Friday, March 29, 2013

The "New" Celebrity: Reality Stars and Branding


Celebrity branding is not a new concept; but its forever evolving. From supermodels to celebrities to nontraditional “new celebrities” it has been a long tradition to link a product with a celebrity. Even so, over the years it has taken an interesting turn. These “new celebrities” en route the reality television fame such as Kim Kardashian, Bethenny Frankel, and Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi have become brand names with products. Taking control of their image, making themselves into brands and basking in the fifteen plus minutes of fame these “new celebrities.” They are a part of a new different approach to branding: self made brands.

Branding is an important step in the marketing of and selling a product. According to the article “Brand communications in fashion categories using celebrity endorsement” by Angela Carroll,

“Products evolved into brands in order to create differentiation in increasingly competitive markets by offering customers something extra over and above the functional attributes and associated potential benefits. Thus, the term ‘ added value ’ was used to distinguish products from brands,” (Carroll, 147).

Branding is simply the practice of differentiating a product from it competitors by providing a unique and identifiable name to a product. Though is not that simple. Not only must manufacturers differentiate their product or service but they also must pierce into consumer’s psyche and appeal to its targeted audiences. According to Carroll,

“If consumers have high awareness and favourable associations towards a brand then equity is positive. Branding strategy becomes less about market share and more about minds and emotional share…. Consumers therefore turn to brands less as bundles of utility but more as badges that convey social meaning and that have the power to generate social acceptance…. Thus, brand consumption has evolved into a process of self-reference, self-identity and self-articulation,” (Carroll, 148).

Branding therefore also relies on a great deal of what consumers think and how they fit certain brands into societal and cultural cues and meaning; and also into their personality and veneer.

A great way to do this is through celebrity endorsements. Celebrity endorsement means an identifiable or famous person who uses their status to promote and sell a product. Celebrity endorsements are all around us. Either its popular athletes for Nike and Gatorade or actors and actresses for the new diet pill, fitness video or beauty product, celebrity endorsements are vital to branding. So it’s completely logical and smart to utilize them. According to “Brand communications in fashion categories using celebrity endorsement” article, “Celebrity endorsement has become a popular approach in the branding process both in terms of gaining and keeping attention and in creating favourable associations leading to positive brand knowledge and distinct brand images,” (Carroll, 150). Celebrities’ endorsements are meant to attract and keep someone’s attention through affirmative, memorable and different imagery. What better way to receive positive and relatable messages than with our favorite celebrities. We listen and buy their music, we pay to see their movies or concerts, pretty much invest in this celebrity as if they were a boyfriend or girlfriend or a child.

Plus even the benefits are worthwhile to manufacturers and marketers, benefits “include increased attention, image polishing, brand, introduction, brand repositioning and the potential to underpin global campaigns,” (Carroll, 150). Celebrities introduces and shift focus to the product, gives a product an image, a name, stamp, while gives this product the opportunity to be seen worldwide.  We as consumers invest in them so marketers invest in celebrities to get a share of this investment, thus a marriage based on mutually beneficial goals and factors.

So with this marriage and courtship of celebrity branding and products comes in culture. Marketers have to appeal to the demands and popularity of celebrities as reflected in what consumers are interested. What are consumers watching, who are consumers watching? The ever decreasing interest and investment in movies, scripted television shows and music, marketers shift focus to a new, less traveled road: Reality TV and the “new celebrity.” Right now America loves reality TV so marketers love reality TV stars. The “new celebrity” is reality stars. Their claim to fame oftentimes is based on being the breakout stars of widely popular reality shows. They are in a sense famous for being famous and not for talent, expertise or skills. Examples include Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi from Jersey Shore, Bethenny Frankel from Real Housewives of New York City and Kim Kardashian a rich socialite who used her bedroom skills to create an empire with clothing lines and a bunch of reality shows with her family. These are “average” people who got notice and made it big and with suave and skill, others consider this milking their 15 minutes of fame to the fullest extent.

