[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
RE: loop device endorsement - was Santanas looping bassist
At 01:18 PM 8/23/2002, Liebig, Steuart A. wrote:
>That stuff helps for sure, but I think it only reaches people who are
>already familiar with the idea and pretty close to making a decision to
>go
>for it anyway.
>
>A manufacturer can't make that happen, they can only hope to be in the
>right place to ride the wave
>when it does. The musicians are ultimately what makes it happen.
>
>** herein lies therub, no? i guess my thinking would be that they have
>someone like benny reitveld (spelling, sorry) who is doing this stuff and
>all. people notice people like him doing stuff, people even notice david
>torn. if you use some of their mugs, maybe it helps people who are
>already
>familiar with the sound say, "aha, that's how he did it" - - or maybe
>not.
>it will not be on the level of the fender stratocaster - - not yet a
>least. the thing is, it seems like there could be a small window of
>opportunity for some niche marketing by these companies.
Sure, I don't think anybody disagrees with that. I certainly don't. It
helps some, I just don't think it helps all that much more than the fact
that a known artist is using the stuff in the first place. So far as I
know
Gibson intends to do various artist relation efforts with whoever they can
in relation to the upcoming Echoplex Plus dealy. In fact, that's why I
know
about Benny's use of the Echoplex. Gibson called me about wanting to get
him a copy of LoopIV. You guys talk about these industry folks like they
don't know this stuff, when they are the ones doing it every single day
for
years. By now they have it pretty well dialed in as to when endorsers are
effective, when they are not, and how much to invest in it. When it isn't
happening it is more because it just wasn't making sense budget or
organizationally or timing-wise.
But the big problem is, who are you going to use for looping endorsements
that are really big enough to matter? There are some people who are
somewhat known and who use looping techniques, but they are not very
mainstream or popular. A manufacturer has to consider whether the
investment in that endorser will actually result in more sales than it
costs. In some cases it probably will but oftentimes not. But what really
needs to happen is for some artists to become really huge with looping
being a big part of what they do. They will be well known for looping and
many people will want it because of them. Those people make the best
endorsers, because they are selling the stuff even without an endorsement
deal just by being who they are. I don't think there is anybody really
like
that out there and I'm hoping to see it change.
>In dealing with musical instrument industry for a few years, I've found
>that musicians are incredibly conservative people when it comes to how
>they make music. Sure, they'll get funny haircuts and wear crazy clothes,
>but they won't try a new sound. Most of them don't want to try new things,
>unless they see somebody else doing it successfully first. "Successfully"
>is the key. When they hear music that they like and see that others like
>it
>too, then they want to emulate the music and the musicians doing it. They
>become willing to try whatever technique or box is necessary. No video in
>a
>store gets them to that point.
>
>* correct on all accounts. but you have david torn doing stuff on albums
>by bowie, etc. it seems that those could be the considered someone using
>it successfully - - though not on korn levels
Yes, that's something, although to me dt playing with Tori Amos is a much
bigger deal since she's actually likely to get a bunch of hit singles off
an album and much bigger sales. Her fans are a lot younger and more
fanatical too. Still, and unfortunately, I think in both cases the focus
will be on David Bowie and Tori Amos and everything else related to it
will
be overshadowed by them. If Tori were looping her voice and piano on her
album and in concerts that would be something.
>I think the steps for a new instrument becoming a popular instrument go
>something like this:
>
>- a new idea/instrument comes along from some bright person or company.
> - - etc
>
>** re your time line. i guess the question comes down to where are we in
>the cycle?
Right now I would say real-time looping is still stuck in an early adopter
stage. It's well past the beginning experimenter stage. But the early
adopter stage has been going a long time and things haven't yet bloomed
past that to any mass acceptance stage. In my opinion it is still in a
phase where most people doing it are still figuring it out and learning
how
to use the ideas well enough to really incorporate it into their music.
Hopefully more of them will and we can look forward to some great and
compelling music in the future, music that captures the imagination and
interest of a wider audience who then want to play like that too.
That's why I think people like Andre going out and trying to be teachers
of
looping is a good thing, and probably what the whole process really needs
right now.
> is gibson (fer instance) missing the window right now?
Is Gibson missing what window right now? Do you think there is something
significantly different right now from before? I honestly don't see that
window of opportunity right now, although I hope one opens sometime soon.
I think Gibson may be one of the few companies that has approached this
right, whether by design or not, in that they have given their looping
product and the idea of looping a good long time to develop. They've been
patient when others expected overnight success. They keep it on a slow
burn
so it doesn't cost them much to keep it going, and so it will be there
ready to ride if a wave of popular acceptance finally comes. They haven't
blown their wad on marketing when the timing was wrong, either for them or
the market. They've invested effort towards fixing problems that got in
the
way of sales, like production or organizational related issues that used
to
be more of a problem than now. After all, up until only very recently
there
was a perpetual waiting list for the Echoplex, so there wasn't any real
reason to put effort into marketing something when you they couldn't
really
keep up with the demand that they had anyway.
To me that is the right approach at this stage. Keep things simmering
along
until it's really ready to take off. Probably that has a lot to do with
being a 100+ year old guitar company. They are used to musical instruments
taking a while to get going and then lasting a while when they do succeed,
and probably they are used to seeing things rise and fall with the fickle
nature of pop culture. They don't think like a consumer technology company
that tries to make everything run on a 6-month product cycle and flashes
out of existence after a short hot life.
Sure, there could be things like better manuals, or sales videos, or
whatever. Those are things that are being worked on now in some plodding,
yet economical fashion. But I really don't think any of those things just
by themselves are going to sell a whole lot more units than are being sold
already. We need some larger shift in the musical culture. It will make a
minor difference, sure, but nothing big like for example, if hip hop
producers were using live looping the way they use the MPC2000.
>Like Trey Anastasio and the Boomerang. He doesn't do ads or endorsements
>for it, he
>just uses it all the time. So his fans buy it.
>
>* the what-if being, what if they did do some advert stuff with him?
Could they even afford to? Will spending $15,000+ (or whatever it costs)
on
advertising with Trey Anastasio result in more than $15,000 profit on
Boomerang sales, above and beyond what they sell anyway just because he's
already using it? That's a lot of Boomerangs, but that's what it would
take
to make such a thing worthwhile. A risky thing to contemplate with a small
niche product. It might be easier to just make sure Trey is happy and
keeps
using it.
To me the sequence is something like this:
1. Trey Anastasio does not use Boomerang yet, sales are what they are.
2. Trey buys one, starts using it extensively in Phish performances and
his
later solo projects. Sales of Boomerangs improve a lot because Phish fans
are into it and follow everything Trey does anyway.
3. Boomerang does hypothetical ad with Trey someday. Costs a lot of money
to do, but only a few more sales occur beyond what was happening anyway
just due to his constant touring and playing the boomerang.
I remember Boomerang went to the NAMM show one year. Their booth was
filled
with people fascinated with their pedal every time I went by. They never
went to the show again, and later I recall them complaining that the cost
of going ended up being far higher than the sales they ended up getting as
a result. Electrix said the same this year, and I've heard it before.
That's a real danger for a small musical instrument maker. The cost of
advertising is high compared to your income, and it might not do you
nearly
as much good as the free advertising of good musicians playing good music
in front of a lot of people with your products.
kim
______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint | Looper's Delight
kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com