Question about women and advertising...

[SuperFerret]

And all I said originally, is that the political aspects of the CD cover would likely deter more people that I know of than the naked woman would.

 

[Motown Marvel]

While you and I may own record players, the vast majority of todays music fans do not, and most have never even seen one. Nickleback have sold millions of cds...but if they released a vinyl it would sell several dozen copies. YOU like vinyls...but the sales facts are clear. If vinyl was even remotely profitable, there would be vinyl stores...but there arent. Most of todays music fans do not want vinyls, as stores who do carry them cant sell them to young fans. Those fans walk past the discount vinyls and grab a cd (if they buy anything at all)

there are no vinyl stores? are you kidding me? there are tons of vinyl stores. and almost all legit music stores sell vinyl right along side the CD's. hell, even best buy carries vinyl now! BEST BUY!

no one says the consumer has to keep the vinyl. they're still getting their mp3 downloads of the music. and to relate to your issue below, a large vinyl record sleeve is perfect for the band to autograph and then frame for your wall (yes, they even sell frames specifically for records). and also, if they dont want the vinyl, fine, buy the t-shirt/mp3 bundle. or the best case scenario, if the vinyl/mp3 bundle becomes a regular practice (and i see lots of bands doing it) more people may be compelled to actually buy a record player.

I do agree that cd sales are going the way of the dodo...but thats no reason to not make them. There are thousands of situations where a band needs actual cds in order to get heard. Tons of radio outlets and review opportunities will not accept digital files. Besides...it sets the serious apart from the guys who arent serious. Labels, managers, publicists, and the press knows that any slacker at home can record MP3s...but a serious band will still go through the effort of making a professional release. The serious band is a better investment of time, attention and money.

CD's do nothing to separate the amateurs from the pro's. anyone can make a CD, it's just a matter of money. clinging onto the CD medium is just clinging onto something without a future, and thats just dumb. and if a radio station demands an actual CD, fine, burn them one, print out a fancy little label for the front and ship it off. or, if you wish to appear even more "professional", make a limited run of CD's for promotional purposes. but, if you think a nice professional package cant be made without CD's then your not thinking hard enough.

Download cards are cool, and almost all profit. I've found though that at a live concert people like to buy something that they can get signed and keep. Download cards do not compare to cds in that regard. Also, if someone is going to spend a dollar at your merch booth, it will usually be for a sticker or buttons. If they have ten bucks to blow itll be a tshirt or something like a cd that they can get signed. I do think that download cards will continue to increase in popularity.

like i said above, a nice big record sleeve is even better for autographing, and is perfect for framing and the consumer still gets their MP3 downloads of the music. the larger size also allows for the cover and inside jacket to be better appreciated.

 

[Heretic]

I have been in the music business for a decade, mostly with major labels...and i dont know ANYONE who would advise a band to go through the extra cost of making vinyls instead of cds. While vinyl sales may be up, they are up from a few hundred new release sales per year, to what...a few thousand total per year? Again, if it were profitable then the latest Fall Out Boy cd would have sold millions of vinyls and few cds, but it sold millions of cds and probably didnt even bother making a vinyl. And the concept of mass producing vinyls just to sell a download card is insane. Posters are cheap and can be signed as well, while vinyl is expensive to make, very few people have the ability to play them, and youd have to charge good money to make selling them worthwhile. Again, I dont know a single industry professional who would advise ending cd manufacturing in favor of vinyl.

 

[Motown Marvel]

of course no industry professional of a major label would advise ending CD's! they're grasping onto that straw tighter than anyone else! and vinyl doesnt cost that much to produce.

 

[Heretic]

CDs are surely being weened out of existence...but vinyl will not replace it.

You are arguing against a fading format, and arguing for a format that hasnt been relevant for decades...and does not turn a profit...and never will.

Again, if vinyls made money, every new release would be available in vinyl. Its not like companies DONT want to make money. Vinyls have a very, very small niche market. If the new Hinder album were shipped out in vinyls and not cds, their careers would be over.

 

[Motown Marvel]

first off, vinyl DOES turn profit. and you can actually find most/all new releases on vinyl (even fall out boy and hinder). the reason for that being there is a demand that generates profit. and im not expecting vinyl to replace CD's. im expecting MP3's to replace CD's. they already are.

secondly, im not expecting people to exclusively buy vinyl, rather it being a nice bit of merch to accompany MP3 downloads.

third, the vinyl angle was a suggestion based on my personal ideal preference (which happens to also be the preference of many bands and consumers). bands could just as easily take vinyl and CD's out of the equation and bundle their albums as MP3 downloads with shirts, posters, hoodies, totebags, dvd's, etc...

lastly, vinyl is not a fading format. it's been a consistent and respected format since its conception. it's outlasted every other format and the reason for that being its superior sound and consistent demand. formats have come and gone, but vinyl has always endured and will continue to do so. i think you are trivializing how "niche" of a market vinyl really is.