Even so, what’s so interesting about this is they not only explored and moved onto other venues but create a brand within their personas and control their brands, which is in a sense a new practice of branding. According to the article, “What Snooki, the Kardashians, and More Can Teach the World About Building Successful Fashion and Beauty Brands” by Amy Odell:

“Snooki and her fellow cast members’ success in the licensing space, along with the success of other reality franchise product lines (like the Kardashian Kollection at Sears), is but a sign of the times we find ourselves in. “We seem to be willing to give up a lot of control to celebrities,” notes Catherine Moellering, executive vice-president of Tobe,” (Odell).

This is saying that they’ve found success and embraced it and that are people especially those in the advertising/marketing / manufacturing industries are willing to let them as “celebrities” have control over their brand.

While consumers seem to embrace and marketers seem to take notice and listen up, others are not so amused. As in an article titled: From Chanel No. 5 to Britney No. 11 by Rachel Felder for the New York Times:

“That’s what I would call the cheapening of celebrity,” said Catherine Walsh, who, as senior vice president of global marketing at Coty, has worked on fragrances from Jennifer Lopez, Sarah Jessica Parker and Gwen Stefani. The first celebrities were big A-listers, she said. “Now, pretty much any celebrity, whether they be an actress, a performer, a musical artist, whatever — anybody who’s had some sort of even minimal career highlight in their life — the next thing they say is, ‘I need a fragrance,’ because it’s part of brand-building. The degrees of fame may differ, but the marketing of celebrity fragrances tends to be consistent, typically focused on strategic personal appearances, social media, news coverage and advertising,” (Felder).

This quote is stating that some people feel the welcoming of reality TV people and the use of their persona to produce a product as fragrance is disgraceful and devalue the prestige of celebrity.  Even with this what sets these new celebrities is apart is the fact that they utilize their fame as a way to brand-build like traditional celebrities through different mediums as social media and news coverage.

In a Forbes magazine article titled, “Reality TV Stars Turned Entrepreneurs by Jenna Goudreau:

“Those that do make it work have a unique mix of personality, talent, credibility and business sense. On the spectrum of reality television shows--with, say, Jersey Shore on the lower end and American Idol as the crown jewel--talent-based competition shows like Project Runway or Top Chef offer contestants instant industry cred and a valuable opportunity to market their work.” (Goudreau).  

Goudreau is saying that it is not so much the celebrity factor but more of a business factors which also includes creating and maintaining a brand. Even so, who knows what the future holds for this trend. What are your opinions?

Works Cited

Carroll, Angela. “Brand communications in fashion categories using celebrity endorsement” Brand Management Vol. 17, 2. 12 September 2008.

Odell, Amy. “What Snooki, the Kardashians, and More Can Teach the World About Building Successful Fashion and Beauty Brands.” New York Magazine. 20 January 2012. 11:50 am. Web. 28 March 2013  

Goudreau, Jenna. “Reality TV Stars Turned Entrepreneurs.” Forbes Magazine. 4 April 2010. 4:10 pm. Web. 28 March 2013  

Felder, Rachel. “From Chanel No. 5 to Britney No. 11.”  The New York Times.  Web. 28 March 2013  

Are tween stars pushing limits or simply just growing up?


From the Mickey Mouse club, to the VMA’s, to now weddings and babies! We have watched stars such as Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Justin Timberlake grow up right before our eyes. From their best moments to their absolute we did not miss much. From breakups to buzzed heads we have watched these teen sensations turn into multi millionaire celebrity icons. Not much has changed in the industry because now we are witnessing it again, stars from a younger generation such as Beibs, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens and Miley Cyrus are now trying to make their own transition from tween Disney stars to focus on an older audience. The pressures and spotlight of the media will soon threaten their friendly, clean, image and Disney appeal.

