Celebrities and Twitter: Is it really beneficial to their careers?

These days, with social media networks, it is becoming easier to track your favorite celebrities. All you have to do is follow them on Twitter. According to ABC News, as of November 2013, there are over 200 million active Twitter users. While there is no official number of celebrities who have a Twitter account, there are 1.11 million verified Twitter users, according to Verified Accounts Twitter page, @verified.

According to Twitter they “concentrate on highly sought users in music, acting, fashion, government, politics, religion, journalism, media, sports, business, and other key interest areas” when it comes to verifying accounts. Among these are celebrities like Katy Perry, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga who each hold a spot in the current standings for most Twitter followers of 2014 ranking 1, 2, and 4 respectively (Respers France).

As the EW.com article “Hollywood’s Twitter Jitters” points out, the most popular movie star on Twitter, excluding what Markovitz refers to as “multitaskers” like Jennifer Lopez and Ashton Kutcher, is Jim Carrey with 9.5 million followers. Is this surprising? Since Twitter’s conception in 2009, it has been used as a marketing tool for celebrities. However, the most popular celebrities on Twitter are music or TV stars. Why is this? Markovitz argues that it is because it is easier for these types of celebrities to post things like behind the scenes photos and videos, but big name movie stars are often bound to secrecy. So all they really can do is publicity for things that are already released and most of this publicity usually comes from a PR agent, not the celebrities themselves.

I think we can all agree that we would much rather hear from the celebrities themselves, as it gives us a peek into their personal lives. However, this is what can get them into trouble.

In the December 2013 cover story of Esquire, George Clooney addressed why he does not approve of Twitter and does not understand why any famous person would join any social networking sight. He said the people he admires most are those who are unavailable.  He said, “First of all, the worst thing you can do is make yourself more available, right? Because you’re going to be available to everybody…or all the things you might think in the quiet of your drunken evening are suddenly blasted around the entire world before you wake up” (Junod).

Drunk tweeting comes with the territory of being so attached to our phones. It happens to the best of us, but when we do it, only our followers will see it, but obviously when celebrities that have millions of followers slip up, the whole world will know by the next morning.

Then there is the problem of human error and I guess celebrities are just like us in that way. In 2011, Ashton Kutcher became the focus of not one, but two Twitter mistakes, within months of each other. According to The Hollywood Reporter, on the 10^th anniversary of 9/11, the actor tweeted, "This without a doubt the greatest day of the year! Hello football my old friend. Let's us mingle for the next 5 months. TY #NFL TY #Jesus," in reference to September 11^th being the opening day of football season. After his followers pointed out that this was bad timing, Kutcher deleted the tweet (however it remained on his Facebook page) and later apologized saying “I got mad respect for the people that suffered in 9/11. Pls don't twist my enthusiasm. / Hindsight...Yeah, that was probably a poorly worded tweet.”

Two months later, he made another error, this time as a result of being uninformed with the following tweet: “How do you fire Jo Pa?  #insult #noclass as a Hawkeye fan I find it in poor taste," not knowing the conditions of coach Joe Paterno’s firing and his involvement in a child-abuse sex scandal. Shortly after, he admitted he did not know the entire story before tweeting and was an advocate in the fight against child abuse. He then followed up saying he was a taking temporary break from Twitter until he could “find a way to properly manage this feed.” (Nordyke).

But like we said last week with Miley Cyrus, is any publicity good publicity? What do you think? Is having a Twitter account beneficial or detrimental to a celebrity’s career?

Works Cited

- Junod, Tom. "George Clooney's Rules for Living." Esquire., 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

- Maas, Jennifer. "5 Celebrities Who Are Not on Twitter and Why." ABC News. ABC News Network, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

-Markovitz, Adam. "Hollywood's Twitter Jitters." Entertainment Weekly 7 Dec. 2012. Web.

- Nordyke, Kimberly. " Ashton Kutcher Called 'Idiot,' 'Ignorant' After Tweeting Joe Paterno's Firing Was 'in Poor Taste'." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 11 Nov. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

- Respers France, Lisa. "Katy Perry Is the Most Followed on Twitter." CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Feb. 2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

- Splash News. "George Clooney Will Never Join Twitter." YouTube. N.p., 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

- Twitter.com 

Keeping Up With the Kardashians’ Self Branding

       It is hard not to keep up with the Kardashians, because their personal branding is almost everywhere. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Kardashians empire includes magazine covers, television shows, personal appearances, clothing lines, sneakers, swimwear, liquor, lipstick, perfumes, skin care products, and even Silly Bandz (Bruce and Newman). The Kardashian empire is vast and only continues to expand. According to the Huffington Post, each of the Kardashians is paid to tweet (Marcus). Kim has been paid upwards of $25,000 for a single tweet endorsing a company (Marcus). But why are the Kardashians famous, do they have any talents other than creating drama? The major issue is that the Kardashians have risen to stardom without any talent other than their appearance. Personally, I don’t like the Kardashians, but even I have to admit they have created a new business model for making money. 

