Church of the Customer Blog
« The Marie Digby head-fake | Main | Love Thy Links »
September 06, 2007
The Marie Digby head-fake
With a few million views of her homemade music videos on YouTube apparently leading to a rash of TV appearances and a song being featured in a high-profile MTV show, musician Marie Digby seems to be the latest break-out amateur star discovered by the grassroots.
But in another example of how shortcuts on the road to authenticity eventually lead to a cliff, the WSJ tells us in a page-one story that Digby's do-it-yourself music videos were part of her record company's carefully crafted plan to feign amateur status. It's the amateurs who often benefit the most from grassroots-driven word of mouth in our social-media world.
Digby never disclosed her record label affiliation as she worked her way through the world of social media, an important consideration for many music lovers in the search for Artists Who Matter. Digby's MySpace page checkbox for "record label" was blank until the Journal started asking questions (now it says "major" for "record label.") At a recent gig in Los Angeles attended by her own record company executives, Digby said of her YouTube videos, "I just turned on my little iMovie, and here I am!" Nifty-presto!
The fuller story was that her record label, Hollywood Records, had signed her 18 months ago, gave her a Mac, consulted with her on what songs to videotape and even created a studio-level recording of "Umbrella" to post to iTunes.
So Hollywood did what Hollywood does: it airbrushed out parts of reality to create a better illusion, and Digby played along. The grassroots bought it, just as it did for another nubile amateur-out-of-nowhere, Lonelygirl15. Like that young and sweet-faced ingenue, Digby had plenty of professional, behind-the-scenes help.
But if Lonelygirl15 taught us anything (she was quite the precocious type) it's that once the facade of amateur status is broken, a significant portion of the grassroots crowd feels duped. Buzz built on trust dissipates.
When it was announced this summer that Lonelygirl15 was killed off -- she was sacrificed by a cult for her blood... yeah, happens every day around here! -- the world yawned and scratched itself.
Young singer-songwriter Marie Digby is, after all, a real person but launching a promising career (or product, or company) with such careless consideration for authenticity demonstrates remarkably poor judgment about the nature of word of mouth.
Update: Buzz built on trust dissipates because disappointed or even angry buzz can be toxic. There's plenty of the latter spreading hours after the Journal's story appeared. A few of the comments now on Digby's YouTube profile page:
- "It was a lousy thing to do to her true fans."
- "Thanks for selling us out to the corporate machine and lying about who you actually are."
- "The very *reason* so many of us liked her was *because* we thought she wasn't a fabrication of corporate marketers."
- "Building your career on a lie, instead of trusting your own talents and abilities enough to let them do the talking, it won't pay, not in the long run."
Digby has talent and her evangelists are trying to neutralize the naysayers, creating a classic showdown in the theater we cover. Too early to tell if all of this will harm or help her career. After all, publicity built on controversy requires the context of purposeful intent; Marie Digby isn't Madonna, Marilyn Manson or even Mark Cuban, intent on changing the game.
The real point here is that as Bob Dylan once sang, "To live outside the law, you must be honest."
Other blogs that reference The Marie Digby head-fake:
» It's not nice to fool YouTube Fans: Disney's role in Maria Digby's overnight success" from FunnyBusiness: Everything About Business Except The Bottom Line
Three months ago very few people had heard of singer Maria Digby. YouTube changed all that. Those who believe that social media is changing how business is conducted, hailed her meteoric rise --2 million views to her YouTube cover of [Read More]
Ben,
Great post. Sometimes I'm puzzled by marketers understanding of social media. It seems that they would understand that if they are asking people to spread the word about something, they have to do it with honesty and transparency. While Ms. Digby, Carson Daly and the LA radio station all are to blame for their misrepresentation, I am most disappointed in Hollywood Records. I know, I know...it is the music business and they're not exactly the most high-integrity business out there. But brands need to wake up and quit trying to dupe people into buying something, or worse yet, believing in something. They have to look at consumers as friends. I layered onto your thoughts at my blog if you'd like to check it out.
http://thecword.typepad.com/thecword/2007/09/whoops-was-that.html
I read this article earlier today and was once again dismayed. However Hollywood Records got exactly what they wanted- Publicity and now we are talking about it...they get more.