So how do you get away from this “tween persona” that you’ve carried out for so long? I believe that is a question that is still trying to be figured out. Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens took their first steps of venturing away from their “good girl” image by landing themselves leading roles in the recently released movie Spring Breakers. They both play college students who head to Florida for the wild, and reckless infamous week of spring break. It is no secret that Gomez and Hudgens have their bad girl attitudes out to play in this on screen vacation. “A lot of image makeovers are about ''edge.''” Says Gleiberman in the article “Spring breakers” and the art of image rehab. So is this the kind of big break they need for a transformation? Because you can trust that this film is definitely not no High school Musical.

Will the limits be pushed too far in this bikini bash, which includes drugs, sex, and violence? (Pearson) It is a chance any celebrity needs to take when trying to make a dramatic transition within their career. Gomez is most popularly known from her role in Disney’s “Wizards of Waverly Place” but since recently turning 20 and now no longer a “teen star” she felt it was time to make the jump. "I am getting a little bit older, so I wanted to push myself and kind of get into a little bit more of an indie world. And it was a really great experience for me. And at the same time it has been, of course, a little awkward, but great," Gomez quoted at the Hollywood premiere of the new film. (Pearson)

Speaking of Selena, you cant have her without thinking of a certain someone who has come to be every young girls dream “boyfriend” Justin Beiber. Justin Beiber came on to the scene just a few short years ago and we have already watched him grow up from that little boy singing on YouTube to a now worldwide male singing icon. In 2011 Beiber was quoted “I think I’ll make a smooth transition from a teen star to an adult star” in USA today. Well his time is here to prove that transition and 2013 is already demonstrating that the leap may be harder then Beibs thought. “In January he was seen holding what sites identified as marijuana in one photograph, while another showed him getting handsy with a female fan.” (Goldberg) Another teen celeb who can relate to Beiber is Miley Cyrus who publicly apologized when footage leaked of her smoking salvia out of a bong in 2010. Cyrus also recently got heat for having a little slippage of her side boob and openly discussing sex and specifics such as losing her virginity. (Marcus)

The pressure is also on Bieber the most because he is solely in the limelight. There are not any other solo male teen pop artists right now. Though they don’t like to be compared, Timberlake and Beiber share many similarities. JT too had to make his transition before our eyes. The transition may have been easier for Timberlake because he made the change at a time where many other pop male vocalists were on the scene. He had support from his band mates and with other male group stars such as Backstreet Boys and 98 degrees, everyone was transitioning at the same time so Timberlake didn’t get as much heat. Lucky or maybe unlucky for Beibs he gets the spotlight all to himself. (Goldberg)

Though our favorite innocent teen stars may be venturing off and trying to find themselves and their place in Hollywood their has been no “dramatic” or life altering choices these stars have yet to encountered. No jail and no arrests (at least not yet) from these Disney sensations. CNN quoted it perfectly, “Despite the age-old idea that each generation is more reckless than the last, Bieber and his famous peers don't appear to be rebelling so much as they're just getting older.” (Goldberg) The transition between teen stars to icons will always be a tough one, but don’t worry; cameras will always be there to make sure we miss nothing along the way.


Work Cited

Marcus, Stephanie. “Miley Cyrus Flashes Side Boob, Talks Sex Scenes & Losing Her Virginity” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 May. 2012 Web. 29 Mar. 2013

Goldberg, Stephanie. “Justin Beiber: From tween sensation to adult icon” CNN. CNN.com, 29 Mar. 2013 Web. 29 Mar. 2013

Pearson, Ryan. “Selena Gomez in an “awkward” transition in R-rated “Spring Breakers”” Associated Press. 15 Mar. 2013

Gleiberman, Owen. “Spring Breakers and the art of image rehab” 22 Feb. 2013 Published 01 Mar. 2013

Thursday, March 28, 2013

To Tweet or Not to Tweet?


Today you’re not a celebrity if you aren’t on Twitter.  Even though twitter was launched in 2006 it wasn’t popular until 2009.  Twitter had approximately 18.2 million users in May 2009, increasing to 27.2 million by January 2010.” (Marwick 2011) Twitter makes it possible for you and I to be “friends” with people like Kim Kardashian and Rihanna.  Twitter is where people can make or break a brand for themselves, whether they are an up and coming music star or a reality TV show star trying to get their show on the map.

