"NEW" marketing
-
I said I'd hold off my full views on the overall marketing effort until we would have official charts published, which is now the case... First off, it is worth mentioning the successes of this marketing campaign before going into an autopsy of what went wrong. I honestly believe that a significant number of these sales came from the below 35 crowd, largely via iTunes. So, in other words, Paul and his team were able to successfully market to a new generation that is particularly hard to crack and they, in turn, helped him get to #3. The importance of this cannot be understated and credit must be given to those in his team that helped make this happen. Plus, its great that this whole new generation now actually knows who he is. From the first page - in fact, first post - of this thread, I have championed the approach of reaching out to the youth. However, I never intended for this to be the sole demographic that this album should be targeted to. I feel one of NEW's greatest strengths is its variety: there's everything from contemporary pop, to classic rock and even some country (in the deluxe)! The idea of reaching out to your weakest group, regardless if its for business, politics, or nonprofit organizations, must always be paired up with a final stretch focused on solidifying your strongest base. That's what was largely missing... Some here believe that no amount of marketing could have gotten this key group of 45+ to come out in bulk to buy NEW. I disagree. Under this pessimistically oversimplified line of thinking, the success of MAF would not have been possible. Had Starbucks played a larger role and TheBeatles.com sent out a newsletter email remainder on the week of release, that would have equated in thousands of more units shifted with two simple moves. Add to that appearances on shows like GMA and the Tonight Show, and you could have narrowed the gap between him and Pearl Jam by close to half (and far surpassed Miley). I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I think these are conservative estimates. The reality is that most people in this group that I've spoke to had no idea he even had an album out - and these are actual fans! Sure, a mini tour would have helped, especially if he would have pulled a Madonna and attached ticket sales to include a copy of the album, but I don't think it would have been necessary. The things I'm mentioning here are not radical ideas that are completely not doable, and they are definitely easier to coordinate than a full-scale promotional tour across the country. That's where I think some of the most important, and overlooked, aspects of marketing take place: the obvious (and sometimes small) steps. As for those that say he should have done some of the new songs on his summer stretch across the continent, I don't think that would have had any kind of noteworthy impact on the final stretch. Most of these people are not like us and would have almost definitely forgotten about those new songs in the months between then and now. A couple of major tv appearances and pushes from Starbucks and the Beatles would have gone much further. Add to that some kind of weekend discount to close that first week in addition to an earlier release of the Queenie Eye music video and the landscape could have looked very different today. But he definitely should have targeted the older crowd, almost exclusively, in that last stretch.Unfortunately, great marketing means very little if you miss just one crucial step, and an artist of Paul's age can't afford any slip-ups like that our he's seen as loosing his touch. I don't understand why so many see marketing as a linear process instead of dynamic; it is not impossible to target both groups over separate periods of time (is MPL understaffed?). In the end, these will always end up being "what ifs'." The fact is that #3 isn't bad by any measure even if we know he could have and wish he had topped the charts. This marketing push is still, in my opinion, better in quality than any of his others in recent memory and was an absolute thrill to watch. You know you're in a good position when your criticisms are largely composed of "you should have also done this...!" as opposed to "why did you do this...?" In short, the marketing was very good overall, but fell flat in blindingly obvious places. Had it not, Paul would be sitting at #1 today, and making headlines for doing so (imagine the coverage of him knocking Miley off the top and keeping Pearl Jam off!). As a final note, I was listening to "You Never Give Me Your Money" this morning... In light if all this, it's words seemed to take on a NEW meaning. : (Sorry, had to! )
-
I think it's a bit early for post-mortems, as the album's run isn't over and neither -- I hope -- is the marketing campaign. By and large, I think it was well done. I'd love to see at least 1 more U.S. TV appearance, and I wish they'd put out a real video for "New" back in September. But I don't think anything short of another massive Starbucks push would have gotten the album past Pearl Jam for #1, which would have required stronger first-week sales than Paul's had since SoundScan came along 20 years ago. Everything looks like a failure if you start with unrealistic expectations. It's holding at #3 on Amazon, after briefly going back up to #2 yesterday, so it could very well stay in the top 10 another week or two.
-
Pearl Jam's album is being plugged at just about every commercial break on the World Series. Even if this isn't a tremendously popular world series, I've more than noticed Pearl Jam's mumbling and no doubt sales will increase for them next week.
