Can't say I'm into classical music per se, but I appreciate the scrutiny of "rebranding." Intuitively, a lot of us get a sort of "icky" feeling that we can't put into words when we see something we love change (particularly in business). And this article gave me a good perspective as to why that is--too many things change for the sake of changing, instead of in ways that commit to solving long-held problems.
I always think of "rebranding" as being akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. When a company starts talking about it enthusiastically, I think to myself, "Your business is struggling, isn't it?"
A brand is everything that consumers have experienced or heard about a product. A brand name represents this experience. You can change a brand name (at the risk of confusing consumers) but changing a brand requires a long period of delivery.
Coming from the world of rock and roll (single-A league); I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, branding is the coin of the realm here now; + only partly because most bands are by necessity in the "clothing business" just to keep gas in the van. Nowadays, no listener is willing to spend even 5 seconds to discern what you're about without visual/aesthetic cues to what pigeonhole you "fit" in. They call those pigeonholes "genres"; and if you're gonna fit in one you gotta have all the cues exactly right, or not more than 2 degrees off right; or the gatekeepers will pounce, and the partisans of that genre will turn away.
I say this because I see that as a hazard for jazz, should they plunge forward into "branding" or "rebranding" too hard; as well as the clear mismatch you've pointed out with classical music. In those two art forms, you can still "focus on the music", maintain your dignity and that of the form, and have that be respected; for us, that option is no longer available.
I disagree with the premise, though some of the observations are fine enough.
Firstly, I think there is some conflation here with "organizations that sell performance tickets or recorded albums featuring classical music" and "classical music itself."
Then there is the problem of "branding" versus "rebranding." Rebranding indeed can often be destructive (see the Mondelez disaster). But organizations that desire to make enough money to stay in existence (let alone turn a profit) need a brand. And if their brand is not helpful towards that goal, they need a rebrand.
Think about Deutsche Grammophon. They have one of the most successful brands in music. That yellow label is something they've used for 70 plus years, and it's got both a strong level of recognition ans a reputation for quality. But take some of the other lesser known classical record labels and I wouldn't know what expectations to form of them or judgments to make of them. And correspondingly I would be less likely to buy their albums. Consumers respond to brands and make choices based on them.
As far as orchestras themselves, they are in an even more precarious position financially, especially in these uncertain times for public events. A strong brand identity can project things to consumers - making them more likely to donate, more likely to resume attendance when halls reopen, and choose subscriptions because of a perception/expectation of quality. Typography and graphic design matter. If they didn't, no one would care and everything would be in Comic Sans or something.
If one is referring to classical music broadly, as in "the reputation of classical music," I am certainly receptive to the argument that such a vast and long-lived cultural force is not amenable to one brand or any one person's attempt to create a brand. No one "brand" could possibly educate people sufficiently, nor would it be universally adopted. It's like trying to rebrand the word "Chair." The word evolved on its own through regular usage (which is why Classical Music snobs always get bent out of shape over the use of the "classical" terminology to apply to the broad category when it "in fact" only describes one era in the music itself. It's a whole can of worms that might be called the "prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistics" debate, and if you want me to go off on it try using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly).
The quality of the musicianship is of course important. But that quality has probably never been higher on a wider basis than it is today. So clearly quality is necessary but not sufficient. But Classical Music certainly has a public relations problem. People like the music (just look at how movies are scored, and public attendance at free concerts such as those in my home town of Chicago) but are intimidated by the stuffiness and snobbery of actually paying to go to the events. That's a problem when the orchestras and record labels need to make money in order to survive. So to the extent that "brands" and typography can help, I say more power to them.
In my case, "classical" isn't an appropriate description to begin with, since, as I've mentioned, my favorite composers are 20th Century. Even when they aren't, my tastes are heterodox. Charles-Valentin Alkan from the Romantic Period is a real passion of mine. I have also always found the concepts of brand and branding to be anathema. I tend to agree with the late Bill Hicks regarding people who work in marketing. I remember back in the early '80s, a woman I was dating gave me a pair of Jordache jeans, which were very popular at that time. Frank Zappa even used the name in the lyrics of his 1981 B-side (of Valley Girl) song "You Are What You Is" to symbolize hopelessly white bread suburbanism. I thanked her, but I politely requested that she remove the patch that said "Jordache" from the butt before I wore them. I am absolutely not making that up.
Terrific observations about rebranding in general. As an ex-business librarian I have been a close observer of them in the business sector. And I saw the same problems in the nonprofit organizations I worked for.
I got into classical music as a teenager. Most people weren't interested in CDs of Beethoven, Vivaldi, etc., so they'd always be in the bargain bin of the mall's music store, where I'd scoop them up. Other than one logo resembling a black accordion on a white background, I have no memory of any other logo on those CDs. As you said, it's more important to focus on the actual music--and, of course, the pricing.
Can't say I'm into classical music per se, but I appreciate the scrutiny of "rebranding." Intuitively, a lot of us get a sort of "icky" feeling that we can't put into words when we see something we love change (particularly in business). And this article gave me a good perspective as to why that is--too many things change for the sake of changing, instead of in ways that commit to solving long-held problems.