 

[Carcharodon]

Boobs? SOLD.

Political nonsense? Meh.

 

[Heretic]

Okay, you're right....vinyl is king in 2010...despite the fact that 99.9% of the population has no intention of ever buying a record player.

While vinyl is made (we will even probably release a picture disc or something), it is not even remotely as profitable as you think it is. It does have an awesome sound to it, which is why I still have my record player, but the fact is that it remains a tiny little market. If you went to a high school and asked every student, you MIGHT find 2 that have a record player.

I agree that download cards are a growing market...people like portability, something cds dont provide very well (and vinyl doesnt provide at all). Clearly music files are the future. I wouldnt dare argue against that.

However, the future is not now. I cant think of a single band that has given their music away until they reached superstardom. Bands like Radiohead have sold millions, made millions of dollars, and then given away free music...but how many no-name bands offer up free downloads and end up headlining acts because of it?? You still have to show that you can generate profit, not simply give your stuff away a bunch. What club promoter books a band and pays them good money based on free downloads? What label will spend millions promoting a band who's fans are only as loyal as the next free release? The labels ARE out of touch, I have quit some of the biggest labels in the world over how out of touch they are. However, it's not just the labels that havent figured out how to make money off of downloads...its everyone. If Rolling Stone could sell magazines by having a popular unsigned downloaded artist on their cover, they would...but they can't. Downloaded artists have shown no proof of selling magazines. Or concert tickets. Or beer (Budweiser stopped their unsigned artist program due to its complete and utter failure). Some day the industry will figure out how to make money off of bands that dont sell cds...but that day has not yet arrived.

 

[Heretic]

Boobs? SOLD.

Political nonsense? Meh.

That's what I'm screaming! It's a transition period...we are actually working on two cds at once. A major label release that is not political at all, and the indie release that is half and half...I enjoy a little fun with my music.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Okay, you're right....vinyl is king in 2010...despite the fact that 99.9% of the population has no intention of ever buying a record player.

While vinyl is made (we will even probably release a picture disc or something), it is not even remotely as profitable as you think it is. It does have an awesome sound to it, which is why I still have my record player, but the fact is that it remains a tiny little market. If you went to a high school and asked every student, you MIGHT find 2 that have a record player.

I agree that download cards are a growing market...people like portability, something cds dont provide very well (and vinyl doesnt provide at all). Clearly music files are the future. I wouldnt dare argue against that.

However, the future is not now. I cant think of a single band that has given their music away until they reached superstardom. Bands like Radiohead have sold millions, made millions of dollars, and then given away free music...but how many no-name bands offer up free downloads and end up headlining acts because of it?? You still have to show that you can generate profit, not simply give your stuff away a bunch. What club promoter books a band and pays them good money based on free downloads? What label will spend millions promoting a band who's fans are only as loyal as the next free release? The labels ARE out of touch, I have quit some of the biggest labels in the world over how out of touch they are. However, it's not just the labels that havent figured out how to make money off of downloads...its everyone. If Rolling Stone could sell magazines by having a popular unsigned downloaded artist on their cover, they would...but they can't. Downloaded artists have shown no proof of selling magazines. Or concert tickets. Or beer (Budweiser stopped their unsigned artist program due to its complete and utter failure). Some day the industry will figure out how to make money off of bands that dont sell cds...but that day has not yet arrived.

first, i never said vinyl would be king in 2010, so lets not be ridiculous here. but fact of the matter is, over the past many years vinyl sales have been on the rise, downloading music has been on the rise, and CD sales have been on the decline. based on that, you go ahead and choose you're own adventure.

second, by bundling free mp3 downloads with other merch items, you're going to be selling a s**t ton more merch, which not only results in a greater profit, but it gets your band more visibility on the street (with shirts and such), and gets your music in more peoples hands.

third, no band using this practice has hit the mainstream yet because its still a young practice. but all the bands and labels that i know who do it are extremely happy with the results, both financially and musically. fact of the matter is, this is undeniably the current future of music. if you want to hang on to the past practices which are rapidly dwindling, have at it. but i'd recommend taking the steps to make the future today and strive to be that first band to make it big like this, setting an example and trend for others to follow. do you know how many incredible things this world would be without if people didnt do things simply because its never been done before?

