Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

High Tech Run Amok

Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should

May 2007 By Denny Hatch
13

In the News

Skipping CD Ruins Brit’s Lip-Synched Concert
It’s not much of a secret that Britney Spears and many of today’s pop stars choose to lip synch while performing, but every now and then, the technology that affords them the chance to sing silently comes back to burn them. On Saturday night during an Orlando show, Britney Spears was booed mid-show when her backing track skipped five times during the 15 minute show, MTV UK is reporting. Spears reportedly played down the incident, and kept cranking out her five-song show.
—AOL News, May 21, 2007
For years, audiences have suspected that Britney Spears was lip-synching at her live performances.

As one fan wrote in a blog:

In her concerts when her microphone is turned on for her to talk to the audience, you can hear Spears gasping and trying to catch her breath and seconds later when she breaks back into song, she is smoothly singing without a problem, yet somehow her fans are just catching on that she might not be the “live” singer they thought she was.

Last week, America’s hottest little pop tart was hoist by her own petard. During her show in Orlando, Fla., the CD to which she was lip-synching started skipping.

The result was a chorus of boos.

When an audience spends up to $500 on a scalped ticket to see a live performance—only to discover that the singer is lip-synching—this is a rip-off.

In show biz—and marketing—technology cannot cover up a mediocre product for very long.

Our Dazzling High-tech World
When my wife, Peggy, and I got into a taxi at the Madrid Airport and told the driver that we wanted to go to the Hotel Orfila, he did not understand and spoke no English. Peggy showed him the hotel name and street address—Orfila, 6—on our Expedia receipt. Still, he had no idea where it was.

Peggy travels with a BlackBerry. As we pulled away from the airport, Peggy logged on to T-Mobile’s affiliate in Spain, a service called MovieStar. She found the phone number of the Hotel Orfila and dialed it on the BlackBerry.

After a few words with the hotel receptionist in English, Peggy handed the BlackBerry to the driver who got instructions in Spanish.

Whereupon, he punched the address into his GPS direction finder and up came a map on his Mercedes’ dashboard screen. As we proceeded into town, the map unreeled before us, and a lady with a soothing voice gave instructions in Spanish on what to do at each fork and turn.

What would have been a wildly expensive nightmare as little as three years ago turned out to be a straight shot to the Orfila.

And we thanked whatever gods there be for modern technology.

As a kid in the 1940s, it took three days by train for me to get from Long Island, N.Y., to visit my grandmother in Los Angeles. I am still astonished that I can enter a tube full of people in Philadelphia and be in Madrid six hours later.

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* Technology can enhance a business, but it also can ruin it.

* Below is a hyperlink to an Industry Standard story about Boo.com, “the gateway to world cool” that was going to do “nothing less than reinvent retailing on the Internet.” Launched in 2000, its Web site was loaded with leading edge technology at a time when 90% of Internet users had dial-up modems. Apple users need not apply. Boo.com burned through $135 million and flamed out in six months.

* Technology experts generally are not schooled in marketing. Marketing must drive the technology, not vice-versa.

* Before going live with a Web site—or before dropping a direct mailing—try out the transactional elements on outsiders to make sure that they are completely understandable and user-friendly.

* No marketer ever went broke using the K.I.S.S. (“Keep it simple, stupid”) formula.

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

“Grey Gardens,” The Musical
http://www.greygardensthemusical.com/

“Grey Gardens,” The Film
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073076/

“Boo.com: A Cautionary Tale” by Susan Orenstein
http://tinyurl.com/yvyu2y
 

Companies Mentioned:
13

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Ron Munro - Posted on May 25, 2007
Have to agree with Diana. The "hum the scenery" line is absolutely the best.
Elwood Boomus - Posted on May 24, 2007
Another great article, keep up the good work.
BJTaylor - Posted on May 25, 2007
Honestly, Denny, I love your incisive wit and broad application of marketing concepts. Most times I'm nodding my head and telling myself "Ummm-hummm" as I read your column. Having done (performed) live theatre in my younger days, I know of what you speak. As sound systems became the norm, I began to enjoy live theatre less and less because it sapped the energy of a performance and fostered so much mediocrity. I have all but sworn off live theatre (both as performer and patron) because of the disappointment of poor performers and inferior presentation, even when the material is phenomenal. I find the same concept applies to businesses and customers, now that I'm in the 'real' world. The ones I serve seem to prefer thoughtful, rational and focused marketing -- not high-tech hype that serves no discernible purpose. I resigned my marketing position last year to allow the new boy on the block to take over my department and wallow in his own juices a while. I find that utilizing my marketing experience in a customer service venue is vastly more rewarding than arguing daily with a 'techie.' In my estimation, his high-tech focus has not been the corporate boon our owners were led to believe it would be. Several of them have expressed interest in re-establishing a true marketing focus. One wonders, however, if it is possible to go back once the 'levee' has been breached. One thing New Orleans taught us there...things will never really be the same.
Rainer F. - Posted on May 24, 2007
I may not be quite as old as you but I still remember some of the old-time stars such as Danny Kaye. Very, very few, if any of today's musical 'stars' have the talent of the old-timers. It was a real treat to watch Tony Bennett on AI last night. Even when listening to 50s and 60s songs on the radio today, I can still appreciate the beautiful tone AND power of those incredible voices who did without all the fancy technology that the singers use today. Keep up the old remininces.
greg waters - Posted on May 24, 2007
Point of view is very telling here. Everything from the 1940's and 1950's is good. Everything from the rock-and-roll 60's forward appears to be bad.