-
....and they are plastered all over every commercial bumper on ESPN.....
-
jlw44:
Pearl Jam's album is being plugged at just about every commercial break on the World Series. Even if this isn't a tremendously popular world series, I've more than noticed Pearl Jam's mumbling and no doubt sales will increase for them next week.
On iTunes US, they're still way up there, at #4, while "New" is down to #43.
-
I honestly cant say that the marketing was bad....I actually said "its about f..... time" that the marketing was somewhat aggressive. However, when you think about what Pearl Jam has done....the marketing was done in such a way that there is a sustained consistent presence that is hitting you over the head...constant world series mentions, espn multiple times a day every day....iTunes banners..etc. The promotions for "New" were almost all personal appearances...one and done type things....which are quick to fade into the sunset and that require demands of Paul, and extreme logistical challenges. just for a laugh I typed "music" into yahoo..first listing is Music.com....enter the site...guess whats there...Miley Cyrus, Brittany Spears, Taylor Swift, One Direction, Drake, Robin Thicke, Lady Gaga, Bieber, Pitbull, Eminem, Nicki Minaj, etc. I dare you to find McCartney...I dare you. You don't need to convert his fans...you need to convert the music buying public....who turn to sites like these to see whats hot. Theres no searching...they gravitate to the front page. The sheeple are bombarded with sites like these that tells them what to buy. Period. THATS how you remain relevant. Not by playing 15 minutes in times square. AND..not a single one of those so called artists had to jet all over the world using a presidential schedule to do those appearances.....they didn't have to lift a single figure to be in the face of people ready to purchase an album at the click of a mouse.
-
Totally agree and not only that but the album wasn't even available for purchase at the time of the publicity done in the States. People don't care about pre purchase. They buy on a whim, and if they wanted the album after Fallon or Kimmel or times square they were out of luck.
-
I am glad someone agrees....I admit there is a tinge of anger in my last post....its purely out of frustration. No one wants New to succeed more than me. I'd love nothing more than Paul to have a #1 album. I've been reading on here for months comments of people that were sure that the buzz and hype of this upcoming album were sure to get Paul a #1. Wow how naïve can you be. 67,000? really? and that's with fans buying 2, 3, 4..even more copies of the album? What did any of these appearances really do for sales when a large amount of that 67k number would have happened with zero marketing? I Heart, London, Times Square, HMV, Fallon, Kimmel...big deal...all it is is a novelty..."Hey look...musical genius here..." a minute after its over people's minds have moved on to "hey what's for lunch" not "omg...must... purchase.....album" Great point jlw44.....how in the world do you have promotions for an album people cant listen to??? Why in the world would I pre-purchase an album. Its not like they were gonna sell out and I wouldn't be able to get it when it came out. I purchased it the morning it was released. Duh. Why would someone with 20 bucks burning a hole in their account buy an album that is 50% more expensive than the competition? Just for giggles again...went back to music.com.....not only is Paul nowhere on the main page... when you do a search take a guess what videos pop up.....a total of three....I Saw Her Standing There, Let It Be with Billy Joel and Sing the Changes. Blah blah blah...McCartney new video...oooh look at all the stars...and then its not even viewable on a site as fundamental as Music.com??? Its comical. It really is.
-
Another question: Why change the name of the tour to OUT THERE months before the NEW CD comes out, and do some thirty shows under the new tour name, but not have anything about the NEW CD in the OUT THERE tour? Seems to me, Paul should have waited, done some pre-release promotion, ie like all the FB stuff, then RELEASED the CD, announce a NEW TOUR, do all the TV appearances, put out a video, then tour for six months to a year promoting the CD, playing five or six songs each concert from the CD. Seems like it's all done backwards or sideways, then when the CD doesn't move, we get almost no NEW songs in concert.
-
I found it odd -- not to mention, unproductive -- that Paul's radio-interviews spent 90% of the time talking about The Beatles.
-
RMartinez:
Another question: Why change the name of the tour to OUT THERE months before the NEW CD comes out, and do some thirty shows under the new tour name, but not have anything about the NEW CD in the OUT THERE tour? Seems to me, Paul should have waited, done some pre-release promotion, ie like all the FB stuff, then RELEASED the CD, announce a NEW TOUR, do all the TV appearances, put out a video, then tour for six months to a year promoting the CD, playing five or six songs each concert from the CD. Seems like it's all done backwards or sideways, then when the CD doesn't move, we get almost no NEW songs in concert.
