As we’ve discussed, advertisers today mostly avoid the use of jingles and instead use music from popular recordings. This music serves several functions. It borrows interest, helps establish a mood, sometimes helps deliver the ad message through song lyrics, and associates the advertised brand with the brand attributes of a popular artist.

Check out this review of some famous and infamous uses of popular music recordings and artists. Which do you find most appealing and effective? Which are least effective? Can you think of any current commercials that stand out for their use of music? What makes them effective or ineffective, enjoyable or annoying?

Do you think less of a music artist for licensing the use of his or her music in an ad? Why or why not?

 

Comments

[Elleee3]

I think the use of popular music by popular artist in ads is a very effective strategy. If an ad uses a popular song, it is becoming relatable to many people. Chances are if the song is popular, it is liked by many and would be considered catchy. This concept will draw the attention of the viewers.
The use of music in ads can also be used to provoke emotion, which may vary upon commercial. The nike commerical uses a familiar upbeat song which fits with the product. Another ad I think of that uses music to gain emotion from the viewers is the animal cruelty ads with Sarah Mcglaughlin music in the background. Her music is thought of to be slower and depressing and it does just that in these commercials. It makes the viewers feel a sense of strong compassion for these animals which is the ultimate goal of the advertisements.

[D]

I don’t think any less of the artist for licensing out the use of his or her music for ads. As result of several changes to concentration of ownership of label companies, how the music industry conducts business and the internet, artists are finding it difficult to remain competitive; relevant.

That said, sometimes the ad’s that use their music can be unsavory. I understand that the artist doesn’t always have the choice in how their music is being used because they’ve sold their rights but for the artist that is involved in the ad; they are part of the mass communication process and part of that involvement means being responsible for what is put out for the audience to consume. As the First Amendment, freedom of speech is applied to all but this doesn’t mean that you should forget the morality and ethical issues. One should do their best to think about what they put out for mass consumption. Additionally, it is important the artist make certain stipulations regarding the use of the music in the sale.

The ad illustrating how Michael Jackson’s hair caught fire was traumatic to see. Apparently, the explosion went off while Michael was under the lighting; before you knew it he is seen dancing around but not to dance, but to put out the fire on his head. The scene’s traumatic incident was magnified on the You Tube video with soft background music. The commercial was pulled. It was speculated, until Michael Jackson’s death, that the incident was the reason why he underwent a huge facial transformation. That said, the commercial still remains memorable and people seem to remember the Michael Jackson Pepsi incident. So, while it may seem in bad taste; this unfortunate costly accident still made the ad stick in the audience mind.

The Nike commercial using the Beattle “Revolution” song was an upset for political protestors. I thought the use of the song to illustrate the sneaker as being a new type of sneaker that was going to change the world was fitting. I don’t think there is anything wrong with using the song. People thought that it minimized and diminished what revolution in their minds means; I think that revolution can cover many different aspect of life, not just political.

The one ad that I found disturbing and I did not quite make sense the connection to jeans was use of “Fortunate Son” using the war pictures of dead men, women and children; that was propaganda. I don’t need to see pictures of dead babies and statistics to understand the atrocities that war bring about to any given society. I am glad that they removed the ad but frankly, the song remains sticky to this day and was brought up during the Iraq war, but I don’t think that it was moral or ethical and definitely a negative image for me.

I really enjoyed the Mitsubishi commercial that played "Days Go By". The song has a groove that made makes you move and I always think of the commercial when the song is played.

Finally, the Victoria Secret ad that used Bob Dylan; well, that was an odd marriage but it was sticky because who thinks of Bob Dylan when you’re at Victoria Secret buying lingerie for yourself or for your significant other. It did bring in a different demographic group for viewing and it was sticky because it was so odd.

Posted By:
Giana Lampreda

[Shouhei Senno]

I don't know why but the comment I posted earlier is not here.... But anyway...
I thought that the Michael Jackson ad was a lot more effective than the Madonna commercial. Although both are icons, Michael Jackson's commercial resonates most with the audience because everyone must be thinking, "How cool would it be for you to run into Michael Jackson on the street"? Madonna's commercial was a bit hard to follow and reminded me much of her music videos rather than it being a commercial.

An example I can think of right now is the use of the song "Raise Your Glass" by PINK in the TV commercials for the movie "Bridesmaids". The beats of the song and the feeling of it went well with the concept of a celebratory wedding so I thought it was very fitting that they used that song for the TV ads.