I'm in my 40's and happen to know who Danny Kaye, Eve Arden and all the other people you mentioned are. And I agree they were the big, talented stars of their day. But many of today's artists also have talent -- built to please a different generation.

Your age (and income -- trips to Spain, center seats on B-way, la-de-da) is certainly showing in this article.

But, to call "Pump Boys & Dinettes" (and not the other way around as you misnamed this darling little country jewel box show) a "rock" musical is down right silly.

I'll give in that Britney is not so talented and deserves cat-calls if she is not singing. That?s a slam dunk, as George Tenant might have said. But you owe the very talented Christine Ebersol, and most anyone born after WW11, an apology for having tastes not steeped only in "Sullivan & Gilbert" (pun intended) operetta.




Margaret - Posted on May 24, 2007
Denny -- I realize that this is totally beside the real point of your column today -- and for that I apologize. And I'm certainly not a big fan of Britney Spears. But I would guess that it's virtually impossible to do the kind of high-energy, aerobic-style dancing she's known for while also singing live(without the gasping you hear when she talking.) Fans complain about the lip-syncing, but wouldn't they be equally as ticked off if she tried to sing live while dancing and produced nothing but a series of gasps and grunts? Or if she just stood still and sang? At least she was lip syncing to something that at one point actually had come out of her own mouth -- electronically altered as it might have been. Remember Milli Vanilli? It's all part of the celebrity mystique -- use all means possible to create the illusion of perfection. It's fine and fun and entertaining while it's believable, but kind of disappointing when it crumbles. Think we'll ever get (back) to the point where we prefer a handful of real talents over hordes of technologically enhanced "stars"? Nah.
Peter Hochstein - Posted on May 24, 2007
Denny, you've just described the tyranny of sound mixing over common sense. It's bad here. It's worse in England where they manage to let background sound effects overwhelm dialogue and make the actors virtually inaudible much of the time.

Watch street scenes from any English movie or TV show some time. Try to tell me what the actors -- who have perfect diction -- are saying.

I remember years ago attending a concert where the sound mixer had made the orchestra so loud the singer couldn't be heard over the instruments. The audience kept complaining and shouting, "Louder! Louder!" But she was singing into a microphone. Had she tried to sing any louder, there'd have been a feedback problem.

She twice stopped the concert and demanded that the sound mixer tune down the orchestra music. He finally did it, but his body language indicated that he was clearly irked.

His attitude seemed to be: Who was some damn performer to tell the sound mixer how to do his job?

And who the hell was the audience to complain?

I can only assume he has since gone into civil service.
Rick Olson - Posted on May 24, 2007
On the subject of lip-synching, performers like Spears absolutely must lip synch for a couple of reasons. First, her audience is made up of mainly young kids who do not have a tolerance for a live performance that does not replicate the CD exactly. Also, the acrobatics that go into her performance makes it virtually impossible to also sing. Finally, it's no secret that many of these pop stars are not really that good in the first place. Their image is their thing and the quality of their voice can easily be manipulated in the studio (even live) using pitch-correction, so it is secondary.

Personally, I would never sit long in a fake performance and actually I'd prefer the performer do a different version of what they recorded. The imperfections are the essence of a live performance and is what gives it the human quality.

I've been a performing musician for 25 years (my other life) and there is nothing that can compare to that performer/audience connection. The skills one can develop as a performer, such as how to recover from a trainwreck, are easily adaptable to business, considering a prospective customer is like an audience and your job is to wow them with your performance. In music, you are rewarded by applause and CD sales. In business, your reward is a contract.

When I travel, I usually bring Power Points and other things, but I would much rather "talk and chalk" given the opportunity.

