Backlash: Does Fan-Engagement Do More Harm Than Good?

Posted on 16. Nov, 2009 by refe in MUSIC INDUSTRY

You can’t really go anywhere in the music industry today without hearing the phrase ‘fan-engagement.’ While most bands have (hopefully) always made an effort to connect with their listeners and fans in a way that goes beyond the music itself, social media has thrust the practice into the spotlight in a big way. Services like Twitter and Facebook have provided a platform to maintain contact with fans across the world in ways no one could have imagined ten years ago. Many artists are seizing the opportunity and seeing impressive results.

Of course, when any concept begins to saturate an entire industry the way fan-engagement recently has there is bound to be some backlash. Backlash is good – even the most promising ideas need to be tested and critiqued. I came across a couple of interesting pieces last week that provide a good counterpoint to the fan-engagement buzz, and I thought they were worth discussing further.

Farewell to the Casual Fan

The first piece is a great article by Jeremy from Finger Tips Music entitled Farewell to the Casual Fan. Jeremy argues that new models that put too much emphasis on fan-engagement may actually drive casual fans away.

“Today’s fan engagement schemes, however, deny the existence of casual fans by leaving them out of the picture entirely.

Because what entices a super-fan will almost, by definition, be of no interest to a casual fan. Just because you happen to like a song or two, or even an album or two, doesn’t mean you require a musician’s real-time biographical details, doesn’t mean you crave endless streams of recording flotsam and jetsam (b-sides, live takes, remixes, etc.), doesn’t mean you’ll want to purchase objects lit by physical association with the musician (self-designed t-shirts, hand-addressed postcards, and the like) or watch repeated video presentations.”

“Most important of all, a casual fan will not spend upwards of $100 a year purchasing music and other accessory items from one band or musician.

In his original “1,000 True Fans” post, Kelly asserted that the processes artists develop to feed their diehard fans will also nurture what he calls “Lesser Fans.” I see no evidence beyond wishful thinking to support this idea.

I believe, on the contrary, that the more the music scene focuses on these kinds of super-fan activities, the more likely it will be that casual fans more or less disappear.”

While I disagree with some of Jeremy’s conclusions, I appreciate that he is serving up a dose of reality to artists who fail to understand that the artist-fan relationship isn’t black and white. Some fans may sit down at their computer each day hoping to find a new communication from their favorite artist – whether a song, a video, a simple email or DM. Others might view that kind of constant contact as spam. The reality is that artists need to learn to navigate both types of relationships. The goal is to engage fans, not annoy them.

Yet I don’t believe that a rash of over-extended artists will cause these casual fans to disappear. Casual fans don’t stop listen to music when they’re turned off by an artist, they simply stop paying for it. And they’ve already stopped paying for it. The recent focus on fan-engagement is not causing this – it’s responding to it.

One commenter, Ben Denison, offered an interesting counterpoint that I thought was worthy of including here:

On the contrary, it is my concern that over “engagement” by a band will drive away the super fan. Do you already tire of going to a band site and being asked to engage in some sort of merry fan/band dance, when all you want to do is listen to the music?

He goes on:

As far as I can see there is already evidence that over engagement has already generated a niche as super fans are seeking bands such as Islet that don’t even have a website/myspace/bandcamp for the exclusivity and mystique factor.

The 80’s on Social Media

October 29, 2009 marked the 40 year anniversary of the first message sent over the internet. To mark the occasion, Duran Duran bassist John Taylor delivered a speech at UCLA on the effects of technology on music. Specifically, Taylor spoke about the way that constant fan-engagement may harm the relationship between artist and fan. Here’s an excerpt via the BBC (which you might also recognize from Hypebot):

When artists today are asked to Twitter their every thought, their every action, to record on video their every breath, their every performance, I believe they’re diluting their creative powers, their creative potency and the durability of their work.

And in the long run I believe they’re also diluting the magical power and the magnetic attraction that they can or will ever have over their audience.

John Taylor of Duran Duran

He’s saying two things here – the first is that social media communications, however simple and mundane, actually use up an artist’s creative reserves the same way songwriting might.