       The Kardashians have built their empire from creating problems into solutions. According to The Hollywood Reporter, “thanks to such no-boundaries behavior, the tight-knit family has ably defied the laws of 15-minute reality TV fame while building a wildly profitable empire”(Bruce and Newman). The Kardashian family is filled with drama, but these dramatic issues are turned into a profit for the family because people watch their reality shows on E! and buy their products. The Kardashian television shows are highly-rated but serve as a marketing platform for Kardashian Inc. Khloe admits “these shows are a 30-minute commercial” (Bruce and Newman). These shows serve to enhance the Kardashian personal brand and their clothing store, Dash. The Kardashian television shows are E!’s most lucrative franchise ever. According to the Hollywood Reporter, in the first season of Keeping Up With the Kardashians, the show averaged 1 million viewers per episode (Bruce and Newman). 

Here is a video interview with the Kardashians about their brand: 

       

       The reason the Kardashian television shows are widely popular is because people from different backgrounds can relate. People with embarrassing families and family drama can relate to the show. Even people without drama in their lives can be thankful for their family. People who have lost a parent or a loved one can relate to the Kardashains. The Kardashian television shows reach a large demographic. According to “Personal Branding Case Study: Kim Kardashian” by Katy Goshtasbi, Kim has flexibility in her brand (Goshtasbi). Younger girls aspire to looks like her and buy her clothes and cosmetics. Older females want to know her youth secrets. Young and older males are interested in Kim Kardashian because of her sex appeal. Companies want Kim to endorse their products because she can appeal to a large demographic of people.

       The Kardashians have reached an extraordinary amount of fame, moving beyond just reality television stars to become a franchise, some of their success in creating a brand is social media. Kim has incorporated her fans into the decision making process surrounding her endorsements. When Kim was creating a perfume, she asked her fans questions about the packaging, bottle, and gifting program (Bruce and Newman). The perfume is one of Sephora’s top-selling products, so Kim’s strategy worked. 

       Kris has a “more-is-more” policy when it comes to magazine covers (Bruce and Newman). According to “2013’s Best and Worst Magazine Cover Stars”, Kim’s cover on the 2013 issue of Cosmopolitan was the magazine’s biggest selling issue in 2013, with 1.2 million single copies selling during the first half of the year (Bazilian). Kim and Kanye are featured on the April 2014 issue of Vogue. Wintor, the editor of Vogue, says Kim and Kanye are defining culture, stirring things up, and their presence in the world shapes the way it looks and influences the way we see it (Ellenbogen). Wintor says “Kanye is an amazing performer and cultural provocateur, while Kim, through her strength of character, has created a place for herself in the glare of the world’s spotlight, and it takes real guts to do that”(Ellenbogen). Wintor discusses Kim’s character being the key to her success. Kim’s personal brand is the reason she is famous, she doesn’t have the talent actors or musicians obtain. She is a great entrepreneur. Will the Kardashian’s lead to the beginning of people becoming celebrities because they are able to create a strong personal brand? 

       I believe people are starting to become tired of people featured in reality television shows becoming famous. I believe the Kardashians started a trend of reality stardom, and have been successful at maintaining their franchise by branching out of their television show and onto other ventures. The Kardashians were able to build a brand and capitalize on their flaws. I would argue the Kardashian empire has become too big. In 2010 the Kardashians made $65 million, which is more than what Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, and Tom Cruise are estimated to have earned combined (Bruce and Newman).  Their franchise continues to grow, in 2013 the Kardashians made $80 million (Marcus). There is a major problem, when incredibly talented actors are making less money than reality television families. I believe the Kardashians will be overexposed and people will get over this phase. In the future, I believe consumers will become tired of reality television shows and become more interested in scripted shows. Do you think people will become tired of the Kardashians? Or do you think the Kardashians have lead the way for people to become famous without any marketable talents? Will the Kardashians and other reality television stars lead to the end of scripted television?