-
RMartinez:
Another question: Why change the name of the tour to OUT THERE months before the NEW CD comes out, and do some thirty shows under the new tour name, but not have anything about the NEW CD in the OUT THERE tour? Seems to me, Paul should have waited, done some pre-release promotion, ie like all the FB stuff, then RELEASED the CD, announce a NEW TOUR, do all the TV appearances, put out a video, then tour for six months to a year promoting the CD, playing five or six songs each concert from the CD. Seems like it's all done backwards or sideways, then when the CD doesn't move, we get almost no NEW songs in concert.
Could be that they originally planned for the tour to continue into the fall, but then realized it wouldn't work logistically if he was going to be bound by all these TV appearances and so on. Otherwise, yes, OUT THERE as a title made no sense. The tour seemed to be tied to the promotion of the Wings Over America reissue and Rockshow DVD, which was fine: seemed to be reminding audiences that he's a rocker, not just a '30s-'40s crooner these days. But then the tour could have been called PAUL OVER AMERICA or something. In an interview in Brazil during the tour, he said to the DJ that they expected to be adding the new song "Everybody Out There" to the tour's setlist in the future; and a leaked MPL schedule in the summer stated that he would be touring the US, UK, Europe, and Australia in the fall (assuming that was genuine). So perhaps the original plans got changed.
-
favoritething:
RMartinez:
Another question: Why change the name of the tour to OUT THERE months before the NEW CD comes out, and do some thirty shows under the new tour name, but not have anything about the NEW CD in the OUT THERE tour? Seems to me, Paul should have waited, done some pre-release promotion, ie like all the FB stuff, then RELEASED the CD, announce a NEW TOUR, do all the TV appearances, put out a video, then tour for six months to a year promoting the CD, playing five or six songs each concert from the CD. Seems like it's all done backwards or sideways, then when the CD doesn't move, we get almost no NEW songs in concert.
...OUT THERE as a title made no sense. The tour seemed to be tied to the promotion of the Wings Over America reissue ... In an interview in Brazil during the tour, he said to the DJ that they expected to be adding the new song "Everybody Out There" to the tour's setlist in the future...
I wasn't aware that Paul had revealed as early as May that "Everybody Out There" even existed. And what makes it more puzzling, the DVD that came with my NEW album included an interview in Quebec, and Paul was directly asked why he'd named the tour "Out There." He gave not even the slightest hint of the song's existence at that time.
-
darkeyes1972:
I honestly cant say that the marketing was bad....I actually said "its about f..... time" that the marketing was somewhat aggressive. However, when you think about what Pearl Jam has done....the marketing was done in such a way that there is a sustained consistent presence that is hitting you over the head...constant world series mentions, espn multiple times a day every day....iTunes banners..etc.
Totally agree, especially on the iTunes point. I was enraged that they refused to prominently feature him until the day of release, and it seems that they were reluctant to give him even that much when people like Katy Perry and Gaga, both of which have albums coming out after Paul's, were getting much better treatment.
darkeyes1972:
What did any of these appearances really do for sales when a large amount of that 67k number would have happened with zero marketing? I Heart, London, Times Square, HMV, Fallon, Kimmel...big deal...all it is is a novelty..."Hey look...musical genius here..." a minute after its over people's minds have moved on to "hey what's for lunch" not "omg...must... purchase.....album" Great point jlw44.....how in the world do you have promotions for an album people cant listen to??? Why in the world would I pre-purchase an album. Its not like they were gonna sell out and I wouldn't be able to get it when it came out. I purchased it the morning it was released. Duh. Why would someone with 20 bucks burning a hole in their account buy an album that is 50% more expensive than the competition?