 

[Heretic]

First of all...all of those are good ideas.

Secondly, we WILL be doing things like that. I think the tshirt bundling idea is much better than the vinyl bundling, and it really is a great idea.

However, just because we will be using this method, does not mean that we should abandon cds altogether. Like I said, in 2010 you must have a hard copy of a cd to send out for reviews, radio play, and cd stores. Without a hard cd, we get no love from magazines or radio stations. And, the indusry and the public both still view a band with an actual cd in stores as more "legit" than a band with free downloads on Myspace. The industry IS killing itself by not adapting to the times, and I could go on and on about the mistakes being made. However, in 2010 an actual cd is still needed to take that next step.

So...we do things the old way...AND we embrace the new ways of doing things. We'll absolutely be selling download cards and ANY way that we can embrace new technology we will. We're spending GOOD money on a video that we know will never see a tv screen...because Youtube is viewed enough that we think it's worthwhile.

Besides...printing a few thousand cds isnt THAT expensive...especially considering the tens of thousands spent on production costs.

But vinyls? No, mass producing those would be a disaster...and most would end up broken on the tour bus anyway. Not enough people would buy them to offset the costs of making more than a few. I would love a picture disc though, like a limited run special offer thing.

 

[chamber-music]

Roxy Music had nude chicks on their album covers back in the 70s.

I own The Stokes Is this It Album and UK album cover has a nude a woman's nude bottom and hip, with a leather-gloved hand resting on it. Its a different album cover to the U.S version which is a blue and yellow pattern.

Some of the large music stores chains at the time (2001) objected to the cover but still stocked and sold it. Album peaked at 2 in the charts.

 

[Motown Marvel]

First of all...all of those are good ideas.

Secondly, we WILL be doing things like that. I think the tshirt bundling idea is much better than the vinyl bundling, and it really is a great idea.

However, just because we will be using this method, does not mean that we should abandon cds altogether. Like I said, in 2010 you must have a hard copy of a cd to send out for reviews, radio play, and cd stores. Without a hard cd, we get no love from magazines or radio stations. And, the indusry and the public both still view a band with an actual cd in stores as more "legit" than a band with free downloads on Myspace. The industry IS killing itself by not adapting to the times, and I could go on and on about the mistakes being made. However, in 2010 an actual cd is still needed to take that next step.

So...we do things the old way...AND we embrace the new ways of doing things. We'll absolutely be selling download cards and ANY way that we can embrace new technology we will. We're spending GOOD money on a video that we know will never see a tv screen...because Youtube is viewed enough that we think it's worthwhile.

Besides...printing a few thousand cds isnt THAT expensive...especially considering the tens of thousands spent on production costs.

But vinyls? No, mass producing those would be a disaster...and most would end up broken on the tour bus anyway. Not enough people would buy them to offset the costs of making more than a few. I would love a picture disc though, like a limited run special offer thing.

im glad that you'd embrace some of those ideas. and im not trying to specifically tell you what your band should do, you can do whatever you want. im just speaking generally. if you dont want to sell vinyl personally because you dont think your fans would buy them, then thats cool (but no, they wont get broken on tour). im just saying, there is a significant market for vinyl. it's never died, nor is it dying. vinyl sales have undeniably been on the rise for many years now. so has mp3 downloads. and the practice of bundling the two together have proven to be very successful.

p.s. you spent tens of thousands on production costs?

 

[amazingfantasy15]

first, i never said vinyl would be king in 2010, so lets not be ridiculous here. but fact of the matter is, over the past many years vinyl sales have been on the rise, downloading music has been on the rise, and CD sales have been on the decline. based on that, you go ahead and choose you're own adventure.

second, by bundling free mp3 downloads with other merch items, you're going to be selling a s**t ton more merch, which not only results in a greater profit, but it gets your band more visibility on the street (with shirts and such), and gets your music in more peoples hands.

third, no band using this practice has hit the mainstream yet because its still a young practice. but all the bands and labels that i know who do it are extremely happy with the results, both financially and musically. fact of the matter is, this is undeniably the current future of music. if you want to hang on to the past practices which are rapidly dwindling, have at it. but i'd recommend taking the steps to make the future today and strive to be that first band to make it big like this, setting an example and trend for others to follow. do you know how many incredible things this world would be without if people didnt do things simply because its never been done before?