I happen to think that he’s fundamentally right, although this statement again assumes that artists are incapable of any nuanced understanding of fan interaction. Yes, if an artist wastes three hours in front of the computer screen he or she is unlikely to have much energy left for creative endeavors. No one is actually asking you to do this. To suggest that modern fan-engagement models require artists to “twitter their every thought, their every action” is a dramatic exaggeration.

How much time does it take to update your Twitter status? 30 seconds maybe, and only if you’re really straining to think up something clever to say. So even if you push 20 updates per day that still only consumes 10 minutes. That’s less than 1% of your day. Of course this is an oversimplification of what is involved in an artist’s social media activities, but the point is that you shouldn’t by into the “every thought” hyperbole.

In his second statement, Taylor claims that using social media to step out from behind the curtain and connect with fans in an authentic way is detrimental because it dilutes the rock star mystique. Well, if it does fans seem to be doing ok without it. I love the way Matisyahu put it in an article a few months back (I haven’t been able to find the source to link to it – I’ll update when I do.) He pointed out that when he was growing up he never would have imagined getting the chance to connect with his heroes the way his fans are able to connect with him through social media. The memory of that desire is what drives his own forays into consistent fan-engagement. These activities have only served to further endear his fans to him as an artist and to his music.

Use every weapon

The bottom line is that the tools are there to connect with fans, and they’re free to use. To ignore them is to ignore an important weapon in every artist’s fight against obscurity – and poverty. Artists need to learn how to use these tools responsibly and effectively to build their fan base, while understanding that different types of fans require a unique approach.

Share it if you like it:

Tags: 1000 true fans, social media, Twitter

21 Responses to “Backlash: Does Fan-Engagement Do More Harm Than Good?”

invisiblepilot

16. Nov, 2009

Re Denison’s remark > not sure I can agree that engaging with fans online will drive fans away.. But yes, the music files should be the most prominent element in the design – so, if someone comes only to hear the music.. there they go (as we have become experts as blocking out what we don’t want to consume online, the rest will be ignored)

I do see a danger in Interacting with fans the WRONG way – this can certainly drive casual fans away.

Where artists have been granted unlimited access to fans (sign up for an email list or join a facebook group) it’s important to not flood them with contact. I recommend using these for the larger news and keep the minutia on the primary website only – the superfan will know where to find it and the casual fan will not be overwhelmed with it.

Twitter is another story, as most fans will expect more interaction there – but that’s another article.

Good read, as usual – Thanks for posting it.
- refe
  
  20. Nov, 2009
  
  I do see a danger in Interacting with fans the WRONG way – this can certainly drive casual fans away.
  
  Exactly – there are ways to engage with fans that will have positive results and ways that will turn people off. But many recent commentaries (the Taylor speech for example) that treat all attempts at engagement like they fall into the latter category. This is unfortunate because there are artists who really are interacting with their fans very well and seeing great results.
HubertGAM

17. Nov, 2009

I find myself experiencing a rude awakening. As folks become to realize they need to engage their fans, we will see a new challenge of breaking through the noise. For the early adopters, they will see sustainable success as trusted sources. The Johnny-Come-Latelys will not have the same luxury.
If you are more-than-casual music listener, then you are always seeking new music. If every new band you like wants your e-mail, then he/she will eventually have a pretty cluttered box with alerts from bands “engaging.”

This just means if you are a band trying to figure out what to do, get going. There is a whole new problem that will develop when this breaks.

Refe, you’re right though. The tools should be used. I think the ones that understand how to use it without having to overthink their actions will benefit the most. I say on my blog all the time… just “make friends,” sometimes that’ll be better than having a fan.
- refe
  
  20. Nov, 2009
  
  Yeah, things move so fast these days. That’s great as it means that progress is being made in many cases. But it also means that the quality of implementation can suffer as well, which is what you’re describing. Bands need to act fast, but act strategically as well.
Julie D.

17. Nov, 2009

RE: John Taylor’s “coming from behind the curtain” remark– The purpose of (productive) fan engagement is to bring fans backstage, not the other way around.

It’s the same concept as knowing someone in the band. It makes the fan feel appreciated– as though they’re ‘in with the in-crowd’ . The super fan will seek out every last drop, but the casual fan can still feel good about knowing the leatest (big) news.

Yes, it can be overwhelming. A fatal flaw, made mostly by out of touch music marketers rather than artists, is pushing too hard because “thats what you do.” Market saturation is impossible when it comes to fan engagement– i.e., it shouldn’t be the goal.

