2/19

Information found on Techno+Marketer : Inside/ /Out: QR codes

Dickman, M. (2009, January 14). Inside/ /out QR codes. Retrieved February 19, 2015, from 

Techno+Marketer website: http://technomarketer.typepad.com/technomarketer/2009/01/ 

insideout-qr-codes.html 

Techno+Marketer is a website that is somewhat like a blog as well. In the case of this article Matt Dickman speaks about the QR codes and the ways they can be used.

Important Quotes:

"QR (or quick response) codes are, quite simply two dimensional bar codes. The codes were designed in Japan for the auto industry and they remain popular today." 

**Although this article was published in 2009, QR codes are used for many more purposes today including advertising musicians music and websites.

“The entire system works by taking a picture of the code with a cell phone camera, decoding the symbol on the device and taking an action. That action can be directing someone to a URL, passing them a phone number, giving them marketing copy or sending them a text message."

**Makes tasks much easier. Now instead of having to remember things to navigate to somewhere online, the QR code can be scanned, and will take you right there.

These days especially, people have become much more reliant on technology than ever before. Paper has become less used, and technology has taken over. The QR code, which is a two-dimensional bar code, is scanned by an app that is easily downloaded onto any smart phone. The QR code itself is easily created using a free website online. Therefore, it is a great, free way, for an artist to create an up-to-date advertising method.

QR codes can be created by anyone. They have created a convergence between printed advertisement and technology. Now, within the music industry, artists can connect much quicker with their fans using methods that are up to date with what the majority of the population today.

2/12

Information Found on The New York Times : Young Innocence? Been There, Done That

Caramanica, J. (2013, July 24). Young innocence? Been there, done that. Retrieved February12, 2015, from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/arts/music/the-diverging-musical-paths-of-selena-gomez-and-miley-cyrus.html?_r=0

The New York Times is “ An internationally recognized daily newspaper founded in 1851 and distributed throughout the United States. The paper is owned by The New York Times Company and is published in New York City, NY.” (BusinessDictionary.com)

Important Quotes:

“Teen stardom is about being special: one kid’s talent and dreams standing in for millions.”

**This is a very general description of "teen stardom". Yes the young adults that become famous is due to talent partially, but there are many other aspects in teen talent.

“It’s a statement of young-woman independence from someone choked in her own youth not only by Disney fame, but also by being the child of a celebrity.”

**This is a bold statement, kind of alluding to the fact that all young Disney stars have trouble transferring into an older demographic. Coming from the Disney channel and trying to transfer into a performer that now attracts an older demographic while keeping the younger fans is something that I can imagine is really hard to do. Many decisions are made, along with many sacrifices. In the article written in The New York Times, Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez are compared during their transformation into adulthood stardom. On one hand, you have Miley Cyrus who has become an extremist. She broke out of her Disney shell directly following the end of her contract with the Disney Channel. Instead of creating uplifting music, like in her younger years, Miley went for a much more extreme approach, singing about drugs, and alcohol, and partying. The problem with her transition was that all it did was show the general public that she was not as mature as she wanted people to believe.

On the other hand, you have Selena Gomez. She chose a different path while becoming an artist for an older demographic. In my opinion, she did it well. She chose to gradually make her music and music videos more mature, writing about real world experiences rather than partying her days away. Selena's approach proved to audiences around the world that she was mature enough to make a proper decision in her transition.

Although both artists chose different paths of transformation, it is all based on opinion of who did it better. And, only time will be able to tell....

01/09

Information found on The New York Times : Is Streaming Good For Musicians? : Today the Road Is a Musician’s Best Friend

Vega, S. (2014, November 6). Is streaming good for musician's? : today the road is a musician's best

   friend. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from The New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/

   roomfordebate/2014/11/06/is-streaming-good-for-musicians/today-the-road-is-a-musicians-best-friend

The New York Times is “ An internationally recognized daily newspaper founded in 1851 and distributed throughout the United States. The paper is owned by The New York Times Company and is published in New York City, NY.” (BusinessDictionary.com)

Important Quotes:

“As listeners begin to move from CDs and downloads to streaming, is the trend good for music and musicians?”

**This raises the main debate of the article: Is streaming good for exposure, or does it eliminate too much profit?

Suzanne Vega argues, “To earn a living and connect with fans, bands, young and old, are going on tour.”

**Instead of worrying about profits from an their music sales, artists are making a profit by going on tour to perform for their fans.

Vega also argues, “The market is over-flooded.”

**Relying on making a profit from touring sales might be a good idea.

Within the distribution of music, there are many different methods as talked about in a previous blog. Most artists will not only place their music on outlets like Amazon Music and iTunes, but will also allow their music to stream for free on outlets like Spotify. Spotify allows listeners to search and stream their favorite music without purchasing it.

Some artists entertain this idea, arguing that Spotify is good exposure and will allow people to get a taste of their music without putting a number on it. However, others argue that by streaming their music for the listeners, they will be losing too great of a profit.

A major idea that has been brought up, that I tend to agree with, is exposure. By allowing your music to stream for free, more people will listen and therefore, more people will learn who you are. The main and mega profit to an artist should come from touring. During a tour an artists connects on a more emotional level. This is their job, but they love doing it. Being compensated for a show rather than a song makes much more sense.