On another note, my b.s. meter has strengthened!
I always think of "rebranding" as being akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. When a company starts talking about it enthusiastically, I think to myself, "Your business is struggling, isn't it?"
And rebranding MUSIC? REALLY?! WTF?
Great article!
Elon Musk... I’m looking at you 👀.
🙄
A brand is everything that consumers have experienced or heard about a product. A brand name represents this experience. You can change a brand name (at the risk of confusing consumers) but changing a brand requires a long period of delivery.
A
Coming from the world of rock and roll (single-A league); I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, branding is the coin of the realm here now; + only partly because most bands are by necessity in the "clothing business" just to keep gas in the van. Nowadays, no listener is willing to spend even 5 seconds to discern what you're about without visual/aesthetic cues to what pigeonhole you "fit" in. They call those pigeonholes "genres"; and if you're gonna fit in one you gotta have all the cues exactly right, or not more than 2 degrees off right; or the gatekeepers will pounce, and the partisans of that genre will turn away.
I say this because I see that as a hazard for jazz, should they plunge forward into "branding" or "rebranding" too hard; as well as the clear mismatch you've pointed out with classical music. In those two art forms, you can still "focus on the music", maintain your dignity and that of the form, and have that be respected; for us, that option is no longer available.
*point of view!
Very interesting, I share your point of vew.
I disagree with the premise, though some of the observations are fine enough.
Firstly, I think there is some conflation here with "organizations that sell performance tickets or recorded albums featuring classical music" and "classical music itself."
Then there is the problem of "branding" versus "rebranding." Rebranding indeed can often be destructive (see the Mondelez disaster). But organizations that desire to make enough money to stay in existence (let alone turn a profit) need a brand. And if their brand is not helpful towards that goal, they need a rebrand.
Think about Deutsche Grammophon. They have one of the most successful brands in music. That yellow label is something they've used for 70 plus years, and it's got both a strong level of recognition ans a reputation for quality. But take some of the other lesser known classical record labels and I wouldn't know what expectations to form of them or judgments to make of them. And correspondingly I would be less likely to buy their albums. Consumers respond to brands and make choices based on them.
As far as orchestras themselves, they are in an even more precarious position financially, especially in these uncertain times for public events. A strong brand identity can project things to consumers - making them more likely to donate, more likely to resume attendance when halls reopen, and choose subscriptions because of a perception/expectation of quality. Typography and graphic design matter. If they didn't, no one would care and everything would be in Comic Sans or something.
If one is referring to classical music broadly, as in "the reputation of classical music," I am certainly receptive to the argument that such a vast and long-lived cultural force is not amenable to one brand or any one person's attempt to create a brand. No one "brand" could possibly educate people sufficiently, nor would it be universally adopted. It's like trying to rebrand the word "Chair." The word evolved on its own through regular usage (which is why Classical Music snobs always get bent out of shape over the use of the "classical" terminology to apply to the broad category when it "in fact" only describes one era in the music itself. It's a whole can of worms that might be called the "prescriptive vs. descriptive linguistics" debate, and if you want me to go off on it try using the phrase "begs the question" incorrectly).
The quality of the musicianship is of course important. But that quality has probably never been higher on a wider basis than it is today. So clearly quality is necessary but not sufficient. But Classical Music certainly has a public relations problem. People like the music (just look at how movies are scored, and public attendance at free concerts such as those in my home town of Chicago) but are intimidated by the stuffiness and snobbery of actually paying to go to the events. That's a problem when the orchestras and record labels need to make money in order to survive. So to the extent that "brands" and typography can help, I say more power to them.
Hey Ted, you gave me a great idea. I will rebrand myself as 48 years old.
In my case, "classical" isn't an appropriate description to begin with, since, as I've mentioned, my favorite composers are 20th Century. Even when they aren't, my tastes are heterodox. Charles-Valentin Alkan from the Romantic Period is a real passion of mine. I have also always found the concepts of brand and branding to be anathema. I tend to agree with the late Bill Hicks regarding people who work in marketing. I remember back in the early '80s, a woman I was dating gave me a pair of Jordache jeans, which were very popular at that time. Frank Zappa even used the name in the lyrics of his 1981 B-side (of Valley Girl) song "You Are What You Is" to symbolize hopelessly white bread suburbanism. I thanked her, but I politely requested that she remove the patch that said "Jordache" from the butt before I wore them. I am absolutely not making that up.
Terrific observations about rebranding in general. As an ex-business librarian I have been a close observer of them in the business sector. And I saw the same problems in the nonprofit organizations I worked for.
I got into classical music as a teenager. Most people weren't interested in CDs of Beethoven, Vivaldi, etc., so they'd always be in the bargain bin of the mall's music store, where I'd scoop them up. Other than one logo resembling a black accordion on a white background, I have no memory of any other logo on those CDs. As you said, it's more important to focus on the actual music--and, of course, the pricing.