**Side Note: Came across your Music & Marketing Group intro on LinkedIn which led me here. Thus far one of the best blogs I’ve read through. I’d love to connect (so I’ll send something through there.)
- refe
  
  20. Nov, 2009
  
  The purpose of productive fan engagement is to bring fans backstage, not the other way around.
  
  I love this!
  
  And thanks for the kind words – feel free to connect on LinkedIn, and you can find me on Twitter as @refeup.
Suzanne Lainson

17. Nov, 2009

I just put up a blog post that is sort of an extension of the conversation.

I’ve been around people who have very devoted fans. The issue of boundaries comes up. It’s usually not discussed with the fans, but the celebrities will talk about to those who they are genuinely close to.

Fans don’t have to be allowed to cross those boundaries, but sometimes you don’t realize they have been crossed until after the fact.

http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/11/thoughts-on-groupies.html
- refe
  
  20. Nov, 2009
  
  It takes a certain level of maturity to be the center of attention and pull it off with integrity and skill. Many artists aren’t going to be there, especially not early in their careers. That’s why one thing that I strongly recommend is that artists surround themselves with a quality team. People who can look objectively at the artist’s actions and develop strategies and structures to keep them focused on the right track, and to make sure that reasonable boundaries are clearly established and maintained.
jack

18. Nov, 2009

there’s one issue I never see addressed. The fan’s time is a limited resource, and there need for merch is also limited. That means that a fan will go to only so many concerts in a year, and even if social media engages fans more, fans don’t have 24 hours a day to be “engaged” with artists. At some point this time runs out. How many concerts does someone go to a year? 12? Am I now going to more?

Regarding merch, I’m 45 years old. I mean really, how many concert posters and band t-shirts am I going to wear.

There maybe an opportunity to squeeze some more blood out of this stone, but not much.
- refe
  
  20. Nov, 2009
  
  That’s true of any business and any demographic. One can only drink so many cups of coffee before they start shaking – that doesn’t mean that no one should try to sell coffee. And that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try to get you to buy 3 lattes in a week instead of your normal two. That’s how they make money. It’s not fundamentally different for an artist.
Suzanne Lainson

18. Nov, 2009

“there’s one issue I never see addressed. The fan’s time is a limited resource, and there need for merch is also limited.”

I keep trying to point out to people that the golden age of DIY music isn’t really as expansive as people think. A few people will be able to make enough to make a living at this, but most won’t. Too many bands/artists chasing the same markets.

And as you point out, once you get older and start having kids, your time and financial priorities change. I suppose the music marketing folks hope that as the parents stop buying t-shirts, their kids will pick up the slack.
Eugenia

23. Nov, 2009

John Taylor — who I wanted to get married to in the ’80s — has it wrong. Saying that the artist mystique is going to get destroyed by the social media is a backwards opinion. Him, coming from the ’80s, where every girl wanted to be with him, sees the whole thing from that point of view. But today, it makes more sense to connect with the artist rather than be far away from him/her. Personally, I unfollow bands that don’t reply on questions on Twitter. If I can’t feel connected to them, I go away.

And besides, is it better to have the paparazzis to shape your image to the fans, or doing that yourself? I am sure that doing that yourself is a better strategy rather than having sleazy paparazzis and bloggers like Perez shredding your credibility apart.
- refe
  
  23. Nov, 2009
  
  Well, with hair like that how could you resist?
  
  I agree with you, but I see both sides of the argument. I really like what the previous commenter Julie D. said:
  
  The purpose of productive fan engagement is to bring fans backstage, not the other way around.
  
  I think there’s some merit to this, because what it does is flip the artists perspective a little. You can interact with your fans all you want, but make them feel like they are being drawn into an experience, a connection and a community, rather than making them feel like you are chasing after them to hawk your wares.
Eugenia

23. Nov, 2009

Finally, being an artist is an allure in itself. You don’t only sell music, you sell a lifestyle and philosophy too. If that’s good or not, it’s another subject.
Suzanne Lainson

23. Nov, 2009

None of the artists I know personally do enough with social media. It’s a combination reasons:

1. Not wanting to put in the time.
2. Not knowing how to effectively express themselves.
3. Not wanting to engage with fans that much.

