The next question I want you to focus on is:
"Cross-media convergence and synergy are vital to the successful marketing of music products to audiences in the music industry". Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement.
You need to develop an argument here- is this always true?
What I would suggest doing here is looking at a number of artists' marketing campaign (either successful or unsuccessful ones) and seeing how they employed cross-media convergence and synergy. Is it necessary to employ these strategies in order to market properly?
Is synergy really only available to those on or a subsidiary of a major label?
Look at the release of Radiohead's new album- did they employ these solely/not at all/or in tandem with a range of other marketing strategies?
Look at the release of Beyonce's new material, or the Life of Pablo, or Skepta's new album etc?
Try to evaluate how successful they have been and why, along with the impact upon audiences.
Are there any new shifts and trends in marketing behaviours? What about Madonna's attempt at using every social media platform under the sun? Are audiences sceptical of some types of marketing?
Push\pull marketing, viral marketing, traditional methods, windowing, gamification etc....
EXAMINER'S ADVICE, GENERAL:
The question provided suitable differentiation of candidate responses; it allowed candidates to use their case study material to formulate an argument that responded to the question. The question provoked a range of responses from candidates many of whom were able to discuss the role of cross-media convergence and synergy in the marketing of media products. The best answers were able to create a debate around the necessity of cross-media convergence and synergy in engaging appropriate audiences; strong candidates were frequently able to draw contrasts between strategies used by mainstream and independent producers and the ways that these built mass or niche target markets.
The best answers tended to come from candidates who had been well prepared with detailed, contemporary case studies and were able to select relevant material from these to respond to the question. Many candidates were able to build their own experiences as consumers into their responses and were able to contextualise these through wider understanding of the relationships between producers and audiences. More candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape. Lesser achieving candidates often misunderstood what was meant by cross-media convergence and synergy or got the two terms confused, others struggled to define the terms at times.
The highest achieving candidates used focussed textual exemplification from their case studies to create a debate centred around the relative strengths of distribution practices and marketing strategies offered by institutions to engage with appropriate target audiences. Strong candidates were also frequently able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, and/or mass audience/niche audience targeting. More candidates were able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape, which included the continued transformation of older industry practice in the digital and online age.
Strong responses from candidates displayed a wide range of relevant and contemporary examples of marketing and cross-media convergence and synergy in their chosen area and could discuss these examples with confidence. Those candidates that fared less well used a ‘saturation approach’ to address the question, writing all they could remember, rather than addressing the set question.
In these cases, candidates struggled to deliver knowledge and understanding of marketing campaigns in relation to the media area studied. This resulted in ‘all I know’ essays, where marketing knowledge was limited to the odd reference to poster, trailer, online marketing and consequently could not address the question set. Centres are reminded that they need to teach all areas of the required specification to candidates.
Where centres had only prepared a limited case study, candidates did not have enough evidence to make a persuasive response to the question set. Also there was a neglect of the role of the audience by some candidates who tended to focus on a potted history of the institution and not address the key concepts being examined. It is advised that centres ensure appropriate preparation for this section by covering audience in the same depth as institutions. At the same time centres should not ‘over-teach’ audience theory – ‘hypodermic needle’ or ‘uses and gratifications’, instead centres should focus on the audience as a consumer, a market or as a targeted group.
There is still a tendency to teach case study material which is out of date, for example, Working Title – Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), Notting Hill (1999), Bridget Jones Dairies (2001). There are so many other choices to study with candidates, which will empower them to perform better in the examination. Centres should be careful with anecdotal evidence – examples from or regarding YouTube, Facebook, Apps and games consoles need to be grounded within specific arguments relating to media texts – the general use of these online technologies without context should be avoided.
The question provided suitable differentiation of candidate responses; it allowed candidates to use their case study material to formulate an argument that responded to the question. The question provoked a range of responses from candidates many of whom were able to discuss the role of cross-media convergence and synergy in the marketing of media products. The best answers were able to create a debate around the necessity of cross-media convergence and synergy in engaging appropriate audiences; strong candidates were frequently able to draw contrasts between strategies used by mainstream and independent producers and the ways that these built mass or niche target markets.
The best answers tended to come from candidates who had been well prepared with detailed, contemporary case studies and were able to select relevant material from these to respond to the question. Many candidates were able to build their own experiences as consumers into their responses and were able to contextualise these through wider understanding of the relationships between producers and audiences. More candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape. Lesser achieving candidates often misunderstood what was meant by cross-media convergence and synergy or got the two terms confused, others struggled to define the terms at times.
The highest achieving candidates used focussed textual exemplification from their case studies to create a debate centred around the relative strengths of distribution practices and marketing strategies offered by institutions to engage with appropriate target audiences. Strong candidates were also frequently able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, and/or mass audience/niche audience targeting. More candidates were able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape, which included the continued transformation of older industry practice in the digital and online age.
Strong responses from candidates displayed a wide range of relevant and contemporary examples of marketing and cross-media convergence and synergy in their chosen area and could discuss these examples with confidence. Those candidates that fared less well used a ‘saturation approach’ to address the question, writing all they could remember, rather than addressing the set question.
