Updated to add: I made a couple of minor changes/corrections to the post below, after getting some clarification from her publicist (see the comments section). Razor and Tie is NOT Laurie's record label, as I had earlier stated -- they did her DVD, and they are one of several distributors of her CD's. So Laurie's commercial success is not all a result of Razor and Tie, but having them as her distributor is still a major plus in terms of how many records she sells.
Also, for an opposing viewpoint on Laurie Berkner (it's like "Crossfire" in the world of kids' music), check out Stefan's post over at Zooglobble.
And now Bill has weighed in. We've gone from "Crossfire" to "The McLaughlin Group" -- what a great discussion.
Laurie Berkner was highlighted in a recent New York Times article about the new season of Jack's Big Music Show. The article discusses many of the reasons behind Laurie's success, but fails to mention what I consider to be one of the most significant -- the marketing capabilities of Razor and Tie, which distributes her CD's and produced her 2006 DVD.
As an artist affiliated with Razor and Tie, Laurie has benefited from very slick and aggressive marketing. We Are the Laurie Berkner Band, her 2006 DVD, was advertised on television, which I find just a bit insidious. Even though they were not as directly targeted at children as Razor and Tie's KidzBop commercials are, the ads appeared during kids' programming and had plenty of appeal for young children. Take a look:
"Why do you hate Laurie Berkner?" you might be asking. Really, I don't. I just think she's fairly overblown, and it's important, when looking at her commercial success, that we acknowledge that it is due -- in large part -- to some slick marketing.
"Why do you hate advertising?" you might also be asking. I don't. Just take a look at this.
I've written before about my thoughts on Laurie Berkner, and since then I've listened to her music (and watched her NOGGIN videos) more and more. She has an under-produced, "indie" sound, and has been held up as an example of the "kindie rock" movement. Seeing her held up as a top "indie" kids' artist, when she's affiliated with the same label as KidzBop, is a bit hard to digest. Although the folks at Razor and Tie call themselves independent, and they may technically be independent, their behavior (i.e. television commercials for Laurie's DVD, the creation and marketing of KidzBop) suggests that they are more focused on sales than on artistic integrity, which, to me, is quite the opposite of "independent."
Over the past nine or ten months, I've also heard numerous other artists whose talent for writing and performing kids' music far surpass Laurie's. That's my opinion -- feel free to disagree. But very few kids or parents are even aware of these incredibly talented musicians. If some of these other artists had the backing of Razor and Tie, perhaps they would be experiencing the commercial success that Laurie has achieved. Although, thanks to the media's "discovery" of kids' music last year, these other artists are at least getting more of the critical acclaim that they deserve. And frankly, I think many of these artists prefer that kind of success to the kind of success that is achieved via TV commercials aimed at kids.
20 comments:
I think what you've said is true, but it must be true for musicians in non-kid genres too. I imagine it's just the music industry. There have to be hundreds of bands out there that are struggling to put out records with truly great music but few of us have heard of them. If you have a great record company then you'll get in Starbucks or on the radio or wherever it is people find new music these days (iTunes?). If you don't have that marketing behind you, you won't get heard.
Lauren, I totally agree that marketing is necessary if you want to build a significant audience for your music, but there are better ways to do this than TV commercials. The Starbucks partnership is great, in part becuase it's aimed at parents. And music videos on shows like Jack's Big Music Show are great, even though they don't "sell" a particular album, they get the artist LOTS of visibility with kids and parents.
OK, the marketing to kids aspect is bad.
But the "indie" argument is tired, plus Razor and Tie would qualify as "indie" and I'm pretty sure their arrangement with Laurie is distribution -- yes, Laurie records the album on her own dime. And how do you define "own marketing"? What about artists that have their own publicists -- several of whom you and I have both championed?
Finally, I disagree with the idea that there are "numerous other artists whose talent for writing and performing kids' music far surpass Laurie's." Laurie's great for the preschool set -- fun tunes, a sense of humor, and a great voice.
She's not someone I would listen to without the kids around (like I might with other artists), but I can't think of many artists targeting preschoolers who are better.