I’ve watched some of them not even respond to emails and comments. I can understand when you start getting an overwhelming amount (in which case you either say you can’t respond to everyone or you hire someone who at least acknowledges the emails and comments), but none of the artists I know gets anywhere close to an overwhelming amount.

I think it has more to do with the fact that they got into music as the way they chose to express themselves and they don’t really want to deal with anything else. They feel it’s a demand on their time rather than something enjoyable.
- refe
  
  23. Nov, 2009
  
  All of which is unfortunate because those activities can result in more opportunities to share the music they’ve created with people who will enjoy it.
  
  Promoting your music has always been a part of making music. At least with social media the artist has more control over the conversation.
  - Suzanne Lainson
    
    23. Nov, 2009
    
    I’ve come to think that a number of musicians are fundamentally anti-social. They like making music with other musicians, but if you suggest they network, especially with non-musicians, they don’t want to do it.
    
    I think many of them still have this fantasy that they will make enough money that they can pay someone to do all of that for them.
    
    Of course, we’re seeing the rise of a new type of artist who not only writes and performs music, but also knows how to both engage fans and make industry contacts. A few are very good at it, many are not.
    - Eugenia
      
      24. Nov, 2009
      
      This is absolutely true. I know of a specific artist living close to me that even by mentioning updating his own web site he gets all grampy. And he doesn’t even want to shoot a music video either. He specifically told me “I don’t want to have a director getting artsy with my art”. I am a very difficult person to offend (since I’m outspoken myself), but that did offend me.
      
      I think that 90% of the current (or past generation) musicians who won’t get into all this online marketing actively, they will have to eventually get a new job. Their loss.
    - Ben Denison
      
      24. Nov, 2009
      
      I don’t agree. Dont get me wrong, Im an advocate of “engagement”, but we have to understand that its horses for courses. A lot of artists are not cut out for it, would do it badly, and are therefore better off not doing it. Not necessarily a bad thing.
      
      They will find a way. There are plently of early-adopters, super fans and casual fans that feel exactly the same as them, and they will discover each other in their own way.
      
      “The purpose of productive fan engagement is to bring fans backstage, not the other way around.”
      
      Im sorry refe but I dont like this at all. Are we not past the word “engagement” yet? Its so one way. So narcissistic. As if the artists life and creative process are the only thing that’s interesting in the deal.
      
      Like being at a dinner party an listening all night to someone be “engaging” about themselves, and never asking about you.
      
      It is this category of engagement activities which I find off-putting.
      
      Connecting is about a relationship. Not engagement. You dont just invite the “fan” metaphorically backstage to be part of the “in crowd”. How condescending. You build relationships with people (not fans) based on common ground, respect and interest in each other, as equals.
      
      Technology has been a great leveller in that respect. The stage curtain is well and truly down and if artists want to be “engaging” they are going to have to learn to be people like the rest of us.
      
      I do agree that time is of the essence for artists who do take this root, there are only so many friends a music fan can have! Artists should be out there trying to become part of other peoples “in crowds”, nicely. (Example for illustration: (No Disclosure, Ive never met the man) Ben Walker getting “in” with his local flickr group. They invited him behind their curtain. http://bit.ly/5hjqGt )
      - refe
        
        30. Nov, 2009
        
        On the other hand, why would anyone care if they were connecting with a musician rather than just some guy/girl they met on the street? Well, because they’re a musician!
        
        Sure, the days of untouchable glam rock jerks are over – that level of mystique is nearly impossible in our connected world. And the world is probably better for it. But there is still something that draws people to musicians and artists, and actors and atheletes for that matter.
        
        If it weren’t for this draw no one would be talking about fan engagement or connecting with fans in the first place because it wouldn’t be valuable.
        
        So while I don’t necessarily disagree with your points, I would still argue that the only reason Ben Walker’s (to use your example) flickr group cared enough to ‘invite him behind their curtain’ was because of the pedestal that people naturally place artists on.
        
        It may not be rational, and technology is certainly diminishing this effect, but it still seems to be the lynchpin for any business that is build around fans.
Today’s headlines, Tuesday December 02 | fyimusic.ca

02. Dec, 2009

[...] Does fan engagement do more harm than good? [...]