Tone deaf on transparency

In today’s Wall Street Journal (link) there is another one of those stories about a “YouTube phenom”—a 24-year-old musician with a MySpace page that has risen through the word of mouth and “friends” to become a success—why, a press release issued just last week from Hollywood Records announced her signing.

The singer, Marie Digby, actually signed with Hollywood records back in 2005. According to the WSJ, the record label “helped devise her Internet strategy,” which apparently included making it appear like she didn’t have a record label—her MySpace Music page until recently had her listed as “none” next to the question “Type of Label.”

There are a few things funky with this. First, the recording industry in general seems to continually get the social media space wrong. From prosecuting 11-year-old kids for downloading songs to situations like this, they seem intent on trying to manage a space that refuses to be managed. Second, the total lack of transparency will be irksome to many—no one likes to feel as though they’ve been hoodwinked by marketers—especially the blogosphere. Quite a few marketing blogs are posting on this story.

Ms. Digby, for her part, has posted an angry rant on her MySpace page (here’s the link to the repost at Popdirt, her page is loading slowly) accusing the reporter of twisting the facts in trying to generate another “LonelyGirl15” story. What she doesn’t address is the fact that in appearance after appearance, she never disclosed her affiliation with the label. As the Shop Talk Marketing blog points out, it’s the cover up that always gets them in the end.

So why cover it up? Because it’s just not as cool to have a label behind you as it is to appear to come from out of nowhere. Early adopters aren’t just out there for gadgets—they exist for music, clothing, shoes, etc. One of the primary charges these early adopters get—which makes them want to talk about whatever the product is (word-of-mouth)—is being on the front end of the trend, being the “first on the block” or “the one in the know.” Take that away, and they’re either less likely to talk, or less likely to share with as many people.

What’s the net effect of this? Well, the next time someone hears “YouTube” blah, blah “undiscovered talent” blah, blah, they will think “yeah, right.” Some marketers are manipulating (or trying to manipulate) social networks, and in the end are simply conditioning their target markets to be ever-more skeptical, making it harder to market to them. At what point do they realize that this sort of behavior harms their industry and makes their jobs monumentally more difficult?