Stefan, Razor and Tie might qualify as "indie" in a technical sense (they do refer to themselves as "independent" on their site), but the fact that they are clearly more about marketing and sales than about artistic integrity (again, I point to KidzBop and all its cousins) makes them much more like a major label.
As for the publicists we've worked with, I don't see them as anywhere near as powerful or aggressive as the Razor and Tie publicity team. I think about one-third of our top 16 F&K albums are there without the help of a publicist.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on Laurie's talent. I've never liked her voice, or her overall sound.
I guess I haven't found their publicity people any more aggressive than the others.
But perhaps that's more apparent to others (besides us) who don't take as much time to seek out and listen to non-PRed talent.
OK I"m biased here - I am Laurie's publicist.
I work with her and ONLY her because I think she's insanely talented. I think I can provide a little insight.
Laurie is NOT on Razor and Tie for God's sake, for any of her CDs. They put out the DVD. Her CDs are on her OWN label and R&T is simply one of several distributors. Putting out your own CDs, especially up until recently out of your living room, qualifies as indie.
You are totally wrong about R&T marketing being the reason for her success. Not to toot my own horn here, but when I started working with her she was playing libraries and sleeping on my floor. Shortly after we signed a contract I got her in People Magazine. This was in the year 2000. From there we got TONS of other national press, got on the Today Show multiple times, GMA, etc etc - all of this exposure led to Noggin's becoming interested in her. Yeah, I'm good - I'm DAMN good at what I do. R&T came to the ball game only when the DVD was coming out. They have a good marketing team but for God's sake....
I will also say that despite my kickass PR efforts, without Laurie's brilliance as a musician and songwriter, I could never have gotten her the kind of exposure that I have.
I have no idea where this ad came from. "Not available in any store" is completely wrong.
You can like or dislike her voice. But take a look at the facts, please, from someone who definitely knows!!
And one more things - I'm not a "powerhouse" by any stretch of the imagination - I work out of my house with two screaming kids in the background. I cannot emphasize enough that as Laurie's INDIE publicist I have done a good job at helping her become successful - and as I said R&T's recent help with their good - and not huge - marketing department - but the overriding reason for her success is her INCREDIBLE TALENT (not to mention she's one of the coolest, nicest people you will ever meet in your life). Unlike most publicists, I have no interest in working with someone who sucks. If you are only looking at her Noggin videos, how about actually listening to her albums. "The Sneaks" from Victor Vito? Can't get better than that...
As a former teacher in a major city and current children's music instructor, I'm going to have to give my thumbs up to Laurie. Let's face it, first of all, kids music is dominated by white men. Or at least that's who gets all the attention. Children need to identify with their role models. Laurie's music is also great on an educational stand-point. I can use her songs in classes from ages 1 all the way to third or fourth grade. I love Laurie and I'm proud of it!
OK I promise this is the last thing - yes I'm going on a rant here -
I am personally familiar with more than one children's artist who are on major labels with massive money and marketing power behind them, not to mention publicists who are at major firms. And you have probably never heard of them. Why? Because without talent...well, you already know what I'm going to say.
Hey Amy,
What a lively discussion you have going on here! I just wanted to add a little something that’s not really related to the marketing ideas you brought up but more about Laurie Berkner, the person. A couple of months ago someone put me in touch with Laurie and we had a back and forth email chat about kids music, signing with a label vs. DIY, and the joys and challenges surrounding making music and mothering to small children at the same time. I was truly blown away by how generous she was with her time and ideas, and by how incredibly down to earth and personable she is. I know you are not at all challenging this, but I just wanted to put it out there because I was really touched that this insanely busy and successful person would spend so much time chatting with me, an unknown mom of two who had just put out her first and only album as a humble little preschool fundraiser. Our musical styles are really different, but I thought it was cool that she was so willing to share her experiences & insights in this industry.
I definitely agree with you that if some of the children’s musicians and bands that are highlighted on your website (and by Stefan & Bill) had the backing of a major distributor / marketer, commercial success would surely follow. That’s the only reason I can come up with that indie bands like Dog on Fleas, Lunch Money, & The Quiet Two aren’t as hugely famous as Laurie herself. Lord knows they should be...
Hey Frances,
I totally agree with you - and as Jesse Kornbluth said on NPR recently, "She's like the coolest mom there ever was."