Now here's where you loose me. I completely disagree that these events had no impact. I know that they helped opened many from an entire generation to his music which otherwise had no idea who he was, primarily because of his age and how long its been since his last pop album. Nonetheless, in the spirit of transitioning this thread from one of "what else should he do now?" into one of "how do we improve for next time?", I would like to strongly agree that album timing could have been a lot better. October is a competitive month and I could understand that he wants to prove his relevance by entering into a competitive month, but he could have done much better by entering a month earlier and changing up the general timeline. In the week September 17, he would have been going up against Jack Johnson, a folk singer, whose album would eventually sell 120k that week - a much more attainable goal than 170k. With regards to the tv promos, I think the order should have been reversed: Fallon first (the week before release) and Kimmel - the bigger appearance with the full concert - during the week of release. Once again, he should have also done Ellen, GMA, Tonight Show, etc consecutively between Thursday and Friday of the debut week. They do have impact, but jlw44 is right that their impact is significantly higher if the album is already available to purchase in full at the time of the appearance. Pricing is also a great point. While I don't think $10 was too bad for the standard, $8 would have been better. As for the deluxe, while individual retailers where given immense freedom as to what to do with it, having a price ceiling of $14 or $15 would have helped keep it competitive. But if we really want to think outside the box, the idea of offering no deluxe edition at all should be taken seriously next time. Pearl Jam didn't have one, and it does help keep the overall price more consistent and consolidate sales. Plus, bonus tracks could still be added, as usual, to the Japanese edition and possibly iTunes and vinyl editions. Personally, I would have been very happy if "Turned Out" would have been included on the standard with "Get Me Out of Here" and "Struggle" being bonuses in the method I stated above. Furthermore, you could still leave it to the retailers to add other bonuses (DVDs, laminates, cubes, etc) so long as a price ceiling was in place to keep it affordable (possibly $12).
-
Audi said the following on the "Charts" thread:
audi:
I think Paul should do some more of those "pop up" shows -- in fact, a mini-tour of 'em... ...and sell the album at every show!
Like Suzy, I think this is an awesome idea. The concerts could be complete surprises, with advance notice ranging from one day to an hour, depending on how large the venue is. The smaller ones out in the open (i.e. Times Square, Covet Gardens) should be completely free but those indoors should be free - with the purchase of an album. He should give it a specific name, "The NEW Tour" or the like, but only have it run for the duration of the first two weeks of the album's release, making it his shortest tour ever! It could also have been preceded by a larger-scale build up of the "drive-in" events, a couple every weekend or so in different cities, leading up to the release week (as previously suggested on this thread). Having these two concentrated events going on before and after the day of release would have gone a lot further than two of each. I'm curious as to how that would have turned out...
-
Mr. Spock:
Audi said the following on the "Charts" thread:
audi:
I think Paul should do some more of those "pop up" shows -- in fact, a mini-tour of 'em... ...and sell the album at every show!
Like Suzy, I think this is an awesome idea. The concerts could be complete surprises, with advance notice ranging from one day to an hour, depending on how large the venue is. The smaller ones out in the open (i.e. Times Square, Covet Gardens) should be free but those indoors should be free - with the purchase of an album. He should give it a specific name, "The NEW Tour" or the like, but only have it run for the duration of the first two weeks of the album's release, making it his shortest tour ever! It could also have been preceded by a larger-scale build up of the "drive-in" events, a couple every weekend or so in different cities, leading up to the release week (as previously suggested on this thread). Having these two concentrated events going on before and after the day of release would have gone a lot further than two of each. I'm curious as to how that would have turned out...
-
The album entered the top ten in the charts of almost all nations. But pubblicity was made only in Usa and Uk. Altough the publicity in these two country, the album did better or had the same result in countries where he didn't have shows, interviews on television or on radio... So, my conclusion is: - New is 3th in Usa and 4th in Uk where Paul did some merchandise. -New is 4th in Italy, 2nd in France.... Where he didn't have any merchandise (I'm sure for Italy where I live). So, this numbers make me understand that the merchandise in Usa and Uk didn't work, as he had better results in countries where he didn't play on the street and where there is even the obstacle of the language and local singers. As for Itunes...i don't think that I tunes shop gives a free banner to artists. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that artists have to buy the banner! After few days the new's banner in italian Itunes disappeard and New dropped from 4th position to 47th position. I'm sorry because this is one of the best McCartney solo album. Maybe the best. But how can people buy it if they don't know of its existance?
