Taylor Swift Effect or End of Branding? [Part 1]
Boosting sales cannot be the sole goal of a brand or a cultural product.
Am I genuinely interested in writing about Taylor Swift and contributing to the inundation of blogs, newsletters, and op-eds discussing the purported "Taylor Swift effect"? To be frank, not really! However, the blog and media spheres are saturated with repetitive ideas. In a landscape where discussions about the "Taylor Swift effect" have reached a saturation point, it became imperative for me to join the conversation with a critical lens and ask some hard questions, aligned with the mission and vision of this newsletter. #wink
If you require further evidence of this saturation of ideas, here are some links for your perusal.
Taylor Swift is a business genius, and her new album ‘Midnights’ proves it
What we can Learn from Taylor Swift’s Masterclass in Leadership.
What Can Taylor Swift Teach Advisors About Marketing? Quite a Lot, Actually.
4 lessons digital marketers can take from Taylor Swift’s marketing genius
The Friendship Bracelet Movement: Business Lessons From Taylor Swift
After a Barbie-bombed summer, we're now in the grip of a Taylor Swift obsession this fall. Many bloggers, creatives, strategists, leaders, and self-proclaimed thought leaders can't seem to stop glossing over the “Taylor Swift effect” and attributing it to shaping business strategies, inspiring brands, and furthering cultural consumption. Yet, my questioning mind leads me to ponder several questions about how the market is thinking about Taylor Swift and her claimed “effect” in all of the above domains.
There's a consensus within the marketplace regarding the definition of the “Taylor Swift effect.” The "Taylor Swift effect" is widely accepted as the substantial influence her brand and business exert on the marketplace, primarily due to the collective behavior of her dedicated and mobilized fan base, the Swifties. [As a side note, I'm not particularly fond of the common practice of defining terms at the outset of every blog, but I have a reason. Please bear with me.]
Is Taylor Swift a profitable franchise? Absolutely. The Washington Post recently reported that Swift is expected to personally earn $4.1 billion from the Eras Tour and could potentially surpass Elton John's tour earnings when her tour film is factored in. Is it a successful one? Certainly, from the standpoint of influence and marketplace performance. For some, the Taylor Swift Era Tour stands out as one of the most financially rewarding cultural products ever, with earnings that compare favorably to the highest-grossing movie of all time (Avatar, $2,923,706,026).
I don't dispute this influence, nor do I downplay the pivotal role of Swifties in amplifying her impact. What we are observing aligns with the fundamental idea of fan-driven franchises and cultural products. Think of Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lady Gaga and many more to list here. However, I'd like to step back for a broader perspective, question the praise, and present an alternative viewpoint on how the “Taylor Swift effect” is bad news and might be killing the branding - surely and maybe not so slowly.
Why is the Taylor Swift effect a cause for concern in our profession, and where is it leading us? Is the Taylor Swift effect, and similar phenomena, harming the field of branding? How do the evolving dynamics of the marketplace impact brand managers, creators, and the marketplace in general?
Is there an effect?
Certainly, there is an effect, but our understanding of this effect is quite limited. Typically, what we label as an effect is whether Taylor Swift is boosting sales or not. Even when we attempt to define her cultural impact, we often narrow it down to tour profits or her ability to persuade her devoted fanbase to purchase more of her products, sometimes at considerably very high prices. I commend Nick Hilton for his critical assessment as he rightly condemns the intersections of her fandom and capitalism:
“The reason I find The Swift Machine so distasteful, is that the consumers being exploited for financial gain are i) often children, ii) often involved in a co-dependent, messianic relationship with the singer, iii) often financially insecure, and iv) often doing a huge amount of unpaid promotional work on the side.”
This is precisely why everyone acknowledges the existence of an effect. Taylor Swift undeniably drives sales, spanning various mediums, categories, and across a sizable audience. Not only does she succeed in selling her own work, but she also enhances the sales of other brands that she touches (no pun intended!). A subtle nod to Kansas City Chiefs merchandise. The industry loves this because all stakeholders in the marketplace are fixated on uncovering "main effects" – identifying the one factor that directly leads to increased sales.
A “main effect” is the effect of one of your independent variables on the dependent variable, ignoring the effects of all other independent variables.
The term "Taylor Swift effect" and the aforementioned links I shared serve as evidence of this yearning for a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship [i.e., A → B]. This is how they perceive Taylor Swift's effect – her PR strategy → MORE SALES; her digital marketing → MORE SALES; her media strategy → MORE SALES; her branding → MORE SALES, and the list goes on. (Teaser: More often than not, this is referred to as a business case. I'll delve deeper into this in a future blog post.)
I critique this obsession on two fronts: Firstly, focusing solely on increasing sales shouldn't be the only effect we concern ourselves with, especially when discussing cultural strategy. Secondly, the role and impact of marketing, particularly branding, on business outcomes are far more intricate, multifaceted, and nuanced than a simple main effect.
Is there a cultural effect?
My discomfort with the relentless pursuit of simplistic cause-and-effect relationships that exclusively drive sales is compounded by my unease regarding how culture and cultural consumption are incorporated into discussions surrounding the "Taylor Swift effect." Similarly, these conversations often reduce her cultural impact as merely a factor to boost sales.
