> to have a much lower success rate. So it just seems to me that while > it is possible to have success selling the public on a festival by > using an unfamiliar term that must then be explained, one would think > that greater success could be had by branding a term already known. On > the other hand, simply by virtue of the fact that live looping as a > genre is new, may well have gotten you more publicity than you might > have gotten otherwise. It was interesting to see in Rick's statement that while he got far more publicity than with regular products, attendance was the same - which from a marketing guy's viewpoint is a very bad thing. Why does this happen? It's obvious that a festival doing "something new" is more interesting to journalists/bloggers than your run-of-the-mill low profile newcomer rock festival. You get the chance to write about that new technology and drop names like Riley, Eno and Fripp, instead of just going "it's a bunch of bands you've never heard of before who try to play rock music". Here, you're not in the consultative sales situation you're describing. Your customer (for the publicity stuff) is a journalist, and he's interested if you give him something new which sounds interesting and thus gives him kind of a USP (unique selling proposition). Getting people to attend the festival is another thing: here, you're really trying to sell condoms to the pope.