As Britney gets older, she would do well to ditch the lip-synching and connect with her audience, that is, if she wants her career to out-live her image.
Rob Finley - Posted on May 24, 2007
As far as the Britney Spears concert goes, that is more of a dance show, she is not considered a major singing talent. Christina Auguilera is, but you'll notice there is much less dancing. I think most of Britney's older audience knows she is lip synching, but realize the vocals would be horrendous, and that the lip synching is required for that sort of show.
John - Posted on May 24, 2007
Shades of Milli-Vanilli! In England in the 60's they used to advertise performance in oddball venues -- some island on the Thames, for instance -- inviting you to hear the band lip-synch their hits. No bull!
David Garfinkel - Posted on May 24, 2007
Denny, you are right on target, as is so uncannily often the case. I had an experience last weekend speaking at a seminar which bears out what you are saying. The room was a bowling alley of sorts -- long and narrow. About 60 people, some at least 100 feet away. The seminar promoter's audio mixer never arrived by FedEx, so the mics were being used for recording only. No amplification in the room. I spoke at the top of my lungs. I didn't mind. It was a short speech and I'd just as soon talk loud as talk to a mic in a case like that. I got the best response to that speech that I can ever remember getting in 20 years of speaking. People warmly approached me for hours afterwards. If all the technology had been in place as planned, it wouldn't have happened that way.
Carl Street - Posted on May 24, 2007
One is reminded of the "modern couple" seated across from each other at a restaurant speaking with each other via their cell phones. Upon being told that speaking on cell phones in the restaurant was prohibited; they then spend the rest of their mealtime text messaging each other... ) Carl Street carl_street@cjstreet.com
Diana - Posted on May 24, 2007
"the best you can do on leaving the theatre is hum the scenery." - that is priceless : )
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Ron Munro - Posted on May 25, 2007
Have to agree with Diana. The "hum the scenery" line is absolutely the best.
Elwood Boomus - Posted on May 24, 2007
Another great article, keep up the good work.
BJTaylor - Posted on May 25, 2007
Honestly, Denny, I love your incisive wit and broad application of marketing concepts. Most times I'm nodding my head and telling myself "Ummm-hummm" as I read your column. Having done (performed) live theatre in my younger days, I know of what you speak. As sound systems became the norm, I began to enjoy live theatre less and less because it sapped the energy of a performance and fostered so much mediocrity. I have all but sworn off live theatre (both as performer and patron) because of the disappointment of poor performers and inferior presentation, even when the material is phenomenal. I find the same concept applies to businesses and customers, now that I'm in the 'real' world. The ones I serve seem to prefer thoughtful, rational and focused marketing -- not high-tech hype that serves no discernible purpose. I resigned my marketing position last year to allow the new boy on the block to take over my department and wallow in his own juices a while. I find that utilizing my marketing experience in a customer service venue is vastly more rewarding than arguing daily with a 'techie.' In my estimation, his high-tech focus has not been the corporate boon our owners were led to believe it would be. Several of them have expressed interest in re-establishing a true marketing focus. One wonders, however, if it is possible to go back once the 'levee' has been breached. One thing New Orleans taught us there...things will never really be the same.
Rainer F. - Posted on May 24, 2007
I may not be quite as old as you but I still remember some of the old-time stars such as Danny Kaye. Very, very few, if any of today's musical 'stars' have the talent of the old-timers. It was a real treat to watch Tony Bennett on AI last night. Even when listening to 50s and 60s songs on the radio today, I can still appreciate the beautiful tone AND power of those incredible voices who did without all the fancy technology that the singers use today. Keep up the old remininces.
greg waters - Posted on May 24, 2007
Point of view is very telling here. Everything from the 1940's and 1950's is good. Everything from the rock-and-roll 60's forward appears to be bad.

I'm in my 40's and happen to know who Danny Kaye, Eve Arden and all the other people you mentioned are. And I agree they were the big, talented stars of their day. But many of today's artists also have talent -- built to please a different generation.

Your age (and income -- trips to Spain, center seats on B-way, la-de-da) is certainly showing in this article.

But, to call "Pump Boys & Dinettes" (and not the other way around as you misnamed this darling little country jewel box show) a "rock" musical is down right silly.

I'll give in that Britney is not so talented and deserves cat-calls if she is not singing. That?s a slam dunk, as George Tenant might have said. But you owe the very talented Christine Ebersol, and most anyone born after WW11, an apology for having tastes not steeped only in "Sullivan & Gilbert" (pun intended) operetta.




