On Word Of Mouth Advertising
I just finished reading an article about an exchange between a teenager and a theatrical composer over the composer’s unwillingness to provide his work for free.
The teenager argues that the composer should provide his sheet music for free to young artists so that they have strong music to perform for their own use. She claims that by providing the sheet music for free his work will reach a young audience who can’t afford and increase his overall sales through word of mouth. The tactic as I’m sure you’ve heard is called viral marketing, peer to peer marketing, or other meaningless buzzphrases where material is released for the public to use and share in order to create peer recommendations for the good or service. I’d like to focus on this idea of viral marketing in the arts and why its not the same thing as what the teenager is talking about.
Viral marketing works by releasing a piece of content into media channels which people can share. By sharing the branded content they create interest in the product that the content is part of or refers to. For media like music this would mean releasing a single or video on the radio, Mtv, youtube, and other channels where people could view and get interested in the product. As with all advertising this kind of outreach is done based on the theory of ROI, Return On Investment. By producing the shared content the producer is expecting that they’ll gain more sales in the long term than they loose by providing the content for free.
So the teenager is correct here. One of the ways that advertising is done is through the release of free samples for the public to consume. The problem is that the teenager hasn’t specified that some content be released for use, or if she did it was the content she wanted, not the content that the composer wanted to release. As I’ve been following the file sharing debate for years the argument isn’t for the limited release of content (which has been done for years, its called the radio) its for free access to the content. Free access to content removes agency from the owner of the content. All advertising is based on that magic phrase, ROI, and by not allowing the content owner to control the release of their content they have no way of seeking that return.
Releasing a single on the radio allows the content owner to give the public a taste of the product so that they will be interested in purchasing the entire product. That’s advertising. Releasing the entire album for download and expecting that some users will enjoy the music and reward the content producer by purchasing a copy (that they already possess) is busking. You’re giving it away and asking for a dollar out of appreciation.
As much as I’ve seen the argument for the free availability of content based on the word of mouth advertising argument I haven’t seen any studies done which support it. I don’t suspect there are any as such studies are difficult to conduct and quite expensive. Its also breaking the advertising model as the content owner is no longer in control of the dissemination of their product.
I’ve seen the word of mouth argument being used across all forms of media. I’ve had it used on me recently as an online fashion magazine wanted to public my photos on their paywall protected website without payment on the promise of exposure. Conversely I’ve heard about photographers who avoid community sites like flickr and only make their work available through flash websites which prevent the download of copies of their images as they see no value in allowing the public to see their work except through their branded portfolio site.
Word of mouth advertising is heavily used and has been for a long time. I make extensive use of flickr where my work can be seen and even downloaded (abet watermarked). The key is that this is a controlled release of content of limited value which points to the real product, either a license or a print. If the composer mentioned in the article above were to freely distribute his score, there would be no reference to a greater body of work, its all out there and its now uncontrolled.
If the teenager wanted to make a compelling argument, she should have suggested that a few songs be released through his website for non-performance use. That would give the composer the word of mouth exposure while retaining control over his catalog as a whole. Ultimately its up to the content owner to decide how they wish to advertise themselves. The argument for free content undermines the right of the content owner to make decisions, even backwards, bad decisions.
Ultimately we do live in a capitalist society and labor is done at the expectation of finding a return on that effort. While media itself is immaterial and as the author of the article linked above states, selling digital content does not diminish a physical inventory, the creation of that content was not done without effort. Even if nothing physical is created when working in media the process of creation did occur which requires physical equipment, time, effort, training, a location for this to occur, other actors involved in the creation, and the food, shelter, and physical comforts of all those involved.
Finding compensation for creative work is a challenge and how it is achieved has and will continue to change as media and its distribution channels evolve. That does not mean that creators need to allow their audience to decide how they will seek that compensation.