@Suki - I understand we're talking about it, but not really in a positive way. What label wants people talking badly about their artist? Sorry, but if that's how the label really feels, that's a cop-out. I hear PR people representing celebs like Paris Hilton say that the time, this "Any attention is good attention" thing is the same old ‘ends justify the means’ arguement.
Right now, marketing people inside the label are high-fiving each other because they got one by fans. All it did was make it harder for the next artist who genuinely deserves a shot, and who doesn't have major label support behind them.
So true! As Seth Godin says in "All Marketeres are Liars" .. you should tell stories but they MUST be AUTHENTIC.
"To live outside the law, you must be honest."
TRUE!... i like that phrase.
----------------------
http://href.hu/x/2sv1
the fake "reality show" (the surest path to an audience as a musician in the 2000s) has come to YouTube.
Her looks are an 8.5 her talent is a 5. I'm sure she'll be huge!
So much effort goes into faking sincerity, at some point it's not just smarter but easier to be sincere. At least I'd like to think so.
What the hell are you all you guys putting her down about. Look at Britney Spears before you think about talent. She can play guitar and piano...I don't think even with Hollywood to help her that she can learn to play in three months and that is just for one instruments. I like to hate too but you guys are taking this bit overboard.
What the hell are you all you guys putting her down about. Look at Britney Spears before you think about talent. She can play guitar and piano...I don't think even with Hollywood to help her that she can learn to play in three months and that is just for one instruments. I like to hate too but you guys are taking this bit overboard.
She never lied about being signed on to a record deal. Let's not judge her according to one source. She had indicated on her myspace page that she was signed to a record deal, waaay before the WSJ article. According to Marie' she decided to post youtube videos of her singing the current top 40 songs, to get recognized. That's exactly what happened when people recognized her for singing Rihanna's Umbrella. Prior to her youtube videos majority of the people in southern california didn't even know about her. She doesn't get the same publicity as Britney Spears...Ashley Simpson...or the other starlets. It was only because of her youtube videos that she finally got recognized. She definitely has talent. Listen to the other songs she's written.
HOLD UP...My understanding is that she got the record deal because she won a song contest sponsored by Pantene shampoo. They put one of her songs on a compilation of "Radio Disney" songs.
Then they gave her a laptop and told her to go record some songs on YouTube. This doesn't sound like a grand conspiracy. It sounds more like they were trying to blow her off to me.
Seriously, all marketing is some type of fraud. Who cares how she gets her name out. She sounds way better than the other pop stuff that is out there. And I don't see anyone throwing a fit about how they got their names out there. Maybe we should hear her side of the story http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4165438&blogID=307265009.
Maybe we should commend her record for such a genius campaign
whatever it is, I still like Marie Digby!
WSJ has to do their homework well enough before making or cooking up any stories. Who really cares how she got discover, she's pure talent and people would follow her because she true and genuine in her music. Full stop...
Now you have gone too far. I've been a fan of Marié since shortly after her Pantene Pro Voice competition. I she has never mislead anyone about here professionalism. She wrote several blogs about recording her album.
I remember about the album deal years ago. So say what you will. Her fans know the truth. And the truth is: "Marié Digby Rocks!"
BUT WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT MARIÉ DIGBY'S HEAD IS FAKE, well, that is just too much. Now I have to come off the fence and put in my two cents.
Frankly, I was suspicious, at first, that such a great singer could also have such a pretty face and such great hair. That seemed a little unlikely to me. Take James Taylor for instance "please" (© 1956 Henny Youngman).
Marié's face, her hair and even her wonderfully creative brain . . . how could all of that come in one package? So I can see where you are going with this, but, frankly, I have seen absolutely no hint of any proof that what you say is true.
First of all there is the enormity of the expense involved. Only a couple of people (Paul Allen and Bill Gates) could afford to create a fake head as lovely as Marié Digby's.
Still, you might be on to something. You could be on the right track. Keep up your research. And if you find any PROOF for your remarkable theory, that Marié Digby's head is "fake," get back to us all right away. In fact, use your blog to notify the world.
Strange things have happened in the music world before this. Here's another clue for you all: "The walrus is Paul." (© 1971 The Beatles)
Your pal,
Horace J. Digby (no relation to Marié)
@Horace: LOL.
The Wall Street Journal got this story wrong.
Marie Digby herself says the idea of using youtube was entirely her own, and the timing of her videos coincides with her story.
Note also, the Wall Street Journal article contained factual errors. The post they cited as typical was not representative of what was said in the topic at all.