In these cases, candidates struggled to deliver knowledge and understanding of marketing campaigns in relation to the media area studied. This resulted in ‘all I know’ essays, where marketing knowledge was limited to the odd reference to poster, trailer, online marketing and consequently could not address the question set. Centres are reminded that they need to teach all areas of the required specification to candidates.
Where centres had only prepared a limited case study, candidates did not have enough evidence to make a persuasive response to the question set. Also there was a neglect of the role of the audience by some candidates who tended to focus on a potted history of the institution and not address the key concepts being examined. It is advised that centres ensure appropriate preparation for this section by covering audience in the same depth as institutions. At the same time centres should not ‘over-teach’ audience theory – ‘hypodermic needle’ or ‘uses and gratifications’, instead centres should focus on the audience as a consumer, a market or as a targeted group.
There is still a tendency to teach case study material which is out of date, for example, Working Title – Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), Notting Hill (1999), Bridget Jones Dairies (2001). There are so many other choices to study with candidates, which will empower them to perform better in the examination. Centres should be careful with anecdotal evidence – examples from or regarding YouTube, Facebook, Apps and games consoles need to be grounded within specific arguments relating to media texts – the general use of these online technologies without context should be avoided.
Music Industry
Yet again the music industry proved to be a popular area for study. The best answers were able to contextualise factual knowledge within an argument, with good use of detailed examples. The majority of music industry case studies focused on comparing a major and an independent, with Domino coming up often. On the whole the case studies were prepared well with the candidates exploring the fact that Major labels are part of conglomerates who get to utilise synergy in a host of ways, with examples coming from artists being used in films, through to TV (X-factor & Syco, BBC and The Voice) and promotion through print outlets like NME and Kerrang music publications.
Candidates were able to argue that bigger companies are more reliant on cross-media campaigns and synergy, but independent companies often use a number of creative alternatives. These were best discussed when linked to individual artists/tracks and detailed knowledge of individual campaigns was in evidence. Some candidates concentrated on issues of distribution, discussing music formats, downloading and piracy as key areas, but often these were not contextualised by the demands of the question.
The most able candidates were able to show a good understanding of marketing practices in the online age and could contrast the practices of a media conglomerates, predominantly Universal and Sony and EMI in comparison with ‘indie’ labels, such as Domino, Jalapeno, XL and Rough Trade record labels. Candidates could effectively discuss the practices used by major record companies to maximise reach and profits, providing exemplification of vertical and horizontal integration, which were vital to such media institutions. Most of the answers seen looked at Sony and Universal music and offered contrast with a range of independent companies such as Rough Trade, Domino, Ghostbox and Finders Keepers records. The question was designed to provide opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of digital distribution, marketing practices and audience consumption.
Discussion of independents' use of Web 2.0 as a distribution and marketing tool was sometimes naive, suggesting that any band could become successful this way, irrespective of the financial investment required. Some candidates need to clarify their knowledge of third party companies such as Apple and their relationship with music institutions and audiences.
Yet again the music industry proved to be a popular area for study. The best answers were able to contextualise factual knowledge within an argument, with good use of detailed examples. The majority of music industry case studies focused on comparing a major and an independent, with Domino coming up often. On the whole the case studies were prepared well with the candidates exploring the fact that Major labels are part of conglomerates who get to utilise synergy in a host of ways, with examples coming from artists being used in films, through to TV (X-factor & Syco, BBC and The Voice) and promotion through print outlets like NME and Kerrang music publications.
Candidates were able to argue that bigger companies are more reliant on cross-media campaigns and synergy, but independent companies often use a number of creative alternatives. These were best discussed when linked to individual artists/tracks and detailed knowledge of individual campaigns was in evidence. Some candidates concentrated on issues of distribution, discussing music formats, downloading and piracy as key areas, but often these were not contextualised by the demands of the question.
The most able candidates were able to show a good understanding of marketing practices in the online age and could contrast the practices of a media conglomerates, predominantly Universal and Sony and EMI in comparison with ‘indie’ labels, such as Domino, Jalapeno, XL and Rough Trade record labels. Candidates could effectively discuss the practices used by major record companies to maximise reach and profits, providing exemplification of vertical and horizontal integration, which were vital to such media institutions. Most of the answers seen looked at Sony and Universal music and offered contrast with a range of independent companies such as Rough Trade, Domino, Ghostbox and Finders Keepers records. The question was designed to provide opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of digital distribution, marketing practices and audience consumption.
Discussion of independents' use of Web 2.0 as a distribution and marketing tool was sometimes naive, suggesting that any band could become successful this way, irrespective of the financial investment required. Some candidates need to clarify their knowledge of third party companies such as Apple and their relationship with music institutions and audiences.
Candidates should be careful in solely relying on Spotify as a case study and on the discussion
of illegal downloading, because candidates answers could not specifically discuss the how a
media company could market a product and such approaches restricted candidates
understanding of the symbiosis between institution and audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment