October 15, 2007
The Moby Quotient: The Vegan Who Sold the World
Blogger, itinerant rock critic, and former NPR Arts Editor Bill Wyman had a fine piece in yesterday’s Washington Post introducing the Moby Quotient, the formula he and, uh, “hyperbolic geometry” expert Jim Anderson have devised for quantifying exactly how egregiously a given artist has sold out when they license one of their songs to an advertiser. (Moby, in case you don’t know, won the dubious honor of having this formula named after him for his innovative marketing scheme of licensing all of the 18 tracks on his gazillion-selling 1999 Play album to advertisers.)
Wyman explains his formula here; and it seems pretty solid, though it’s unclear as yet exactly what figure denotes complete whoredom. The six sample songs Wyman uses seem to suggest that a Moby Quotient of 100 is roughly equal to a case of 100% sellout, as demonstrated here by the use of The Clash’s “London Calling” in a Jaguar ad — a grave crime against taste by any measure, a judgment seemingly borne out by its Moby Quotient of 100.22. (I don’t know whether the Jaguar ad in question came before or after the tune’s inclusion in a James Bond movie released a month before Joe Strummer’s death in 2002, which must have rubbed at least a few Clash fans the wrong way given that 007 is pretty much the ultimate establishment figure — it ain’t like he’s an agent of The People’s Secret Service — but which I readily excused on the grounds of sheer badassitude.)
Anyway, lots of people have been using the calculator to assess the severity of the particular licensing violation that has most aggrieved them. One guy actually got the calculator to spit out a Moby Quotient of 998.30 for the appearance of “Hey Jude” in a clip for Fidelity Investments, suggesting the max is closer to 1,000. And indeed, one enterprising mathematician has already identified a flaw in Wyman and Anderson’s formula that apparently penalizes Scrooge McDuck-rich stars like Paul McCartney less for taking a sponsor’s money that it does an outfit like, say, OK Go — a hard-working, endlessly-touring band that can actually use the exposure and the cash that come from national TV-ad campaign. (Or so D.C. native and OK Go frontman Damien Kulash told me last year.)
I tested the calculator with U2’s “Vertigo,” which you will recall was used in a fairly ubiquitous advertising campaign for iPods (and U2’s then-new album, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb) at the end of 2004. I thought “Vertigo” would make an interesting test case for a number of reasons: 1) It was the first and thus far only time in their 30-year career U2 had allowed an advertiser to use one of their songs. The band was previously known for lending its muscle to decidedly less mercenary outfits like Amnesty International and Greenpeace, and for staging two of the most ambitious and costly rock tours ever, for which they refused corporate sponsorship. 2) The ad was for a product that 99% of the music-loving world probably owned already, or soon would, and more importantly, one that in no way clashes with the values the band had previously espoused. 3) The ad used a brand-new song, instead of an already-beloved classic to which fans had already formed their own associations, which after all, are what advertiser is really buying when they pay big bucks in licensing fees. This is arguably worse, because introducing a new song in the context of an advertisement pretty much kills any chance your fans will think of it of anything other than a jingle. The Moby Quotient calculator addresses this by including in its formula a rating for the “sacredness” of the song in question; since “Vertigo” is as lyrically vapid as anything U2 ever recorded, I gave it a “1” in this category.
The calculator gave “Vertigo” a Moby quotient of 15.44; deeming it roughly one-fourth as offensive as when Bob Dylan allowed Victoria’s Secret to use “Love Sick” in one of the most puzzling pairings of spokesman and product ever. How many of you have ever associated Bob Dylan with boot-knocking?
Anyway, you can calculate just how little integrity your favorite band has left here. Who knows; if things go well for them, maybe Le Loup or Georgie James will be helping phone companies or cruise lines peddle their wares someday.
Let's hope not.
|
Oh boo freaking hoo. Musicians like to make money and advertisers want that sweet, sweet indie street cred. So what if gullible morons think buying said product increases their hiptard quotient? I'm more pissed that Moby's been ripping off My Life in the Bush of Ghosts for YEARS.
Who cares if the adult undergarment industry wants to pay Blur to use Song 2? I for one welcome our incontinent britpop sellout overlords.
Another potentially useful benchmark: American Express using Spinal Tap's "Gimme Some Money" in an ad has a Moby Quotient of only 13.97.
(Yes, I'm aware that "Gimme Some Money" was originally recorded before Derek Smalls joined the band, and thus back before they changed their name to the Thamesmen. But Spinal Tap has since performed the song themselves, and I think the version used in the song may actually be one of the Spinal Tap arrangements.)
BUT once in a while, an act of (apparently) true subversion takes place... As when Volkswagen appropriated "Roman P" by Psychic TV for one of their TV spots a while back. That tune was already several years old, and known only to a handful of underground freaks like myself: Lyrics deal with Roman Polanski and the death of Sharon Tate at the bloody hands of Charlie's Angels... But it had a catchy chorus! And goes nicely with footage of a VW cruising around mountain passes somewhere...
Was this the work of a dark-humored deviant in the ad agency who just wanted to give a few of us PTV fans heart attacks?
...or was it something even MORE sinister? hm....
Whenever I hear "Lust for Life" used to sell Carnival Cruises, I can't help but think of Cathy Lee Gifford getting f***ed in the ear.
Which is exactly as it should be.
hohum. i get tired of this debate. it would certainly get awfully difficult to take seriously the anti-establishment bona fides of a anarchist punk band doing commericals for volkswagen, but i don't take many such bands terribly seriously anyway.
i can't begrudge any indie artist the ability to make some cash licensing their songs. --all of which was a longwinded lead-in to this link - tad kubler of the hold steady on licensing:
forums.boysandgirlsinamerica.com/showpost.php?p=12111&postcount=16
although, that formula is pretty damned funny.
Why does it have to be a bad thing to bring the rock to the masses? In this era of Clear Channel, payola, and the like, at least ads provide a chance for quality bands to get heard as well as supported financially.
Indie cred alone doesn't pay the bills. Plus, as a listener and TV viewer, I'd much rather be bombarded with Wilco, Moby, etc than with lame corporate jingoes.
"The ad was for a product that 99% of the music-loving world probably owned already, or soon would, and more importantly, one that in no way clashes with the values the band had previously espoused."
Uhhh, iPods don't even own 99% of the mp3 player market (or any percentage from which it wouldn't be unreasonable to exagerate to "99%"), let alone 99% of the "music-loving world". And besides, the ad was also for iTunes, another vendor that does not come close to capturing 99% of the "music-loving world".
And that's not even to consider the question of whether Apple is somehow "in tune" with the values of a stridently political band. Apple fanboys like to put Apple on par with the Dali Lama in terms of "goodness", but it's still just another huge corporation that absolutley depends on the obsessive consumerist habits of the American and international customer. I really doubt that the lyrics of U2, particularly U2 circa 1980's, taken on their face would support the technological and consumerist fetish that is Apple.
And I'm pretty sure that Fidelity did not use Hey Jude. I believe the McCartney ads only featured post-Beatles McCartney songs.
I sort of gave up on caring about whether an artist was selling out a while ago. In part because it's become so pervasive (The Clash in Jaguar ads, The Who in Hummer ads, Johnny Cash in Comfort Inn ads, etc.) and that the reality is, for lesser-known artists at least, licensing is a good way to get their music out there. Radio is basically closed to these guys.
I'll plead guilty to hyperbole for writing that "99% of the music-loving world" uses or wants iPods. My point was simply that for a band to endorse a music-player is not the same to me as when they endorse, say, Hummer, as Pete Townsend did -- assuming that allowing a corporation to license one of your songs constitutes an endorsement. I would say that it does, but It's a debatable point. I suppose it's only hypocritical if, say, Townsend had been active in environmental causes. (Has he? I don't know.)
I can't think of an 1980s U2 lyric that addresses "technological and consumerist fetish[ism[," though they certainly had plenty to say about it in their 1990s albums and megatours. They're already on the record about why they did the iPod ad, for which they say they weren't paid, so you can go find that if you care.
You may be right about "Hey Jude." As I noted in my original post, I I found that among the reader-submitted Moby Quotient results on the WashPo site. Now I can find plenty of headlines vis-a-vis McCartney's endorsement deal with Fidelity along the lines of "Hey Jude, Buy Stocks" -- but nothing that proves any of the ads actually used "Hey Jude."
I actually love it when I see an ad featuring some wildly inappropriate tune. I hope Iggy Pop gets a yacht-sized check every time that cruise ad with "Lust for Life" runs. He deserves it.
Didn't US give Apple "Vertigo" for free as a part of a publicity stunt?
It would be nice to live in a world where musicians didn't have to sell their music to advertisers, but the way the industry works, even artists signed to major labels make squat on their actual record sales. It's a fact of the industry, so if they want to live as well as their notariety indicates, then they've got to "sell out."
I get 114.5 for the Smiths' "How Soon Is Now" in a Nissan Maxima ad. If I had any idea how to quantify them, I'd run Of Montreal's "Wraith Pinned To the Mist and Other Games" Outback steakhouse commercial through, since it had a disconnect of about 17 on a scale of 1-10.
But then I don't really consider selling out to be a problem. I've known too many musicians and been paid too little for my own gigs to begrudge anybody some cash, no matter how disconnected it might be.
I thought about that of Montreal song too, but it's an odd case since they said they did it because it was such a bizarre proposal.
But my main qualm with songs being used in ads is that when I hear the song now I think of the product being advertised (i.e. Iron and Wine covering Postal Service -> M&Ms) rather than the feelings or whatever else I used to think of. But I guess that's life.
The first time a band member takes a hand job from a groupie they've sold out. If it's truly for the 'art' they'd refuse to get paid, refuse sex, etc.
After that, it's just a matter of degree.
It's funny how many hipsters don't realize that by and large the music industry is a racket, that they are being sold first and foremost a product and an invented 'lifestyle', and that it's just an added bonus if that product happens to be decent music.
Download any film you want from http://megauploadfiles.com/