I do want to re-emphasize, however, that she was hugely successful BEFORE the marketing dept. of R&T came along - and may I say, R&T is great but seriously not all that big. They have one fax machine, so that should give you an idea.
And that's all for tonight, folks, from Laurie's PR Mama!
Um, I should probably just get some popcorn and watch this one... after the Wiggles thing, eh? Hee hee.
Actually, I can't comment so much about Laurie anyway as I'm not that familiar with her music. I do recall borrowing an early live video of hers from the library when I was first getting into kids' music, and thinking she was quite good. The few songs I've heard in the past couple years on the Noggin videos have only seemed kind of "okay" to me, but that's not enough to go on. I wasn't crazy about Dan Zanes' Noggin songs, either, but I've enjoyed some of his other music once I listened to more of it.
What I'm not sure about is the comment that marketing her CDs or DVD on TV is "insidious". I'm not sure what you mean by that, or why that would be insidious compared to other means of marketing. I mean, aren't music videos themselves "marketing on TV"? Please elaborate on that if you will.
Best,
Eric
Eric, it's not that I think marketing a CD or DVD in general is "insidious", it's TV commercials like this one directed at kids that run during kids programming. I remember seeing this ad over and over again in early 2006 (probably in the weeks before her DVD was released), and I think there was a similar ad that ran after the DVD was on store shelves.
I see a major difference between a music video and a TV commercial. This commercial has a clear call to action to GET this DVD, plus several images of the product itself. Most kid videos have only the artist's name and song title -- no mention of an album to buy. So videos do influence what kids like, but not so much what they want to buy.
Okay, that makes sense. But still, there will be commercials on a commercial TV network... so why not one about a DVD that kids might like?
Ultimately, I don't know that any commercials can be targeted at kids... kids don't typically have the money and means to go buy something... the parents do. One little word by a parent ("No") can counteract any commercial, no matter how slick and no matter how oft-repeated. You know what I mean?
And there's always an opportunity for learning about things like discernment and saving for something you want (or think you want). There may be no greater lesson to teach kids about the danger of believing advertising than for them to get burned by something that sounded so good in the commercial.
An example... My girls don't watch TV networks very often, but they get plenty of advertising on the intros and outros of the videos they watch... so sometimes they have to wait for the Maisy or Wiggles or Winnie the Pooh show that they really want to see until they see ads for all kinds of other shows and videos. By and large, though, they have no interest in those other shows (no matter how slick the advertising, something still has to connect with a kids' interest before they go ape over it). My Becca suddenly took an interest in Angelina Ballerina from an ad on one of those videos, and that was the only connection she had to that. She had never seen the actual show. So we heard a lot about this Angelina Ballerina for a while. Her birthday was coming up, but we had already got her presents, so we spread the word about "Angelina Ballerina" to her relatives. Sure enough, she got an Angelina book and DVD and stuffed toy. She was very excited to get them on her birthday, but it became obvious to me as we read the book and watched the show a few times that she wasn't really very into it after all. She didn't know the style of the show or books from the brief ads she'd seen, and it turned out that it wasn't for her. On Christmas she got another Angelina present and we thought, oh well, but that one actually turned out to be good because it was an interactive "learn how to be a ballerina like Angelina" DVD, with an accompanying ballerina outfit. She is very excited about learning to dance like that and she practices along with the DVD and is super cute in the outfit.
Advertising is a part of our media life. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, in and of itself, but kids will have to learn to discern from what they see of it. They might get burned sometimes, but then again, what if they see an ad and get really excited about something, and then they end up really loving the toy or the Laurie Berkner DVD? Then that's great and it was good that you knew about that to be able to get it for them, right? If that came in the form of a slick and oft-repeated TV commercial, then so be it.
And again, there's always the word "No". Stops advertising dead in its tracks. :o)
Eric, you make some great points, and I agree with about 90% of what you just said. Advertising can teach kids things (saving, critical thinking, decision making, etc). It is our job to help them process the advertising they see/hear (though also, to limit how much they see/hear), and to say NO. I wrote a post on this a while back that supports much of what you are saying:
http://lovelydavis.blogspot.com/2006/08/its-end-of-civilization.html
The part I disagree with is when you say you don't know if commercials really can be targeted at kids. There are some very sophisticated marketing efforts geared at toddlers, even though they have no money or real decision-making power. So very young children are getting the message that THINGS will make their lives more complete, and that they NEED more toys/DVDs/sugared cereal than they already have.