            Celebrities who use Twitter use it to shape their personal brand and connect with fans. This doesn’t always have a good outcome for each celebrity who tries it.  Take for example, Amanda Bynes, she has been off the acting scene for a while and her recent activity on Twitter is destroying her reputation worse than her 2012 DUI arrest and charges of a hit and run. (Jacobs 2013)  Bynes recently tweeted to rap star Drake that she wanted him to do sexual things to her over Twitter.  This comes along with Bynes other tweets that “If I don’t follow you on Twitter, I hate you.”  Bynes tweets seem to be tarnishing her reputation every 140 characters she chooses to tweet.

            On the other hand Kim Kardashian seems to be getting the best of what Twitter can offer to a reality star. While connecting with her fans Kim is also getting paid from companies like shoedazzle.com for each tweet she decides to send out.  Reportedly around $10,000 is what Kardashian makes for these tweets.  Kardashian uses twitter to show the good side of who she is so that she doesn’t disappoint her follows.  Before she made her perfume she went straight to twitter to ask her followers what type of smell it should have.  “She’s the ninth most-followed person on Twitter, with 15.7 million followers; why, according to one branding expert, she was recently tied with Snooki at the pinnacle of the celebrity-loyalty index.” (Wallace 2012)

            Other celebrities like Snoop Dogg, Charlie Sheen and Whitney Port all get paid to send out a simple tweet.  Each one of these tweets helps this celebrity make their brand even stronger.  “We find that celebrity practice involves presenting a seemingly authentic, intimate image of self while meeting fan expectations and maintaining important relationships.” (Marwick 2011)  Each one of these celebrities wants to give off the impression that they are completely free with their tweets and they don’t hold anything back.  I am sure a lot of celebrities do do their own tweets but most have their publicist tweet for them as long as they OK it.

            Musicians and other stars that might not be as well known take to Twitter to make a name for themselves. Once these celebrities get their name out there and get followers it becomes much easier from them to build a fan base and make revenue.  Especially bands that might be just starting out and have one song on the radio.  Twitter makes it easy for them to connect with their fans.  Twitter has become a marketing tool for so many different acts today.  You can either make or break yourself.

            We try to understand celebrities better through Twitter; we look at their tweets and their pictures and monitor them as if we are actually friends with them.  We try to get celebrities to notice us by tweeting out to them with the (@) sign. If these people we follow do something unworthy of our followership we unfollow them on Twitter and sometimes in real life. Actions that these celebrities make could cost them their fans depending on what is posted.  That’s why each tweet that gets posted is most likely to try and inform us or make us laugh.

Twitter attracts actors, pop stars, authors, politicians, and others with established fame, such as Oprah Winfrey, Senator John McCain, Shaquille O’Neal and Weird Al. Although people known primarily for their online presence, like marketer Pistachio and video blogger iJustine, are well-represented on Twitter, the most-followed Twitter users are, for the most part, the conventionally famous.” (Marwick 2011)

Twitter isn’t just for one type of celebrities, and it can be beneficial for any celebrity to get on twitter and show their fans appreciation.  Twitter gives fans a sense of friendship that they never thought they would experience with a person they never met before.

Works Cited:

           
Jacobs, Matthew. "Amanda Bynes Takes To Twitter Again: 'All That Matters Is What Your Lover Thinks Of You'" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.


Lee, Youyoung. "Kim Kardashian, Snoop Dogg Get Paid HOW Much To Tweet?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.

Marwick, Alice. "To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter." Convergence: Journal of Research into New Media Convergence: The International Technologies 17.2 (2011): 139-58. Sage. Web. 28 Mar. 2013.

Wallace, Benjamin. "What Will the Fashion World Do With Kim Kardashian?" The Cut. NY Magazine, 12 Aug. 2012. Web.