Works Cited

Bazilian, Emma. "2013's Best and Worst Magazine Cover Stars." AdWeek. AdWeek, 26 Dec. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

Bruce, Leslie, and Judith Newman. "How the Kardashians Made $65 Million Last Year." The Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

Ellenbogen, Rachael. "Anna Wintour Says Kardashian-West Cover Was 'Entirely Our Idea,'" ABCNews.com 21 March 2014. Web.

Goshtasbi, Katy. "Personal Branding Case Study: Kim Kardashian | Puris Personal Branding." Puris Personal Branding. Puris Personal Branding Solutions, 21 Feb. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

Marcus, Stephanie. "How Much Are The Kardashians Worth? A History Of The Kardashian Family Money." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Mar. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

What makes a successful celebrity endorsement?

            When we watch television or flip through a magazine many ads have a celebrities face as the focus of their ad.   This is intended to catch consumer’s attention leading them to further read the ad and later go out and purchase the product.   Although celebrity endorsements are commonly used and can add to the success of a brand, shouldn’t products be strong enough where celebrities are not needed within the company’s ad campaigns?  

Companies normally spend a ton of money on celebrity endorsements and in some cases before they know it there is something negative about the celebrity in the media, therefore bringing their product down with the star.   In the article Save Your Money: Celebrity Endorsements Not Worth The Cost, Kevin Harrington uses the example what if you recently invested big bucks into Justin Bieber and the next morning you wake up to find out he “had been arrested and charged with drunken driving, resisting arrest and driving without a valid license.” Now, instead of this celebrity creating a positive image for your product, they instead have caused it to crumble to pieces.

Of course, there are many advantages of celebrity endorsements, but there are also risky disadvantages that go along with this marketing tactic. Companies are faced with many pros and cons that must be taken into account when considering investing in a celebrity endorsement.  According to The Pert Group, these advantages include the celebrity’s ability to enhance brand equity and name recognition, adding a new dimension for a brand, increasing brand credibility, and lastly bringing a certain personality to a brand.  Disadvantages include celebrities making mistakes and looking bad in the publics eye, a celebrity changing their image, consumers being skeptical if the celebrity actually uses the product, the high cost of investing in a celebrity endorsement, and you have to make sure your celebrity has a direct connection to the brand (McMahon). 

Essentially, for the endorsement to be successful the celebrity has to embody and “be” the product.  In the article The Value of Celebrity Endorsements by Henry Schaefer he states, “ The key ingredient for making this work is insuring that the celebrity spokesperson is perceived to be compatible with the brand and the product category, and that these important perceptions are based on the brand's target consumers.”

 Beyonce, an overall well-liked celebrity who very rarely has any negative publicity signed a $50 million promotional deal with Pepsi in December 2012 (Miller).  This caused many controversies because previously she was involved in Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move fitness campaign (Wallace).  Pepsi even had a decline in sales when Beyonce was the face of their brand. Beyonce doesn’t personify the brand Pepsi. Pepsi is a soda brand that Americans are advised to stay away from because of it known harmful health risks. Instead, Beyonce personifies a strong fit woman who takes care of herself, eats well, and wouldn’t be an everyday Pepsi drinker. In December 2012, The Center for Science in the Public Interest encouraged Beyonce to abandon the deal. They wrote in an open letter to her: “Your image is one of success, health, talent, fitness, and glamour. But by lending your name and image to PepsiCo, you are associating those positive attributes with a product that is quite literally sickening Americans.”

On the other hand, pro-athlete endorsements within the sports industry tend to be particularly successful. Yes, there is always the risk that there could be negative publicity toward the athlete just like any other celebrity endorsement, but there becomes a certain emotional connection between a fan and their favorite player when they are representing a sports brand.   Some fans even make the connection that if they buy those shoes or wear a certain brand they can be more like that player and be a better athlete themselves.  When a pro-athlete is sponsored by a brand they wear this brand everywhere they go and make the brand a part of their everyday life.

So, overall what makes a good celebrity endorsement deal is when the celebrity and the brand have similarities.  When the consumer sees an advertisement that has their favorite celebrity and is confident that the star actually uses the product, this causes them to form an emotional connection with that particular brand.  In this case, will celebrity endorsements continue to grow in the future, or is it becoming harder for brands to find celebrities that are relatable to their product?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K7Nm9h3fa0

Work Cited:

-"The Value of Celebrity Endorsements." QScores.com 27 Jan. 2014. Web.

-Barker, Andrew. "Branding Deals With Pop Stars Go Beyond the Casual Endorsement." Variety. Variety Media LLC, 16 Apr. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2014.

