For those of you who aren’t familiar, Marié Digby is a YouTube star along the lines of Tay Zonday. Essentially a seemingly “undiscovered talent” that just sits in their living room or makeshift studio and shyly puts themselves out there for the YouTube audience. In the case of Marié, it seems talent was the selling point – in the case of Zonday, it was simply ridiculous (give Chocolate Rain a listen…) And we, as the YouTube audience, love to come across something novel, funny, or what we truly believe to be an undiscovered talent.
So you can imagine the disbelief and disappointment felt by some when it was discovered that Marié was actually an artist signed and coached by Hollywood Records (a division of the Walt Disney Company). According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Ms. Digby was signed in 2005 and her “self propelled” YouTube career was actually very carefully designed and implemented by her record label. Her orchestrated MySpace and YouTube campaign was quite well done, and she’s approaching 10,000 friends on MySpace and has 11,000+ subscribers to her YouTube channel. Assuming some overlap, that’s at least 10,000 – maybe as many as 20,000 – interested people who’ve seen the huge banner linking to her iTunes album – targeted advertising that is very difficult to come by and one of the reasons internet advertising is so successful.
Personally? I can understand how some people feel this is underhanded, but I’ve not trusted much of what I see on the internet at face value for some time now. On the flip side, if I were a record label, this seems like an incredibly inexpensive way to get exposure for your artists. All you need is a webcam, some talent, and a little internet savvy and you’ve got yourself a captive and loyal YouTube following, which at the end of the day may be better than the limited (but expensive) exposure you would get via the normal avenues of trying to get your single played on the radio. The one truly deceptive thing I do see here is that Hollywood Records announced last week that “Breakthrough YouTube Phenomenon Marié Digby Signs With Hollywood Records.” It’s a somewhat ambiguous lie, but a lie nonetheless. At the end of the day, say what we will, this is a big “Mission Accomplished” for Marié Digby and Hollywood Records – because not only do we know who she is, but we are talking about her.
The Wall Street Journal sums it up best (as per usual):
What her legions of fans don’t realize, however, is that Ms. Digby’s career demonstrates something else: that traditional media conglomerates are going to new lengths to take advantage of the Internet’s ability to generate word-of-mouth buzz.
Word of mouth – simple as can be – is one of the most powerful ways to create excitement for a product (lets face it: Marié was a person in 2005, what we see of her now is very much a “product”) and the bottom line is that the internet is the most efficient way to initiate and perpetuate word of mouth marketing.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Brilliant article, Taylor, if I do say so. Much more insight than I garnered upon my read this AM. Bravo. Best MC piece yet.
Rather funny how some people automatically dismiss the fact that during her radio interview, she said she was signed AND there were articles out before WSJ saying she was signed. Funny how people overlook that. It’s obvious that people like to believe controversy over the truth because that’s what probably makes their day or some crap. It also shows that some people will believe anything they read. Rather naive.
Rather funny that you would leave an anonymous comment with claims that have no documentation whatsoever. How are the benefits at Hollywood records?
Either way, this post was meant to highlight the way she came into the spotlight. I don’t really care – I think the way she was handled and coached is ingenious. But if you think she and Hollywood Records were completely forthcoming with information, maybe the naïveté you are referring to is your own.
Fact of the matter is she NEVER lied. You want to talk about forthcoming? Anytime someone asked, she always said that she was signed. She never turned around like “I’m not signed to any label.” People like to stir shit where there is none, but that’s typical in today’s world. Those people need to find something more productive to do.
No, friend, this is a HUGE deal. Besides, this is out business: out business is to look into this, dissect it, and see whether doing this is a good idea for my clients. And it is, it is! As long as the client is aware, ahead of time, that at a certain point, if the viral really ever “takes” and goes viral, there will be “fisking” and there will be checks. So, you had better be MORE transparent next time. I never heard her say she was “signed” when she was on the Jimmy Kimmel Live show.
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 the vast majority of people in the topic. Most were thrilled for Marie.
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 journalism, 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
Well, I base my lies on omission and there was surely some omission with regards her true representation. I like her and I really like her sound and I really like her — but it was NOT 100% organic, that’s for sure.
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!