How Does This Work?

An interesting marketing situation that just confounds the hell out of me. It makes no sense, even to itself, and I am wondering how this will work for the folks involved. (Before I start this post I want to state that I don't give a crap about the Dixie Chicks bruhaha... that is for a different blog post. This is a look at the dynamics of a marketing situation.)

The Dixie Chicks are a product, a brand. The brand decided to make statements that resulted in a backlash from their clients and customers. Free speech begot free speech... and that pissed some off. Free speech had been redefined as "I say. You listen. No repercussions." Anybody in business knows that if you have the 'right' to piss off your clients, and they have the right to go somewhere else for their product. (New 'Coke'?)

The DC found themselves on the ropes and struggling to keep audiences. They stayed true to the beliefs they expounded (refreshing, most simply offer lame excuses), and laid low for a while hoping to weather the storm. A candid interview where they totally dissed the people who were their mainstay customers then was aired and they faced a renewed attack of consumer retaliation.

Last year they released a new album and began a concert tour. The part of the industry that had before shunned them now welcomed them. But not for the music, for the statements. Pop music welcomed them in spirit, but the music still sounds country, so many many pop consumers remained disinterested. The DC sold 1.9 million of their album to date. That is fairly good sales. Compared to their earlier releases, it is pitiful. They had sold 5 times that amount in earlier sales. They had more cancelled concert dates than any other performers in recent history.

Now we have the DC's claiming vindication of their stance as they won 5 Grammys. But the voters for the Grammies aren't the people who buy the music and the concert seats, but a tiny slice of insiders. Is that what sells for vindication these days? Vindication of what? Wouldn't vindication come in the form of concert sales, album sales, readers polls and radio playlists?

Marketing has taken interesting turns in the past, but this one really amuses and amazes me. Several far more popular and equally political performers were passed over because the members of the Academy wanted to 'make a point' (reported in the NY Times) about the DC and their challenges. I thought they were supposed to vote for the artist, not the politics.

I don't care, and actually only watched about 3 minutes of the show. I personally think that awards given by insiders to insiders are rather boring and self indulgent. I prefer the wild and wooly marketplace of the consumers... even tiny niche consumers.

Summing up:

• Brand commits faux-pas
• consumers revolt
• Brand digs in
• consumers revolt
• Brand attempts recovery without change
• consumers remain in revolt
• Brand remains defiant
• consumers slip from revolt to ambvilence
• Brand gets Kudos from Industry insiders
• consumers.... well, we'll have to see

On an aside; I thought the Grammy's were about music. Music. Now we have industry insiders stating in the NYT that they voted to 'send a message' to the country music establishment. Ok, great. So the musicians who lost did so because they hadn't provoked some wing of the music establishment. And those that won did so because they took a stand, put their asses on the line and took a mighty hit. Got it.

Excuse me, I thought it was about music.