Whenever I think of vinyl, I just get an image of hipster music snobs, not the mainstream public. Heretic is looking to get more mainstream appeal, vinyl is not the way to go, this isn't the '60s or '70s, it's 2010, vinyl is a dead medium with only a small percentage of the population still wanting it.

 

[Docker2.0]

First the story to explain why I'm asking...

We just shot the cd cover for the new CD, and it's going to look great. Our cover model is a well known porn star, so we definitely have the sex appeal angle covered and guys are going to love it!

However, the image itself is not really about sex appeal (even though she appears naked). The message is all about the freedom and natural state of humanity being taken away or censored. It's kind of a political statement about how the people we elect to keep our freedoms secure are the very people that take our freedoms away.That all said...we are down to a few different pictures, one more artistic...more "angelic" with her looking away from the camera and kind of playing off of the concept. The other is her giving more of a sexy look, more of an outright sex appeal type thing.

So...guys will check out the cover either way, it's a hot, seemingly naked blond...but where is the point where women feel uncomfortable or objectified?? Do any of the ladies here see advertising and dislike it due to it's sex appeal to the point where they won't buy the product?

The point of this is to communicate the message of freedom/nature being defiled and corrupted...so it isn't like we want simulated sex acts or anything...but the discussion over the pictures made me curious of what women think of advertising for guys...

Seriously.................

 

[BlackLantern]

most people won't care what "statement" you're making...just that a girl is near nekkid

 

[Heretic]

Yeah, I know.

You could call it a cop-out if you want. The people looking fr a message will find one. The people not looking for a message will just see a hot naked girl.

The funny thing is that people are trashing the message, when most album covers have messages, even the ones that are just some hot chick posing. There was a certain idea that they started with, and then they adapted it...and the vast majority of people will only see the hot chick and it never occurs to them that there was a message. Even things like Playboy pictorials will go in with a message, and then no one will get it because all most people will see are the boobs.

 

[Motown Marvel]

-double-

 

[Motown Marvel]

Whenever I think of vinyl, I just get an image of hipster music snobs, not the mainstream public. Heretic is looking to get more mainstream appeal, vinyl is not the way to go, this isn't the '60s or '70s, it's 2010, vinyl is a dead medium with only a small percentage of the population still wanting it.

if you think only hipster music snobs take part in vinyl, then you have a very skewed and flawed perspective. nor is any of this an attempt to take vinyl back into the mainstream, that would be entirely futile. and a bands offering of vinyl has no bearing on their ability to break into the mainstream. but the fact is, that in 2010 vinyl IS NOT a dead medium. it has been a very consistent medium for consumers over the decades, and is a medium that has been very much on the rise over the past several years.

 

[BlackLantern]

Yeah, I know.

You could call it a cop-out if you want. The people looking fr a message will find one. The people not looking for a message will just see a hot naked girl.

The funny thing is that people are trashing the message, when most album covers have messages, even the ones that are just some hot chick posing. There was a certain idea that they started with, and then they adapted it...and the vast majority of people will only see the hot chick and it never occurs to them that there was a message. Even things like Playboy pictorials will go in with a message, and then no one will get it because all most people will see are the boobs.

I don't think it's a cop out, but asking the consumer/listener to be high minded about it might be expecting too much

Vinyl is not a dead medium, it's more of a niche these days IMO

 

[Heretic]

im glad that you'd embrace some of those ideas. and im not trying to specifically tell you what your band should do, you can do whatever you want. im just speaking generally. if you dont want to sell vinyl personally because you dont think your fans would buy them, then thats cool (but no, they wont get broken on tour). im just saying, there is a significant market for vinyl. it's never died, nor is it dying. vinyl sales have undeniably been on the rise for many years now. so has mp3 downloads. and the practice of bundling the two together have proven to be very successful.

p.s. you spent tens of thousands on production costs?

Printing vinyl in any large number would worry me. Selling music is difficult these days, as people would rather get it for free online. I cant imagine selling the vinyls to anyone but our most diehard fans. Even successful acts are cutting their cd prices to 5 bucks a copy on tour just because fans these days expect them for free. (I cant tell you how many hundreds of times I've heard "how come you dont just give me a cd?" as if we got them for free...)

Making a cd isnt cheap, though I admit that I bundled the costs together. I hear bands say "we recorded four songs today" and thats just ridiculous. You arent going to get the best sound that way. We spent our entire first day tuning the drums...it adds up if you are taking your time, and good producers arent cheap. It takes weeks to record 12 songs. Hotels arent free. Mixing takes a good while. Mastering isnt too expensive...but its thousands of dollars to get the liner notes, photos and package together...and thousands to print. Then hiring a publicist is going to run you good money...and a booking agent. It aint cheap.

