It seems lately, marketing in the music sphere is becoming more and more of a cutthroat game. In a world of numbers, charts and internet reach, artists are finding new and insane ways to both stay relevant in the public eye, but also on the tops of the charts. Look no further than the new Taylor Swift record 'The Tortured Poets Department'. It's spent nine weeks on the No.1 spot in the UK charts, and although it's an amazing achievement, her marketing team has used some pretty insane tactics in order to keep her pole position unchanged in the face of the slew of big releases over the last few months, so much so that it's got me asking - is this just a clever ploy, or something shadier?
Since the debut of 'The Tortured Poets Department' there have been no less than 20 variants of the original record released. Between the two hour long 'anthology edition' and the various versions with one or two acoustic additions, you have to ask whether these are really all that needed. Do we need a brand new version of this record with a simple few things changed? Or could this have been handed in a different way by her team? Not just this, but the physical variants of this record are aplenty. Now, I won't be one to throw stones in glass houses, because all artist do this these days. Discogs has a shocking 40 physical variants listed on its site, all with varying track lists, signed sleeves, or a subtle difference from the original - and even Twenty One Pilots only had around 10 or so, so she's by no means alone in the venture. It's a market of serious overconsumption, and when it comes to the saturation of a certain market, it seems Swift is one of the biggest contributors.
Billie Eilish recently came out against this in an interview - this mass production and overconsumption of physical music media, claiming: ''I can’t even express to you how wasteful it is [...] — and then it’s some of the biggest artists in the world making f---ing 40 different vinyl packages that have a different unique thing just to get you to keep buying more'. She herself is making new steps to make her own process to release her physical music in more environmentally friendly ways, with her vinyl variants being made from recycled offcuts and the shrink wrap itself being made from sugar cane. It's true that this kind of insane commercialism has a massive impact on our environment, with the main ingredient used to make Vinyl (PVC) finding itself in the seas and oceans as a by-product of wasteful practices. This also goes for CD's and Cassettes, all of which rely on large amounts of mould injection plastics to be made and manufactured. Plus the extreme heat and energy needed to press vinyl especially is extremely expensive to run and un-economic. When it boils down to it, is 40 variants of the same album really all that important when the reverse effect is sadly one that is more destructive on our own environment?
Eilish continues to talk about her feelings towards artists releasing variants of records to stay on top of the charts, saying: 'It’s irritating to me that we’re still at a point where you care that much about your numbers and you care that much about making money. And it’s all your favourite artists doing that s---.'. It's a fair statement, because at what point is the line blurred between wanting to make money, and doing things in service for your fans? Where is that line drawn? Since release the record has been bought physically two million times, in whatever version, and when there are so many to choose from, I'd imagine a lot of fans are eagerly buying these different versions in order to get their hands on the latest new track. I'll also add here that these variants of tracks aren't available on streaming platforms, so you have to physically purchase them to hear the new song, so you have to make a physical purchase to listen to them.
Now I'm by no means bashing Swift here. In a lot of contexts this move is some genius marketing. Not only does she know that her fanbase enjoy new tracks and secret listings, but she also knows that they'll buy whatever she puts out. Again, we're falling into that theme of overconsumption I touched on earlier, but when you know these things are going to fly off the shelves, and you have an insane multi-night globe trotting tour about to come around, why not make these clever moves to keep the money rolling in? It's smart, albeit a little cutthroat. The industry, sadly, is a numbers game, and what a way to play it.
But a thing I personally have a problem with is the pattern of releases of this new record, and how they've conveniently coincided with other artists. During the time these variants have been made and released to fans, other big artists have been dropping their big new records after the initial launch of 'The Tortured Poets Department'. On almost every date of a big name that could interfere with her current chart topping streak, a new version of the record has been introduced. I'm talking same day. One came out on the day of 'HIT ME HARD AND SOFT' , another on the release day of 'Clancy'. This isn't an isolated incident either, with her catching flack for releasing a record on the same day as a new SZA release, and continued to do the same on the release of Katy Perry's new record later on. Any record that could have caused her numbers an issue, there was a release for. And that's not me exaggerating or trying to start fires and diss Swifties, this is true genuine fact. It leaves me feeling a little bewildered if I' honest - because if music now really is all about the numbers, surely this is all fair game right? Then why does this all make me feel a little...uneasy?
I think no matter what spin you attempt to put on it, this move lands in an odd grey area. You could think its insanely good marketing from her team releasing and drip feeding these things to her fans to create an economy where they really want to consume her media. Her cult of personality has grown and grown to an insane boiling point, so to monopolise on that traction makes legitimate sense in a business context (because let's remember performers are more than just the music). I think the thing that makes people a bit uncomfy is that these moves have ripped the veil off of America's sweetheart a little, and made her look a bit less like a human, and more like a harsh authoritarian capitalist in the press, and vilified her to a bit of an unnecessary point. If you're looking at this as harsh business and numbers, then it makes complete sense, but the mild parasocial relationship between her and her fans have left a few feathers ruffled in the Swifty camp.
If you want my opinion on it, I think you know what I'm going to say. Marketing genius, sure. Something personable that is trying to uplift fellow artists however, by no means. I think in such a society where industry plants run rife at festivals, where million dollar labels aim to divide and conquer fanbases like they were more names on a sheet rather than real human people, we have to be conscious with what were consuming and the ramifications such sweeping actions can have. Not only is Swift in the press for her insane amount of physical media, she has also been known to fly frequently, and her carbon footprint is so big its hard not to know about it (measured as 1,100 times over the average person). I'm not saying this to be rude, or take her down a peg by any means, this is just observation and, my opinion. I respect her as an artist who has trailblazed for years on end - she's talented, there's no doubt about it, but when it comes down to things like this, and blatant attempts to overshadow fellow artists and dominate the charts, you can't help but raise an eyebrow.
Searching for a clear conclusion were you? Sorry, none can be made really. It is what it is at this point, and whatever your feeling is on the matter, things are looking like they won't change anytime soon, and as depressing as that is. A real change is needed in terms of not only sustainable creation and manufacturing but also practice, and lets all just hope that such a day comes sooner rather than later.
Comments