I guess I'll weigh in with my 2-cents' worth, since the discussion has moved in a direction I feel so passionate about (and I've already shared my thoughts about Laurie Berkner on Zooglobble).
Like you, Eric, and you, Amy, my husband and I have allowed our kids very little exposure to commercial television, kid-friendly or otherwise. Heck, they've hardly ever watched public telelvision for that matter, because we wanted to establish imaginative, real-time play habits in our kids early on. Now that they're 5 and 8, we almost never hear whining about watching TV because it's simply not within the realm of their experience (on the other hand, my 8-year-old begged us for a copy of Tom Sawyer for her birthday!).
I'm not trying to sound smug here. I'm a kid who grew up spending HOURS watching Gilligan, Marcia Brady and The Munsters. But it's a different world today than the one in which we were raised. Marketing to children is a lot more sophisticated and insidious. Couple that with a pervasive fear among parents about letting their children wander the neighborhood or nearby woods freely (as my siblings and I did), not to mention our computer-saturated culture (witness me, sitting at my computer writing this!), and it makes it very challenging for parents today to wade through all of the negative influences and raise children who are healthy, confident, kind, and curious about the world. I really believe our culture has grown increasingly hostile towards families and communities, not by some evil intent, but by an unquestioning belief in that most hallowed of American institutions, "the free market." Rightly or wrongly, while Dan Zanes has done his own share of harnessing the same market to sell his wares, his music and overall vibe really counteract a lot of it. I feel his music speaks straight to our humanity and invites us to get involved in our own communities.
Maybe what we're trying to get at here, with all this great music for kids, is to take this small window of time, before our kids' circles of influence widen beyond us parents, to foster in themthat sense of magic and wonder about the world, about people, about themselves, that is inherent in them from day one. One of the privileges of being a parent is being reintroduced to that wonder and getting a 2nd chance at it ourselves. I can't exactly say how or why, but it seems all this advertising and marketing drums the wonder out of us.
It's not a perfect world and, as you say Eric, not all advertising is bad. Many shades of gray there (I SO wanted one of those cool little green "Flea" ukes that DZ was selling on his website!). But it is definitely a more complicated world today. The best description I ever heard was from a school psychologist who said, in effect, that today's youth aren't maturing any earlier than previous generations, but they are more sophisticated, thanks to all the media saturation. Kind of a scary combination. I'm all for saying no and setting limits, but we're fending stuff off on a lot more fronts, it seems.
Okay, that's enough for now. I'm done with my sermon. Thanks for a platform to sound off, Amy! And now I'll go read your earlier post about advertising...
I admit, I like Laurie Berkner. The kids like her. I don't mind her on the TV.
The ones who I find insidious and of questionable motivation are the coat-tail hangers-on such as the "seems to be failed in indie market so moving on to kindie indie" groups adding themselves onto kid TV such as the group that does the "no reason party" song and the guy with the strange standing up white hair that does the sort of weid moody stuff.
At least Laurie is talented and seems to actually do children's music for children, who she actually seems to like.
The other two seem to use puffed up teens and be aiming for commercial success for success sake. or something. All I know is that Denmark smells rotten to me.
Ahem...who's the dirty capitalist pig? The one you've been extolling the virtues of recently? I'm pretty sure they target children in their advertising. They may not do it on the Disney channel. They don't need to.
Love ya, babe, but we have to disagree on this one!
i can't get this out of my head:
>Ultimately, I don't know that any commercials can be targeted at kids...
perhaps i am growing ever-more paranoid as i inch closer to my 40s - or perhaps i've watched 'the corporation' one too many times - or perhaps eric was just being facetious. kids are directly marketed to in an agressive manner. we grow and learn as we have to deal with it, but i honestly resent having to deal with so much of it. -- kelli ann, from the Great White North
Woww....(different anonymous here....) my head is spinning....good discussion.
Post a Comment