-
As a general rule, I think all music videos and singles should also be released before an album drops. Their impact is pretty minimal afterwords. The theory that they help sustain/revive interest passed that is really just for a few minutes in today's media; in other words, not worth the money to film, release, and promote. Target's joke-of-a-special-edition would have been much better if it would have also been able to include, for instance, the "Queenie Eye" music video and its complementing "Making of" feature. That option should have been there and, again, the music video's impact could have been stronger. Another thing that would have really helped NEW out on the overall charts would have been a hit single to back it. Now, I actually think "New" and "Queenie Eye" were both great choices: "New" is cheerful, summery, and a strong reminder that Paul can still do Beatles-quality music. Musically, its only "downside" (highly subjective) is that it sounds like something from 50 years ago, which would have lead to the conclusion that Paul is stuck in the past. That's where "Queenie Eye" kicks in. Personally, I don't think it sounds very Beatles-esque at all (definitely not as much as "New"); it actually sounds very contemporary to me. I think "New" should have been released much sooner (as in, mid-July at the latest). Additionally, "Queenie Eye" should have been released around the time "New" actually was, or maybe a bit later... As ambiguous as "New" was in terms of being a single, "Queenie Eye" was even more so. Why wasn't there even a lyric video for it? The strategy of releasing it only to radio was abysmal: what stations were playing it? That's why a change in the timetable would have gone a long way, especially in keeping Paul in the public's ever-fleeting eye. So far, I've been focusing on doing the best possible with what was ultimately released, only changing the actual timing of releases (except the album itself, which is another issue all together). I think this could have helped everything do better - at least marginally - in their respective runs, but ultimately neither single could have really caught fire with any major contemporary music stations, which drive the singles to top 40 status. This is not impossible for him, but to do it Paul needed to have been willing to go much further than he and his team ultimately did... "My Brave Face" (from 1989) was not just his own last top 40 US single, it was the last top 40 single by any former Beatle. Personally, I don't think the writing is in stone that he can't break that curse. For one, Yoko Ono is 80 and still making dance hits and seen with the likes of Lady Gaga, so I think Paul could make at least one more top 40 hit, but it has to be very well coordinated (as in, no mistakes whatsoever) because it is enormously more difficult for any artist his age to have a hit single than a hit album. As such, he would have to do a few cheesy industry cop-outs to get there, but ultimately I think that anything that effort would produce could still be worth listening and buying. If I had to come up with a way of making this happen, here's how I would go about it: -Make it a song that's very adaptable to the market (e.g. "Appreciate") -Work with/duet/feature a young, popular, high-profile artist (e.g. JT) -Include Ringo on drums (for cheap mini-"Beatles reunion" publicity... It can only help [which he needs all he can get in a mission like this], esp since that's all they talk about on his interviews anyway) -Remix it and make it more lively with an established DJ/producer (e.g. The Bloody Beatroots, Benny Benassi, etc) -Release at a time when there minimal competition (crucial) -Make deals with radio syndicates to actually play the darn thing on the radio -Release a music video, with a plot, featuring a handful of young(ish) A-list stars (e.g. Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, etc) even if just for cameos. Have scenes of it played on every show Paul appears on, in addition to the obvious places (MTV, VH1, the internet). These steps would likely crack the top 50 in ways that any of his casually released singles can't, and would have a fighting chance at the top 40, thus breaking "the curse."
-
Except for the people on this board and a variety of other Paul fan boards I don't know a single person who knows or cares that Paul has an album out. Most of the people I know do not listen to new music at all. They would need a sledgehammer to come at them to be aware of anything new, and even with that, they'd say, that's nice or why is he bothering and shrug it off. However, possibly if they had seen or heard any of the album on shows they actually watch then maybe they would have liked it and been aware of it. But no one I know watches Kimmel or Fallon. They've all been in bed since 9. Barely any of them know who they are anyway. Now put him on the view, Ellen, the morning shows, etc and there may have been some who noticed. I know he wants to make an impact on the younger generation, but I just don't see any interest. I have 3 kids in their 20's and while they all love the Beatles and early Wings, they would have no interest in anything New. THey all went to see Paul with me this last tour, loved the show, but that's where the interest leaves. Marketing to the few hundred or so young people who may buy the album is totally missing the mark. It just isn't going to happen. Luckily the only current album my kids are looking forward to is Arcade Fire. They are even past the teen market as well and wouldnt' be listening to Katy Perry or any of that ilk either. Surprised my oldest wasn't interested in Pearl Jam, but she isn't interested in that either. If they ever happen to hear a song they like they just go for the song and not the album these days anyway.
-
Now my next idea is one I can't understand hasn't been done. Why doesn't Paul just buy a 100000 cd's himself, get the damn thing on the charts and then see what happens. A perceived hit is just about the same as an actual one imo. Surely he can have his associates hit up the record shops and clean the shelves. With his money of course.