Friday, March 22, 2013

Digital Music


           The way we listen to music has progressed, from vinyl records to cassettes to CDs and now through digital sources.  Over the past decade, digital music has evolved, but has not quite been balanced.  The readily available quality of music through digital sources has increased the convenience of listening to, exploring, and discovering music, but unlike previous sources, Spotify and Pandora do not get a decent compensation for what they have contributed to the music industry. Spotify and Pandora both allow users to easily access music for free as long as you do not mind listening to ads.
            Pandora launched in 2000 and is an online radio that plays a selection of music that is customized to the user’s taste.  Users can search for an artist or song that is of interest and Pandora will recommend music of a similar style or genre.  The user has the ability to like or dislike the song and Pandora will continue to suggest more music based on the user’s feedback.  Users can also share songs or stations with friends through email, Facebook, or Twitter.  Pandora has a purchase link that navigates users to Amazon’s MP3 store or iTunes.  Users are given the option to purchase Pandora, which will remove all advertisements.
            Spotify is essentially an iTunes, but free and with commercials.  Users have access to an unlimited music catalog.  One is able to create playlists and star their favorite songs.  Spotify also has an online radio similar to Pandora.  You may have noticed that your Spotify has updated to a new version, but do you know all the new perks?  Spotify has a new social following feature, which suggests Facebook friends, artists, and influencers to follow while discovering music.  It has automatically followed artists you have listened to the most and subscribed to playlists that may be of interest. Users can easily unfollow anyone that does not interest them.  The Spotify Social profile has been redesigned, “showing [a verified artist’s] standard discography and their most popular songs according to the Spotify user base.”
            Pandora and Spotify make a lot of money, but unfortunately a majority of the revenue goes to royalties.  The music may be free to the users but Spotify and Pandora pay royalties to the record companies.  Music is not cheap. Artists and record labels have lost money from the sales decreasing.  Now, so are Spotify and Pandora.  “Spotify’s chief executive, Daniel Ek, has said that the company had paid in its history about 70 percent of its income “back to the industry.” But a closer look at its recent financial statements shows that the ratio may be even higher. Last year, its “cost of sales,” which includes licensing fees and distribution expenses, was $229 million, or 97 percent of revenue.”  The system has not yet been perfected, but hopefully the cost for licensing will decrease once Spotify improves and prospers.  Looking at Spotify’s popularity, I do not think that will be a problem.
Work Cited
Sisario, Ben. “Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in Royalities.” NYTimes.com. Media Coder. 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.
Constine, Josh. “Ears-On With Spotify Social, The New “Follow” Feature Now Available to Everyone.” Techcrunch.com. Tech Crunch. 20 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Is Radio a Thing of the Past?


I myself listen to the radio on a regular basis whether it is in the car, in my kitchen cooking or in my room cleaning the radio is usually on. I enjoy a various mix of stations from NPR to Z100 and my local hip-hop station. Although I am an avid radio listener it looks as if I am one of the few radio listeners of our time. Radio is in decline specifically among the young and is now the number three medium among 12-24 year old when it used to be number one. Also, radio was an $18 billion industry a decade ago and todays it’s a $15 billion industry according to Radio Ink Magazine.

There are many different reasons for the decline in radio and many of them came about when the Internet started to expand. With the invention of the Internet and the iPod, and other mp3 players, came an endless amount of options for listening to music. People are now able to stream music from sites such as Spotify, Pandora and YouTube, download music from iTunes, make playlists on their iPods and scroll through music blogs to find new music. All of these personalized options make radio seem outdated and of no use. Streaming has become the new way to listen to music, the article “Pandora and Spotify Rake in the Money and Then Sent It Off in Royalties” states, “At least 33 million people have tried Spotify, and more than 150 million have registered for Pandora.” These numbers are huge considering how young these sites are.

During my research I focused on Clear Channel Media and Entertainment because of their huge monopoly on the radio industry. On their website they state, “With 243 million monthly listeners in the U.S. Clear Channel Media and Entertainment has the largest reach of any radio and television outlet in America.