Marie Digby never lied. There is no comparison to the lonelygirl case, and by the way, she didn't lie either, at least not as far as I have seen.
It always struck me that there is a special term in journalists, i.e. "Investigative journalism."
Here's the other, more accurate side of the story in Marie Digby's own words.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4165438&blogID=307265009
my opinion is that it doesnt really matter if she came out of nowhere or hollywood records "made" her..i believe that people like singers and songwriters for their MUSIC.personally, i dont really care that shes not an amateur in the music industry..i just totally love her songs and voice.shes an angel!shes down to earth and sweet.and she wrote the songs herself!its not like hollywood records can relate to how marie felt when she wrote the songs.i believe that music lovers can feel the emotions in the songs that marie wrote.so stop making up stories man..
what the hell. you are just jealous cos you are bald and she is not... its not her fault she can sing so well at such a young age. who freakin cares about her background which is probably btter than yours dude. didnt your mother ever teach you not to lie? i think her songs rock and i don't care what you think about her.i think you should just get a life and reflect on what you have done and repent with all your heart. REPENT!!repent with all your heart for the kingdom is near. thou shalt not covet thy neighbours talents...no offence...
@whocares: LOL. You win the award for Comment of the Day.
Horace Digby, your post is brilliant!
I did a little research...
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article was wrong about Marié Digby, and there is evidence to show that Marié Digby never lied. To anyone who followed her videos, it's obvious that Marié Digby has always been herself.
The article stated:
-----
"Ms. Digby's MySpace and YouTube pages don't mention Hollywood Records. Until last week, a box marked "Type of Label" on her MySpace Music page said, "None."
-----
However, she had joined MySpace in 2004, roughly 2 years before she was signed, and she merely didn't bother to update a setting, and she'd probably forgotten that setting even existed. I signed up for a MySpace music page, and it could even be missed when first signing up. And, since months after she recorded her CD, there was no indication it was ever going to be released, I wouldn't expect that it would even cross her mind to change her status to signed, even if she was still aware of that setting. Note, her CD didn't come out until approximately 2 years after she was signed, and approximately 4 years after she joined MySpace.
The article went on to state:
-----
"After inquiries from The Wall Street Journal, the entry was changed to "Major," though the label still is not named."
-----
Makes sense to me. There is no point in naming a record label when there is no indication they are going to release your CD. And, given that, who she was signed with has just as little relevance as that she was signed. (Note, the CD, titled "Unfold" finally came out on April 8, 2008. Buy it, it's wonderful).
The Wall Street Journal article also contained:
-----
'Most of Ms. Digby's new fans seem pleased to believe that they discovered an underground sensation.
-----
In fact, the vast majority of the posts were about her music, and not about "discovering" her. For most of us viewers, a huge number of people had already seen her videos when we found her, which were posted long before the WSJ article, so we could hardly claim to have 'discovered her.'
The term "feigning amateur status", used in the WSJ article is completely ridiculous. Marié Digby posted music videos, and expressed enthusiasm, and hope. She was largely unknown outside of Los Angeles.
Marié Digby has posted that a Wall Street reporter talked to Marié Digby for about an hour, but they never asked the questions that would have cleared this up. Instead, they took one response, which merely meant that her signed status wasn't relevant to her goals (and frankly, would have seemed ridiculous in the videos), as meaning she was hiding it.
There were radio station interviews, before the WSJ article, where she mentioned being signed. If she were hiding it, she would have hid it there too.
I gather Marié Digby's family is rather well off. She never mentioned that in her videos either. I wouldn’t say she was, "feigning middle class status," but I'm sure some people would! Sad!
The 1st time I found her on U-tube I felt she was too good to be true.
The 2nd time I realized something is wrong... It is ment to look amateurish but the productions are way too good in quality. One recording is made outside with absolutely no disturbing noises, no wind, no background noise at all -well, try to record at same sceanes yourself and it will probably sound like shit. The video-quality is also a bit too good -try this also at home and you see for yourself.
Another thing to consider is the light... In my (and many other homes) the light is far from optimized for video recordings -in fact, it will look disasterous.
Also, besides the technical issues, the recording environments seems a little too perfect to be competely true... just take a look att other peoples videos on youtube.
In spite of all this... I do like Marie Digby and her music, but I do not feel comfortable with the marketing.
