Cashing In.

Cashing In – Minor Threat

(you might have already seen this in Wired or BoingBoing – apologies if that’s true)

Here’s a dirty little secret from the music industry that will surprise almost noone but still turn a stomach or two: large-market firms pay huge sums of money to have singers namedrop brands in their songs. I can’t say personally if this is true, but if ad agencies are to be believed, every brand-drop you hear in songs post-Kodachrome isn’t just an artist trying to capture the zeitgeist of our consumer-driven culture. It’s straight-up, full-on paid advertisment.

Our subject in question today, the Kluger Agency, stakes claim to just about every brand-drop you can think of: think Pink was really looking flashy in her Mercedes-Benz? Ever wonder why in the world Kid Rock name dropped a German beer (Beck’s) in the middle of a song extoling the virutes of being a coooowboooy baaayyybbeee? Do you, like LFO, like girls that wear Abercrombie and Fitch? Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure they talk about Pez in that song, too… I wonder if A&F had to thin the wallet more to be in the chorus…

Kluger claims they did all of that. Oh, and Ludacris’ obsession with Cadillac grills. That’s them, too. On their website they talk about how this is really a time-honored tradition. After all, what do we buy alongside peanuts at the seventh inning of a baseball game, amidst not caring if we ever get back?

Thing is, anyone who takes 30 seconds to read up on the lives of Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer (lyricst and composer for “Take Me Out To The Ballgame”, respectively) know two interesting facts. One, up to that point neither had attended a major leaugue ballgame, and two, Norworth wrote the lyrics head-to-pen in twenty minutes on the subway. Clearly, he did not have the time to consult the Kluger agency to see if he could work up some scratch on the side. Clearly, not a case of product placement.

So today’s episode comes from a news story that’s been bouncing around since midweek: allegedly Kluger agency head Adam Kluger contacted one Jeff Crouse, of the Anti-Advertising Agency, and makers of the ever-cool Double Happiness Jeans. The email includes this vomit-inducing section:

I’m writing because we feel you may be a good company to participate in a brand integration campaign within the actual lyrics of one of the worlds most famous recording artists upcoming song/album.

Lyrics play an important part in the use of music as marketing, Just as a catchy tune could assail your senses, a good “jingle” or cute lyrics could become a part of society for quite some time, imagine your brand name being a part of that.

Supposedly, the talk was for a Pussycat Dolls song, no less. That’s some serious exposure. Thing is, Double Happiness Jeans is a virtual sweatshop in Second Life created as a social advocacy experiment. Jeff doesn’t actually sell jeans, and neither does the Anti-Advertising Agency.

Crouse’s response should win a Webby:

Thank you very much for contacting Double Happiness Jeans. Let’s cut right to the chase. We are extremely interested in having our product promoted by some of the worlds most famous recording artists. No question about it. We’re sold.

One question though: Can we choose the artist? Of course, my first choice would be the Jonas Brothers. Their Disney-fresh style just screams “Virtual Sweatshop Jeans” to me. I could also settle for Avril if necessary. It’s the youth that I’m after, if you get me. Heavy on the “16″. Light on the “35″, if you know what I mean.

On a personal note, I’d like to say that I simply don’t understand all of the fuss about product placement. I say: if you can deliver me a catchy tune while simultaneously informing me about a new hot Axe body spray fragrance, well you have just saved me precious time! Words are words, whether they are about axe body spray or “hitting me one more time”.

Hey, let’s get this deal done. My brand is ready for top 40 radio. I want to be a part of society via my brand of virtual sweatshop jeans. I want to be a house-hold name! And I believe that you are the guy who is going to make that happen. Let’s put some pen to paper and make marketing history.

For the blow-by-blow after that email and subsequent posting of this exchange online, read Elliot Van Buskirk’s ever-incredible Listening Post. Let’s just say it starts with Adam Kluger looking about as decent as a man notorious for actually doing this sort of thing can look (claiming, of course, that he didn’t write the email and thinks someone is trying to spam or spoof him based on his good PR graces), and ends with Kluger getting livid about the comments on the Anti-Advertising Agency post and calling for the head of Steve Lambert, co-founder of the Anti-Advertising Agency.

Kluger (as qtd. in email sent to Lambert, according to Lambert and Wired):

$5500 is what it’s going to cost me to have an attorney stick you with a $150,000 judgment for the next 20 years. We’ve consulted with two different firms. This was written with the intent to hurt our business and we will win, period… We will go after Steve Lambert, AntiAdvertisingAgency.com, and Budget Gallery (where Lambert sells his art). Since you are intentionally damaging our California-based agency, you will have the opportunity to defend yourself in the state of California. If you think I’m bluffing, that’s fine with me.

(Now, point of note – as it happens this week in my Civil Procedure class I’m touching on exactly this sort of scenario: whether a lawsuit haling a defendant into court across state lines violates the Due Process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, if the only contacts the defendant has with the state related to the crime are based on online activity. I’m not an expert, yet, but I’d say it’s looking pretty dubious for Mr. Kluger. And the idea that you can hold someone liable for third-party defamation [and let's face it - this is pretty lame defamation compared to what's out there on the darker parts of the interwebs] is laughable. The US Code has direct statutory provisions exculpating people hosting this sort of content. Not to mention there’s that other Amendment thirteen above the one I just mentioned, at the top of the list, that generally protects this sort of thing. Two firms were consulted in this?

Also, Kluger old boy – judgments are handed down by judges, not attorneys. That’s why they’re called judgments. Unless your lawyer wears a big black robe I don’t think he’ll be assigning any judgments anytime soon. And unless you were equipping him or her with a high grade adhesive, I think you were looking to “sic” him with a lawsuit. You know, like a dog.)

Now, this is just another tragic sign on the record industry’s longwinding decline. We are torn between the singers we love and an act we hate, and the fans are left feeling rather hurt. Hell, Weezer even got paid to name drop Oakley sunglasses in “Pork and Beans” (again, according to Kluger). Weezer! How can you listen to the Sweater Song again without feeling that sting of betrayal? And naturally, this is a much larger issue between art and commerce that stretches over all forms of expression and commerce. I do not seek to solve this problem today, I just wanted to get you, dear reader, to feel some of the anger I feel.

Here’s what really drives me crazy. I see this as a professional dedicated to my industry and I feel sick. I see this as a songwriter (which I am, though I sometimes hide it) and it makes me feel violated. I’m sure if I poured over my journals of verse I’d find a brand name or two. But I’m not getting paid to put those names on paper and I hate the thought of somebody somewhere thinking I am (granted, I do kinda like the thought of somebody somewhere caring about what I write). Some of us out here are looking to write songs that compel people, help people through troubled times, make people laugh or groan or organically react to emotions, or simply cheer friends up when they’re low. Songs are incredible tools of expression and memory, and when used can wield tremendous power. How dare these agencies take the sacred art of songwriting – a craft developed by Bach and Mozart and Child and Bartok and Lead Belly and Dylan and Lennon and Waits and Ramone – and turn it into swill for shills? Commercialization brought rock and roll into the mainstream – true – but these days commercialization seems fit to destroy it all in the name of fast money.

I think as protest I’m going to gather up all the songs I know that use brand names in a negative light. Please, use the comments below to recommend your favorites. Tonight I’m going to start with Mr. Warren Zevon:

Warren Zevon – Studebaker