.

However, in the hypebot blog, there was someone who thought that "Lefsetz is Wrong!"

The response was a posted blog from Kate Bradley's blog over at Outlandos Music Kate's resumé is impressive, as she served as the Music Director of The Loft at XM, did stints at WYEP and WNCS and was a music supervisor at Pump Audio. Bradley argued that (the highlight is mine), "Re: The Death of Marketing? Sorry Bob, I respectfully disagree. Yes, being great at whatever it is you do has merit (for it). But quality isn’t nearly enough. You HAVE to huck it, kids. Every second of every day. I don’t care how friggin spectacular you are… if you don’t have anyone to tell, it might as well not be true. It’s a chicken and the egg deal. Almost."

It seems that Bradley believes that having an audience is the main element to success. You won't succeed without loyal and true believers in what you do. "Friends", as she calls them.

She writes on, "Because, you CAN have real, passionate, loyal fans at every stage of your career, from fledgling to Trent (Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, ed.); if I like you, I’ll help you. Period. Think of it like this: the way you make me feel about your product handily trumps the actual product. In a heartbeat.

So… how do you do it? Um, it’s called MARKETING."

Well, it seems that we have two points of view here. A "chicken and the egg deal", as she calls it.

I certainly don't have the creds of either of these two writers, nor their audiences. But I am the person they both talk about. I am a fan, passionate in my "feelings" about music and the artists that create it. And , at the same time, been around the block enough times to know that what I am being told is the next great thing usually turns out to be just the flavor of the month.

Malcom Gladwell wrote a book, Outliers, about who gets to be successful and why. According to Gladwell, anyone who wants to become an expert in their field needs to invest 10,000 hours of time.

The Beatles, in true Malcolm Gladwell fashion, played their you-know-what's off before Brian Epstein found them playing in a Liverpool club. Were the Beatles geniuses? Was it their innate talent that made them so successful? My thought is no, they were not genius, but craftsmen whose hard work and constant playing made creating their body of work seem effortless. They knew what would work, because their hours of playing to audiences taught them what wouldn't work. It taught them how to do what when and where for maximum effect. Thirty nine years later, two generations removed, that craft still resonates with a modern audience.

The publicity that the Beatles generated to fill the Cavern Club didn't come from "MARKETING." It was because they could excite people with their playing. Brian Epstein, in true MARKETING fashion, put them in suits and cut their hair. However, the Beatle suits and the boots didn't sell their music to 2.5 million fans nearly 50 years later. It was the art they crafted.

Bradley, however, still believes that generating an audience is the key to success. Her thought process is that without an audience, a great product is worthless. She lays out her game plan:

"1. Make friends and fans.
2. Do/make something that’s meaningful to you.
3. Tell your friends and fans about it ASAP… DO NOT polish it to death or worry about it not being perfect (any successful entrepreneur will give you this exact advice). Get it out there as fast as possible. Make it pretty/hone your skills later.
4. Inspire and ask your friends and fans to help you/buy your stuff.
5. Rinse and repeat.

It really is that easy."

Passion is what counts? If you make something, even something terrible, if "it's meaningful to you" and you can convince your friends to buy your sh.....uh, shining effort, "It really is that easy."

As proof, Bradley offers up this bon mot of proof on why her website has become successful.


"Don’t believe it?", she writes. " Here’s something I probably shouldn’t tell you. 21 people work for me for free. Our online views have increased 127% in four months. 6000+ people read our newsletter. And we’re in the black after less than two years. Certainly, I hope it’s because we’re doing great work but for sure, friends and fans made this possible. As in, 65% them. No joke."

This is the part that made me chime in. She's right. That is no joke. To get 21 people to work for you for free so that your operation can be profitable is not funny. It's the kind of capitalism that we all decry. It's right up there with bilking old ladies from their pensions.

That's not making friends. That's using people.