I don't think less of an artist if their songs are used in a commercial. It makes them more marketable in the end which means that they are creating good, multipurpose music. If it comes to the point that many artists are composing music for the sake of having it used in a commercial (as their underlying purpose of writing music), then I think it becomes a problem. Music is art, and art is supposed to be free. It should never be created for the purpose of a commercial (unless it's a jingle).

[Samantha Eisen]

Of the commercials on the site, I found the Madonna Pepsi advertisement to be the least effective. It was really difficult to follow and understand the point that the ad was trying to make. In addition, it was also pretty long. Like Shouhei said, it definitely reminded me more so of a music video than of a commercial.

It is interesting how Pepsi goes about their advertisements. Their strategy obviously involves the use of celebrities and famous songs. Other than the commercials on the website provided, they have ad campaigns involving celebrities from Shakira singing her own music to Beyonce, Pink, Britney Spears and Enrique Iglesias doing a collaboration of Queen's "We Will Rock You." I would assume most of these commercials have been successful for their use of songs/artists who are familiar to an audience. This establishes credibility and makes the audience trust a brand more.

I don't necessarily think less of an artist if their songs are used in commercials. Depending on the type of advertisement, I may think less but it purely relies on the situation. For example, I think it was definitely creative of Apple to use famous songs in their iPod campaign. They used bands/singers like U2, Steriogram, Feist, Daft Punk, etc. Because all of these songs reinforced a mood that Apple was trying to create, I admired the use of song. It also made sense for Apple to use songs like these for their product since that is what an iPod is used for: to listen to music. In other cases, I bet I would think less of an artist, but it is dependent on the context, status of the artist, and product being endorsed.

[Jordan Keller]

I think the most effective commercial may have been the Bob Dylan for Victoria's Secret commercial. It was definitely sticky because of its unexpecteded combination of company and artist. The first commercial I think of that uses music is the Kia Soul 'Party Rock' hampster commercials. I admit that I love the commercial because of the catchy song and hampsters with surprisingly good dance moves, but I only love the song in the commercial. This, to me, is what makes it most effective. The commercial plays often, but I don't feel like the song is overplayed, mainly because the song (the singing parts) only plays for about half of the ad.

Link to the commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJWA3Vo6TU

I don't necesarily think any less of an artist that sells rights to their songs for ads. Ultimately, they are just trying to promote their music, like companies promote their product. Now that I think about it, I might actually think higher of artists whose music is featured in an ad. If their music is good enough to be in a commercial, it has got to be good enough for me to like/download/listen to.

[Stefanie Anderson]

Two of my favorite ads from the article's list are the "Pink Moon" Volkswagen Cabriolet and the "Days Go By" Mitsubishi commercials. Both are advertisements for cars, which I find interesting. I think songs in car commercials can often work well because many people associate driving with music. In addition, car commercials typically play on the emotions of their audience, whether to conjure pride, excitement, nostalgia, etc. The right song paired with the right car commercial will definitely help to illicit the intended emotion.

I agree with Shouhei that the Madonna commercial was too difficult to follow and focused on her too much compared to the product (Pepsi). Maybe we feel this way because the commercial is from 1989 when Madonna was much more prevalent in pop culture than she is today.

In my opinion, the best song commercials on the air today are the ones which really set an overall tone for the commercial. This ultimately acts as an emotional appeal to the audience and will hopefully draw them in and make them pay attention! My favorite example is from a couple of years ago and is an Adidas advertisement featuring the song "Hello Tomorrow" by Karen O.

I don't think negatively of artists who allow their music to be used in commercials. The point of making music is to share it with people who will enjoy it and many songs/artists became successful after being featured in a popular commercial. The only way I would think less of an artist is if they allowed their song to be used in a commercial that totally went against their stated beliefs (I haven't found any example where this has happened though).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zvqf3sF0b4
(link to Karen O. Adidas commercial)

[Jedrik Viray]

I had trouble watching the youtube videos on the link because many of them were disabled or deleted but I was able to watch a few of them and the one that stuck out to me was the Beatles and Nike commercial. I think that this was because of the way the music and the visuals worked together. The video was in black and white which in my mind made the figures in the video stick out more. When one would look into the athletes it was a good mix between regular, everyday people and revolutionary athletes like Michael Jordan. When they mixed these visuals with a song about revolution, I think that they created a very powerful commercial that helps define Nike as a revolutionary brand in sportswear.

[Gordon Brink]

I think using a popular song grabs people’s attention when the commercial comes on. The strategic part is whose attention you want to grab? So if you were looking to sell a new Honda sports car to younger generation then you would look to someone like Rihanna, but if you are looking to sell a new Buick you might start throwing up some Bon Jovi. Like stated above it brings back emotion to people and can grab particular groups.