Should you wish to delve deeper into these well-trodden ideas, here are some links to explore:
The Power Of Influence: Lessons From The Taylor Swift Effect
The Global Impact of Taylor Swift: A Musical Trailblazer and Cultural Icon
Many of these articles dissect Taylor Swift's cultural impact through the lens of her advocacy for digital artist rights, her philanthropic endeavors, her political stance, and her "unique" engagement with her fanbase (though I personally find nothing particularly unique about that, but who am I to argue against Swifties? #smile). Whether Taylor Swift qualifies as an iconic brand is an entirely separate discussion, one we could reserve for another blog post. But, to leave a short note, I think Taylor Swift attracts an audience at a certain demographic intersection, rather than serving as a cultural brand addressing the specific desires, source materials, or anxieties/desires of a particular subculture. My primary aim, however, is to critique how we tend to perceive her cultural impact from a one-dimensional "main effect" perspective, reducing it to Culture → More SALES or Collective Consumption → More SALES, simply because we deem her an economic juggernaut as she eventually sells more tickets, albums, or jerseys.
Firstly, this type of cultural impact is not unique for artists or musicians, whether in the present or historically. Successful artists have always been cultural pioneers. The reasons behind Taylor Swift's cultural impact are not exclusive to her; presently, artists like Beyonce (BeyHive), Rihanna, BTS, and Justin Bieber have fans exhibiting very similar collective behavior. While the digital age may introduce some nuances to collective dynamics, I'm confident that if we had the opportunity to study the global influence and fans of James Dean, Audrey Hepburn, Michael Jackson, Monica Bellucci, Madonna, and many more, we would have found analogous explanations of their cultural impact. I recognize that this narrative is part of Taylor Swift's PR machinery, designed to attract attention and generate income. Nevertheless, I aim to highlight a concern about the potential consequences of this one-dimensional “effect” discourse on how we assess the role of culture and cultural impact.
Moreover, apart from the limited ways people commonly understand culture, I'm deeply uneasy about how experts writing about “Taylor Swift effect” approach cultural analysis. Cultural analysis should be more than generically inviting theories to discussions and pointing out, "Here we see Cultural Contagion Theory” or “This is Network Effect (people influencing other people)." One of the blogs explains this influence, as the blog was providing some explanation as to why she helped with the KC jersey sales: “It’s people influencing people. Therefore, the Taylor Swift Effect should be largely attributed to her people, and their ability to influence one another. In essence the Taylor Swift Effect isn’t about her single-handily moving mountains. It’s about her ability to foster a community that act together as opposed to a juggernaut force that bulldozes the masses to take action.” → aka jersey sales! #sigh
These cultural explanations give the cultural analysis a bad name. Bringing different theories to the discussion to show how they apply is not cultural analysis. Theories and frameworks generally hold and provide explanatory power, which is why they are called theories—they are not easily disproven… or at least not yet. Robust cultural analysis should be contextualized, studying brand genealogy, category orthodoxies, and historical specificity. In simpler words, comprehending Taylor Swift's cultural iconicity entails understanding how her brand has evolved within the music industry, culture, and the marketplace over time and how/why it resonates with her fans at this time.
Cultural Strategy is not identifying the one dimensional or one directional role of culture in sales. Cultural strategy is very powerful when done right. These intricate and multifaceted dynamics and processes are often distilled into a monotonous "main effect" narrative, which inevitably shapes how branding and marketing are practiced. This approach impedes brands and the marketplace from comprehending and harnessing these highly impactful strategies to achieve substantial, defensible, and sustainable impacts.
Is “Taylor Swift effect” bringing the end of branding?
There is no shortage of blogs, op-eds, and posts discussing the success of Taylor Swift's brand and why brand managers should draw inspiration from her branding strategy. These articles commonly point to her universal appeal, her adept use of social media, audience understanding, storytelling skills, personal brand development and powerful collaborations as key factors behind her branding success. They suggest that implementing these tactics could benefit other brands as well. I would be curious to know whether the generic advice presented in these click-bait titled articles is genuinely benefiting brands out there (#smirk).
For instance, the article titled “Taking Control of Your Brand the Taylor Swift Way” lauds(!) Taylor Swift for her branding as:
“Taylor Swift can teach us marketing and communications professionals a lot about how we create a brand, sustain it, and communicate effectively to a target audience. Over the past few years she’s shown us how she’s gotten to know her audience personally, built the most loyal base and improved on her brand in the most positive of ways. Taylor, we salute you.”
I want to clarify that I am not a Swiftie, and I have no qualms against Taylor Swift. I am not here to criticize her or her fans (I'm not that daring to step on the toes of fandom 😁). Frankly, I find nothing particularly new or exciting about Taylor Swift's brand, whether from a personal, scholarly, or professional perspective. However, I am attempting to draw attention to a more substantial issue in the current marketplace. Taylor Swift is just one notable example of this problem, serving as an illustration. This issue is driven by the extensive and pervasive use of certain marketing and branding tactics and almost-strategies - both in discourse and execution. Just anything to drive sales! This trend is harming brand building and brand management, pushing the opportunity to create strong, defensible, and sustainable brands further out of reach.
Some might argue that this is how branding operates in the new dynamics of the marketplace, and we can certainly discuss its viability with specific cases. However, I foresee that the ways branding is approached by these celebrities, entertainers, content creators, or icons - whichever term you prefer - and the ways we discuss their impact are not contributing positively to the overall brand landscape.
In sum…
In Part 1, we explored the "Taylor Swift effect" and the prevailing emphasis on a simplistic "main effect" approach in discussions regarding her influence. Although we acknowledge Swift's profitability and impact, our criticism lies in the narrow focus on sales as the sole metric for her influence - economic or cultural. We argue that any form of effect, including cultural impact analysis, should transcend basic cause-and-effect relationships. The present approach to branding and marketing oversimplifies intricate dynamics, potentially obstructing the development of resilient and enduring brands along with the related cultural strategies necessary for their cultivation.
in Part 2, I will discuss why this is not only bad news for brands but almost every stakeholder in the marketplace.