It’s not so much that radio is loosing a massive amount of people from their audience but that they’re on their way to doing so and they need to come up with preventative measures to stop it from happening. According to the article, “Aggregators Help Radio Reach Online Audiences” from the New York Times by Ben Sisario, John Hogan, Chief executive of Clear Channel Media and Entertainment said, “98 percent of listening to Clear Channel’s stations are still on its terrestrial signals. But it (the online audience) is growing quickly. According to Triton Media, a company that measures Internet radio audiences, Clear Channel’s online audience has risen 117 percent in the last year.” Again, this proves the switch to online listenership is growing rapidly.

It is clear that people still want to listen to the radio, which is evident by the increase in XM satellite subscribers as well as Pandora listeners. “Measuring Growth in Dollars and Page Views” by Ben Sisario states, “Pandora now has 67 million listeners each month — a third more than it had a year ago — and Sirius XM now has nearly 24 million paying subscribers.” This shows that people are willing to pay for radio, although XM Satellite stations are different in that they don’t have commercial advertisements and there are more options of different stations tailored to specific tastes, as is the case with Pandora stations. The next step seems to be finding what listeners want and creating ways to give that to them through radio.

Companies involved in radio such as Clear Channel are being proactive in keeping radio alive. One thing Clear Channel did was revamping its iHeart radio app in order to compete with Pandora. This new, improved app gives users access to 10 million songs, which is several million song more than Pandora’s selection. Like Pandora, the iHeart app allows you to stream music from specific genres, which is one of the most loved aspects of Pandora. With more song selections and fewer advertisements this improved app is sure to be one of Pandora’s biggest competitors. By keeping up with competitors and going a step above them, radio will be able to rise above the decline.

Work Cited:

McNeill, Brian. "Report: Clear Channel Targets Pandora with Revamped App." SNL Kagan Media & Communications Report(2011)ProQuest. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Sisario, Ben. "Aggregators Help Radio Reach Online Audiences." The New York Times: B.1. Aug 06 2012. ProQuest. Web. 21 Mar. 2013

"Radio Ink - Radio's Premier Management & Marketing Magazine." Radio Ink Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Sisario, Ben. "Pandora and Spotify Rake In the Money and Then Send It Off in Royalties." The New York Times. N.p., 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Sisario, Ben. "Digital Notes: Measuring Growth in Dollars and Page Views." New York Times. N.p., 26 Jan. 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

"Clear Channel Communications, Inc." Clear Channel Communications, Inc. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

Is Touring Worth the Risk?


From records, to CDs, to digital tracks, the music industry is constantly evolving.  In a world where free music can be obtained with the click of a button, how do musicians stay afloat?  Unfortunately, these musicians need to learn how to evolve along with the changing times and technology.  It’s no longer about how many fans are listening to your music, but how many of your fans are dedicated enough to actually purchase your music.  Access to illegal downloading and streaming applications have forced artists to put an even greater importance on live performances.  More artists are going on tour hoping that their fan base and album sales will increase.  However, many musicians are now struggling with the question: is touring really worth the risk?
            Last year, many of the top grossing artists were among those who did indeed go on tour.  In fact, Madonna was the industry’s number one earner in 2012 thanks to her “MDNA” tour.  According to an article on Yahoo! Music, “The 54-year-old Material Girl topped Billboard Magazine's annual list of 40 top money makers for the second time after earning an estimated $32 million - 93.5 percent of her revenue - from her 88-date "MDNA" tour, 2012's biggest tour” (Yahoo! Music).  Madonna made an unbelievable profit for the year.  What’s even more unbelievable is that nearly all of that profit was made from touring alone.  The artists trailing behind Madonna such as Bruce Springsteen, Roger Waters and Van Halen also had very successful tours.  Even Lady GaGa feared putting an end to her tour until her injuries were too much to bear.  The Hollywood Reporter writes, ‘“I am completely devastated and heartsick. I've been hiding this injury and pain from my staff for a month, praying it would heal, but after last night’s performance I could not walk,” the performer said in a statement after a concert in Montreal’ (Vlessing).  GaGa did not want to stop performing even with a tear in her hip.  She feared disappointing and losing fans and therefore losing profit as well.  Billboard magazine even reported on the top 40 list that, ‘“The entire top 10 averaged 84.2 percent of their income from concerts…”’ (Yahoo! Music).  With statistics like this, it seems as though going on tour is the only option for artists.  If they want to make a big profit and earn a spot on the top earning list, touring is the way to do it.
            On the other hand, there are many risks involved with going on tour.  In an interview with artist, David Lowery, he stated, ‘"Touring usually only pays enough to pay the crew and expenses. Touring only makes sense if it increases your sales. Artists often go on tour for free in hopes that the tour pays off in increased sales"’ (Resnikoff).  Many artists start touring to get their name out there and to leave an impression, gaining life-long fans.  They pay for the tour and everything that goes along with it all on their own.  So, what happens when you don’t sell as many tickets as you had anticipated?  What if fans don’t go out and buy your new album afterwards?  These artists lose out on all of the money they had laid out for the tour.  Not only did their plan and hard work fail but they now have a major setback financially.
            The band, Garbage, decided to take the plunge and tour without a label.  They are aware of the chance they are taking but have high hopes that it will pay off.  Rolling Stone reported that, “In doing so, the band realized it had to pay for recording and videos out of its own pocket. ‘“The freedom it affords you is so amazing,” Manson says, "but it's nerve-wracking. We've put our own money into it”’ (Browne).  Without the control of a label, the band is free to write, record and release any material they desire.  However, they also have no funding to back them up if that material doesn’t sell.  It’s a 50/50 chance.  This could be the greatest decision the band has ever made or the worst.  The only thing Garbage can do is perform and hope for the best.
            Fitz and the Tantrums also went on tour for three years, performing multiple times a day, rarely getting any time to spend at home.  The lead singer, Fitzpatrick, expresses that, ‘“It's really exhausting. You're doing a performance for a website and you know they have almost no readership, but you do it anyway. You're in somebody's garage doing a taping and you know no one will see it, but you think, 'OK, five more fans here or 10 more there”’ (Browne).  The way Fitzpatrick describes going on tour is very dull and depressing.  Not only was it exhausting for this singer but it turned his life at home upside down.
            Touring and making money seems like a glamorous lifestyle from the outside.  However, is all of this hard work and risk really worth the possibility of becoming a top earner?  Can artists really make a profit from simply releasing albums and promoting them without a tour?  Or will all of their hard work touring pay off?  Yahoo! Music reported that, ‘“Yet even in the coming years, as streaming services become a more important revenue source, possibly replacing digital downloads and CD sales, one thing is unlikely to change: concerts will have the greatest influence of top earners' overall earnings,” said Peoples’ (Yahoo! Music).  Peoples overlooks all of the money put on the line, the exhaustion and abandonment of home-life.  They seem extremely confident that the only way artists can make money today is by touring.  Artists need to decide for themselves if going on tour is worth the risk or if they can continue to get by in life with the little profit they’re making without it.

Browne, David. "Survival of the Fittest in the New Music Industry." Rollingstone.com. N.p., 8
Nov. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. <http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/survival-of-the-fittest-in-the-new-music-industry-20121108>.
"Madonna Crowned Top Music Earner in 2012 Due to World Tour." Yahoo! Music. N.p., 22
Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. <http://music.yahoo.com/news/madonna-crowned-top-music-earner-2012-due-world-170447517.html>.
Resnikoff, Paul. "I'm a Successful Artist. And Here's Why Things Have Never Been Worse..."
Digital Music News. N.p., 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.
Vlessing, Etan. "Lady Gaga Battling Joint Inflammation, Cancels Tour Dates."
www.hollywoodreporter.com. N.p., 2 Dec. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lady-gaga-cancels-tour-dates-421108>.