-Bittman, Mark. "Why Do Stars Think It’s O.K. to Sell Soda?" Opinionator Why Do Stars Think Its OK to Sell Soda. The New York Times Company, 5 Jan. 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

-McMahon, Jen. "The Price of Fame: Advantages & Risks When Using Celebrity Endorsements | Market Research Firm | Brand Positioning | Business Growth Strategies| The Pert Group Blog." Market Research Firm Brand Positioning Business Growth Strategies The Pert Group Blog. The Pert Group, 2 Nov. 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

-Harrington, Kevin. "Save Your Money: Celebrity Endorsements Not Worth The Cost." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.

-Miller, Julie. "Beyoncé Signs $50 Million Deal with (and Secures Unlikely Art Patronage From) Pepsi." Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair Conde Nast Digital, 10 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

-Wallace, Tracey. "5 Ridiculous Celebrity Endorsements That Went Way Wrong." PolicyMic. Mic Network Inc., 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

The Future of Digitally Streaming Music

In an increasingly digital world it is no surprise that the music industry has changed drastically in terms of the way people are listening. There is no doubt that in order to keep up, the industry was forced to adapt to a society that has become accustomed to instant gratification. As a result, music apps were created and made available to the masses. Among the most popular of these apps are Spotify and Pandora. These allow music fans to listen to countless songs and artists either for free or with a monthly subscription. Although there is no question whether these music apps are able to gain revenue, whether or not they will ever make a real profit is the central issue.

According to a report from The Recording Industry Association of America, digital sales from music services such as Spotify, Pandora, and Rhapsody were up 39 percent from 2012 in 2013, (Friedlander). Meanwhile, “Permanent digital downloads (including albums, single tracks, videos, and kiosk sales) declined 1.0%,” (Friedlander). Physical shipments also declined as well, dropping 12 percent from 2012. Obviously, it is clear that digital music services are rapidly rising in popularity and usage. With more and more subscribers each month, these services are beginning to overshadow permanent downloads from industry giants like iTunes. In fact, these trends are so threatening to iTunes’ services that they have recently released their own version of a digital streaming service in the form of iTunes Radio. However, it has not been able to compete with Spotify or Pandora. They are currently rumors that Apple is formulating another plan in their fight to stay on top of the music industry.

            In a recent article from Digital Music News, writer Paul Resnikoff states, “

If the future of music is streaming, then it’s a disastrously unprofitable one.

Generator projects massive increases in streaming usage and paid subscription, but no recognizable way to profit from it,” (Resnikoff). No matter how popular digital streaming becomes, if the companies involved never make a profit and shareholders are forced to take these financial blows, the future of these seemingly successful companies remains uncertain.

(Photo from Digital Music News)

            The reason for the lack of profit is made clear in an article written by Ben Sisario for The New York Times blog. In this article, Sisario discusses the current financial situation for Pandora and Spotify. He states, “Both are losing money, and for largely the same reason: the cost of music royalties,” (Sisario). What is interesting about this is that Pandora and Spotify go about paying royalties in different ways. Pandora pays their fees through federally regulated channels. On the other hand, Spotify negotiates with record companies directly. However, neither method seems to be better than the other as both companies continuously fail to make a profit.

            Although some of Pandora’s revenue does come from paid subscribers, they rely mostly on advertising. Yet, they cannot successfully make enough from these advertisements to cover the steep cost of royalties. In recent years, Pandora has been fighting to lower the cost of music royalties. Although there was a bill created, they were not able to make it pass and therefore Pandora finds themselves again without a solution. 

            In the case of Spotify, there does seem to be some hope for profits in the future. As Sisario points out in his article, “It’s possible that Spotify’s licensing costs could go down in the future, as record labels monitor its progress; they could decide to make changes to ensure that Spotify thrives and can keep sending over its royalty checks,” (Sisario). It appears that their method of dealing directly with record companies and music distributors could potentially pay out in the long run. Of course, that is not currently the case.

            In the video below, the CEO of Pandora discusses the aspect of profitability for the company. It is evident that the cost of royalties is among major concerns for this digital streaming service.

<object data='http://www.bloomberg.com/video/embed/JQNgp1dLS9yD2fzN3lU3BQ?height=395&width=640' width=640 height=430 style='overflow:hidden;'></object>

            As the majority of people today use digital streaming to access and listen to music, it is easy to see the success of services such as Pandora and Spotify. Of course, it becomes questionable how long a company can stay in business if they continue to fail to make a profit. Do you think that Pandora and Spotify have a sustainable future in the music industry?