Margaret - Posted on May 24, 2007
Denny -- I realize that this is totally beside the real point of your column today -- and for that I apologize. And I'm certainly not a big fan of Britney Spears. But I would guess that it's virtually impossible to do the kind of high-energy, aerobic-style dancing she's known for while also singing live(without the gasping you hear when she talking.) Fans complain about the lip-syncing, but wouldn't they be equally as ticked off if she tried to sing live while dancing and produced nothing but a series of gasps and grunts? Or if she just stood still and sang? At least she was lip syncing to something that at one point actually had come out of her own mouth -- electronically altered as it might have been. Remember Milli Vanilli? It's all part of the celebrity mystique -- use all means possible to create the illusion of perfection. It's fine and fun and entertaining while it's believable, but kind of disappointing when it crumbles. Think we'll ever get (back) to the point where we prefer a handful of real talents over hordes of technologically enhanced "stars"? Nah.
Peter Hochstein - Posted on May 24, 2007
Denny, you've just described the tyranny of sound mixing over common sense. It's bad here. It's worse in England where they manage to let background sound effects overwhelm dialogue and make the actors virtually inaudible much of the time.

Watch street scenes from any English movie or TV show some time. Try to tell me what the actors -- who have perfect diction -- are saying.

I remember years ago attending a concert where the sound mixer had made the orchestra so loud the singer couldn't be heard over the instruments. The audience kept complaining and shouting, "Louder! Louder!" But she was singing into a microphone. Had she tried to sing any louder, there'd have been a feedback problem.

She twice stopped the concert and demanded that the sound mixer tune down the orchestra music. He finally did it, but his body language indicated that he was clearly irked.

His attitude seemed to be: Who was some damn performer to tell the sound mixer how to do his job?

And who the hell was the audience to complain?

I can only assume he has since gone into civil service.
Rick Olson - Posted on May 24, 2007
On the subject of lip-synching, performers like Spears absolutely must lip synch for a couple of reasons. First, her audience is made up of mainly young kids who do not have a tolerance for a live performance that does not replicate the CD exactly. Also, the acrobatics that go into her performance makes it virtually impossible to also sing. Finally, it's no secret that many of these pop stars are not really that good in the first place. Their image is their thing and the quality of their voice can easily be manipulated in the studio (even live) using pitch-correction, so it is secondary.

Personally, I would never sit long in a fake performance and actually I'd prefer the performer do a different version of what they recorded. The imperfections are the essence of a live performance and is what gives it the human quality.

I've been a performing musician for 25 years (my other life) and there is nothing that can compare to that performer/audience connection. The skills one can develop as a performer, such as how to recover from a trainwreck, are easily adaptable to business, considering a prospective customer is like an audience and your job is to wow them with your performance. In music, you are rewarded by applause and CD sales. In business, your reward is a contract.

When I travel, I usually bring Power Points and other things, but I would much rather "talk and chalk" given the opportunity.

As Britney gets older, she would do well to ditch the lip-synching and connect with her audience, that is, if she wants her career to out-live her image.
Rob Finley - Posted on May 24, 2007
As far as the Britney Spears concert goes, that is more of a dance show, she is not considered a major singing talent. Christina Auguilera is, but you'll notice there is much less dancing. I think most of Britney's older audience knows she is lip synching, but realize the vocals would be horrendous, and that the lip synching is required for that sort of show.
John - Posted on May 24, 2007
Shades of Milli-Vanilli! In England in the 60's they used to advertise performance in oddball venues -- some island on the Thames, for instance -- inviting you to hear the band lip-synch their hits. No bull!
David Garfinkel - Posted on May 24, 2007
Denny, you are right on target, as is so uncannily often the case. I had an experience last weekend speaking at a seminar which bears out what you are saying. The room was a bowling alley of sorts -- long and narrow. About 60 people, some at least 100 feet away. The seminar promoter's audio mixer never arrived by FedEx, so the mics were being used for recording only. No amplification in the room. I spoke at the top of my lungs. I didn't mind. It was a short speech and I'd just as soon talk loud as talk to a mic in a case like that. I got the best response to that speech that I can ever remember getting in 20 years of speaking. People warmly approached me for hours afterwards. If all the technology had been in place as planned, it wouldn't have happened that way.
Carl Street - Posted on May 24, 2007
One is reminded of the "modern couple" seated across from each other at a restaurant speaking with each other via their cell phones. Upon being told that speaking on cell phones in the restaurant was prohibited; they then spend the rest of their mealtime text messaging each other... ) Carl Street carl_street@cjstreet.com
Diana - Posted on May 24, 2007
"the best you can do on leaving the theatre is hum the scenery." - that is priceless : )