RATM Killing in the Name Christmas No.1??

flutes

Cianos wrote: »

rushed out to spend their money thinking they were being anti establishment.

Thats your opinion.

Cianos wrote: »

And if people want to spend their money on over produced, generic and formulaic chart sh!te, let them, because it's their choice, they are in control of their wallet, and they obviously get enjoyment out of the music.

The campaign didn't involve trying to stop anyone from buying the above.

grames_bond

Max Power1 wrote: »

How was this a RATM marketing success? THERE WAS NO MARKETING!!!!

don't wanna break it to you, but this was a viral/WOM campaign....a viral campaign is a form of guerilla marketing!

shouldnt matter either way....RAGE DID IT!!

Notorious wrote: »

I thought it was laughable that Joe came out and said that RATM's music was terrible and that they'd never survive in X Factor boot camp. To think that surviving X Factor boot camp is what makes you a successful musician shows how far away from the music industry Joe actually is.

+10000000000

spot f*cking on!!

Cianos

flutes wrote: »

Thats your opinion.

Yes, yes it is my opinion. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole drive behind this campaign to be anti-X-factor? As in, the pulling point for the campaign was not based around paying for a song for the sake of paying for a song, but paying for a song for the sake of it outdoing another song in the charts?

The campaign didn't involve trying to stop anyone from buying the above.

Who said it was? And that would be a marketing nightmare anyway. The marketing campaign was based around the want for X-Factor to lose the chart race, because it is generic and formulaic and engineered. (As in, it is an opinion based campaign opinionated towards what people shouldn't listen to, or in other words, what people should listen to). So as much as RATM are pro freedom and pro choice, this campaign is very much hypocritical to those values because it says that the popular choice (ie x-factor) is unworthy, and that people shouldn't listen to that, they should listen to this.

It says that people shouldn't listen to pop music. But what this ignores is that there will always be a pop music. One genre or style has to be the most popular. The same way someone has to be the tallest or the quickest or the funniest. And now RATM are the most popular...so should people now boycott them?

flutes

i dont want to get into insignificant arguments but your posts contain a lot of assumptions,

one of the things they (ratm) said during the BBC interview was that this gave the silent majority a voice.

Like you were saying below about 'popular choice' (x-factor) being assumed unworthy; what do you do in a vote when you feel there isn't a worthy option (1) you don't vote, or (2) vote for the one you least dislike, so in that scenario you're bound to end up with a large percentage of people unheard, no?

Cianos wrote: »

Yes, yes it is my opinion. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole drive behind this campaign to be anti-X-factor? As in, the pulling point for the campaign was not based around paying for a song for the sake of paying for a song, but paying for a song for the sake of it outdoing another song in the charts?





Who said it was? And that would be a marketing nightmare anyway. The marketing campaign was based around the want for X-Factor to lose the chart race, because it is generic and formulaic and engineered. (As in, it is an opinion based campaign opinionated towards what people shouldn't listen to, or in other words, what people should listen to). So as much as RATM are pro freedom and pro choice, this campaign is very much hypocritical to those values because it says that the popular choice (ie x-factor) is unworthy, and that people shouldn't listen to that, they should listen to this.

It says that people shouldn't listen to pop music. But what this ignores is that there will always be a pop music. One genre or style has to be the most popular. The same way someone has to be the tallest or the quickest or the funniest. And now RATM are the most popular...so should people now boycott them?

Notorious

Cianos wrote: »

It says that people shouldn't listen to pop music. But what this ignores is that there will always be a pop music. One genre or style has to be the most popular. The same way someone has to be the tallest or the quickest or the funniest. And now RATM are the most popular...so should people now boycott them?

I think you might have missed the point a little Cianos. Nobody is saying pop music should be outlawed - pop is as much music as rock is. I don't think it's supposed to be about popularity either. Now I understand people might be taking the campaign up the wrong way, and that they might thinking along those lines. But the slating of pop music wasn't the aim of the campaign from what I understand. It was more along the lines of preventing X Factor from manufacturing an artist and for him/her to be automatically granted the number one spot, just because they won the show.

A lot of X Factor fans are saying that Joe deserves the number 1 spot because he worked hard and won the show. The campaign shows the X Factor world that this isn't enough anymore - winning the X Factor isn't a ticket to stardom. Music is an art - some have the talent, some don't. IMHO Joe isn't a musician whose going to be remembered in two years time, and this seems to be the pattern with the majority of these manufactured bands. With that, Simon Cowell has lost out on his number one seller. Unfortunately, I doubt thats going to stop him from doing what he does, and next year he'll be back humiliating thousands of hopefuls in order to make money.

120_Minutes

Cianos wrote: »

The best thing about it for Sony is that they didn't have to lift a finger, and all these people, a lot of whom would never buy a Christmas single, rushed out to spend their money thinking they were being anti establishment. (lol at the irony of that btw)

I rushed from my couch to my couch, oh lordy loo the effort it took. :rolleyes:

Music4life

I think its great that Ratm Won. Maybe people will finally wake up and realise that there a band that write there own music. They probably found it hard to break into the Music Industry. Joe spent a few months singing and now he's a star. Real Musicians are out there working day and night just to do something they love and make enough money to survive.
Theres no doubt about it X FActor is Great entertainment. 20 million people watched the last show thats incredible. Simon Cowell is a great Businessman not music critic.
Sony "not lifting a finger" is fine for them. Record companies are not to blame. Hopefully Ratm getting the Christmas no.1 will maybe change the Music Pop Industry & Produce good hard working real bands. Its a Long long shot

JJ

Phantom have announced that the results should be in around 12 today and if RATM are number one, they'll play Killing in the Name in its (uncensored) entirety.

JJ

Cianos wrote: »

From a media perspective something like this may appear to give two fingers to the industry, or X-Factor, or Cowell or whoever, but from the perspective of the industry it has just been an interesting deviation in consumer habits and a very profitable one at that.

This article here:

http://blog.23x.net/269/sony-didnt-make-a-killing.html

makes the argument that this whole campaign hasn't been a terribly profitable one for Sony.

robby^5

Cianos wrote: »

The dynamics are still the same, it just so happens that Band X have sold more than Band Y.

So the dynamic of the X-Factor winner being handed number one at Christmas just for winning a karaoke competition hasnt changed? Because thats the only dynamic the campaign was setting out to change.

Cianos wrote: »

The flow of capital is making its way to the same bottom line. From a media perspective something like this may appear to give two fingers to the industry, or X-Factor, or Cowell or whoever, but from the perspective of the industry it has just been an interesting deviation in consumer habits and a very profitable one at that.

You're missing the point, nobody cares that companies are making money from this and it's not the point of the campaign at all.

And you're wrong about the flow of capital too btw. Joe's profits go to himself, cowell/syco, sony etc. whereas RATM's profits will be going to sony, epic but more importantly their personal profits will be going to charity.

I dont see any major deviation in consumer habits here as I'm fairly sure a lot of the people who bought killing in the name of wouldnt have bought a single at Christmas were it not for the facebook campaign, as you pointed out yourself...so from an industry perspective they'll be looking at the marketing power of social networking sites and probably investing a lot more into it following this upset whereby standard marketing efforts failed dismally.

Cianos wrote: »

The best thing about it for Sony is that they didn't have to lift a finger, and all these people, a lot of whom would never buy a Christmas single, rushed out to spend their money thinking they were being anti establishment. (lol at the irony of that btw)

Rushed out? I mean have you even been following this story or are you just trolling? Killing in the name of was a download, the bare minimum amount of effort people put into this campaign was lifting a finger.

The only people who had to work during this campaign were RATM as they gave a performance to BBC which otherwise wouldnt have happened, which was great.

Cianos wrote: »

And what a lot of people seem to be ignoring is the fact that the consumer always has control. It is the consumer who decides to buy or not buy. And if people want to spend their money on over produced, generic and formulaic chart sh!te, let them, because it's their choice, they are in control of their wallet, and they obviously get enjoyment out of the music. But calling them sheep is snobbery at its finest, especially when the reason one is buying a song is anything but for the sake of the enjoyment of the music (which applies to 99% of the people who bought RATM).

I dont think anyone is forgetting the consumer has the control, this is the point of the campaign! A sleeping giant (the consumer) woke up and realised it has the control to choose what song went number one instead of having to hear the same old crappy X-Factor cover song each year.

I also think you're wrong about people not enjoying the music too. I'm sure plenty did it purely to spite Cowell and didnt care what song it was but I think a lot of people like myself love killing in the name of and would rather it be number one than some cover of a Miley Cyrus song.

I suggest you follow your own advice and stop caring what we decide to spend our money on.

Splinter

http://www.irma.ie/aucharts.asp

they got number 2 in Ireland