Kelsey Scriven

Sources

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02/18/profitless 

http://76.74.24.142/2463566A-FF96-E0CA-2766-72779A364D01.pdf  

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/pandora-prepares-for-q1-earnings-JQNgp1dLS9yD2fzN3lU3BQ.html  

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and-spotify-rake-in-the-money-and-then-send-it-off-in-royalties/

Works Cited

Friedlander, Joshua P. News and Notes on 2013 RIAA Music Industry Shipment and

            Revenue Statistics. Publication. N.p.: RIAA, 2014. Print.

"Pandora Prepares for Q1 Earnings: Video." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 23 May

            2013. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Resnikoff, Paul. "Streaming Services Will Never Become Profitable, Study

Finds…."Digital Music News Streaming Services Will Never Become Profitable Study Finds Comments. N.p., 18 Feb. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Sisario, Ben. "Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in

Royalties." Media Decoder Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in Royalties Comments. The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Is Promotion and Marketing Always the Key to a Successful Album?

With the constant change in technology and the rise of new artists, the music industry has been more competitive than ever.  It is no lie that our generation has a tough time staying focused because of all the daily distractions, and record labels and artists are trying to keep our attention.  Traditional campaigns continue to work for certain artists, but some artists are taking a different approach.

An album release date is an extremely important date in an artist’s career.  They work months and even years on an album, so they utilize many strategies to prep their audience and get them excited.  When an artist is making a comeback after years of no new music, like Justin Timberlake, promotion and marketing is vital to get him back in the public eye.  Promotion for Justin Timberlake’s new album, The 20/20 Experience, was everywhere that it was hard to miss.  Kyle Anderson, author of the article “Beyond Beyonce” states, “The 20/20 Experience included a spot on the Grammys, a weeklong residency on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, and cross-promotional ads with Budweiser.”  JT’s campaign was huge, and it was well-received by his audience because he was spread across many different platforms. This traditional approach helped to make his album a success, but Beyonce used a completely different approach to make her album just as successful.

Beyonce released her most recent album without any promotion.  She even surprised her fans with 17 videos that went along with the songs.  This strategy worked in her favor for a reason. Anderson says, “Beyonce has massive leverage. David Bowie has massive leverage. This is not something an emerging or middle-class artist can do.”  Since Beyonce has constantly been in the spotlight and updates her social media to connect with fans, she didn’t need a month-long campaign to get them excited. To sum it up, her presence and fanbase are strong enough to help her records go platinum.

According to “The 'Beyoncé', The 'Drip Feed' & 6 Other New Album-Release Strategies” by Jeremy Allen, Beyonce’s strategy has become known as “the big bang method.”  Allen states, “It certainly didn’t harm sales – ‘Beyonce’ went on to sell 828, 773 copies worldwide in three-days, the fastest selling album in iTunes history.”  This big bang method definitely changes the music game. It’s innovative and fresh and potentially creates more excitement than an album that we know is coming.  As album sales have been declining in the past few years, this might be exactly what certain artists need to get back on top.

Another artist that is following Beyonce’s style is Pharrell.  Forbes recently released an article titled “For Pharrell, Marketing An Album Release Means No Album Marketing At All,” which talks about his plan to have no promotion. With his seven nominations at the Grammys, his performance on the Oscars, and new hit “Happy,” Pharrell hasn’t had to do much to stay in the public eye.  All of his exposure has clearly given him the confidence to release an album without warning.  He pulled a “Beyonce” and announced his album release only a few days before it was available on iTunes Radio.   According to the Forbes article, “Without specifically promoting an album release, over the past few months Williams has positioned himself in the spotlight and primed his audience, allowing him to quickly release an album to fans that are ready and waiting” (Buli).  Fans aren’t overwhelmed by a long campaign, and the switch in promotion (or non-promotion) can be more enticing for them. Pharrell is defying the norm, just like Beyonce, which might be what the industry needs.

Promotional and marketing campaigns have always been essential to an artist and product’s success.  It has become the norm, but only certain artists are brave and fortunate enough to break the pattern.  While JT had success with his campaign, Beyonce had success with her lack of campaign. Without a campaign, an artist takes a big risk, but it could yield outstanding results. Do you think this is a route other artists are going to take in hopes of reaching success with their albums?

Works Cited

Allen, Jeremy. "The 'Beyoncé', The 'Drip Feed' & 6 Other New Album-Release Strategies." NME.COM. 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.

Anderson, Kyle. "Beyond Beyonce." Entertainment Weekly. 10 Jan. 2014: 15-16.

Buli, Liv. "For Pharrell, Marketing An Album Release Means No Album Marketing At All." Forbes. 05 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2014.