 

[Motown Marvel]

having dealt with lots of bands and labels that always release everything on vinyl, they've never complained of any problems unique to the vinyl. just my personal experience.

while it depends on the music, some of my favorite bands recorded some of their best albums in a mere days for very little. hell, the beatles first album (please please me) was recorded in one day. every single white stripes album was written and recorded in 1-3 weeks. the sonics mic'd their drums with a single mic hanging over the kit. i could go on, but at the end of the day its whatever suits you and your band. my point being, it doesnt always take time and money to get some killer recordings. i would almost argue that any band who takes more than a few weeks to record their album don't know what they're doing (but lets not start that debate, ha ha).

 

[Heretic]

having dealt with lots of bands and labels that always release everything on vinyl, they've never complained of any problems unique to the vinyl. just my personal experience.

while it depends on the music, some of my favorite bands recorded some of their best albums in a mere days for very little. hell, the beatles first album (please please me) was recorded in one day. every single white stripes album was written and recorded in 1-3 weeks. the sonics mic'd their drums with a single mic hanging over the kit. i could go on, but at the end of the day its whatever suits you and your band. my point being, it doesnt always take time and money to get some killer recordings. i would almost argue that any band who takes more than a few weeks to record their album don't know what they're doing (but lets not start that debate, ha ha).

Recording quickly works for The White Stripes...it would not work for Incubus...

And it has very little to do with the band (as long as they come prepared). It's not like band is producing itself. For us, we took one day to tune the drums and get stuff the way we wanted. The next day (maybe two, I forget) was adding guitar scratch tracks for the drums to play to. Tracking the drums took two or three days. Thats one week of recording with no vocals, guitar or bass being done AT ALL. That isnt slow, its deliberate. Its making sure that you are doing the song right. Again, some forms of music work well with doing everything quickly...but for mainstream, radio rock doing things quickly will usually produce as bad product. Heck, the producer might have some ideas to restructure songs in the studio, and that alone could push you over the two week limit.

Your opinion that recording should be quick and cheap, and that vinyl is the better platform shows that you are more of an oldschool purist, and thats fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, this same band did an acoustic EP and that thing was done with a quickness. It depends on what you are going for. To have a radio ready modern rock cd with quality production, its best not to just rush through and get it done.

 

[Heretic]

I don't think it's a cop out, but asking the consumer/listener to be high minded about it might be expecting too much

Vinyl is not a dead medium, it's more of a niche these days IMO

I'm not asking the consumer to be high minded. Im asking them to see a picture of a hot chick.

However, with THIS band, its a good idea for us to have a message like this. Again, most wont notice the message, but those looking for it will...

A little background...

We released an acoustic EP last year...every song on it was about breaking up with a girl, losing a loved one...acoustic type topics. there was NOTHING political at all about the cd.

However, in a lot of interviews we did, politics came up as a question. We cant avoid it. We WILL be asked about it. There is no escaping it. Therefore, for the people looking for that kind of message, we are giving them one of freedom and supporting the constitution. People who dont care wont notice.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Recording quickly works for The White Stripes...it would not work for Incubus...

And it has very little to do with the band (as long as they come prepared). It's not like band is producing itself. For us, we took one day to tune the drums and get stuff the way we wanted. The next day (maybe two, I forget) was adding guitar scratch tracks for the drums to play to. Tracking the drums took two or three days. Thats one week of recording with no vocals, guitar or bass being done AT ALL. That isnt slow, its deliberate. Its making sure that you are doing the song right. Again, some forms of music work well with doing everything quickly...but for mainstream, radio rock doing things quickly will usually produce as bad product. Heck, the producer might have some ideas to restructure songs in the studio, and that alone could push you over the two week limit.

Your opinion that recording should be quick and cheap, and that vinyl is the better platform shows that you are more of an oldschool purist, and thats fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, this same band did an acoustic EP and that thing was done with a quickness. It depends on what you are going for. To have a radio ready modern rock cd with quality production, its best not to just rush through and get it done.

it definitely has to do with my personal tastes. but i do think just about any quality band is capable of doing a quick recording that sounds just as professional as anything else in the mainstream. personally, i like the idea of recording the band live in the studio. i know that comes with its own set of issues (as does any recording style), but for me personally i like things raw and primitive and very organic, capturing that live intensity.