David Bruce Murray

Thoughts On American Gospel Music

I finally got to see a copy of the American Gospel Music proposal. The document had no date, so I'm assuming it's the original proposal that was floating around before NQC. If you'd like to read it for yourself, click HERE. (This link resides on Sogospelnews' server, so thanks is due to the Unthanks for providing access.)

The document's full title is:
The Plan to Power Brand: A Proposal to the Southern Gospel Music Industry from Christian Music Presenters, Inc., Vivici Marketing, Inc. and the National Quartet Convention, Inc.
By Dr. Randall A. Bayne, Dr. Roy J. Hayes, Mr. Jim Gibson and Mr. Clarke W. Beasley

This proposal is indeed a bold move...quite possibly, it's the bold move that will grow Southern Gospel in the long-term. I definitely believe growth of the industry could come from having a unifying brand for the best artists and denying access to that brand for artists who fail to meet quality standards. At it's core, the proposal is positive.

I have to admire the blunt way they describe the current state of the industry, and how they've directed their attention to just about every area of the industry that matters. Here's how they describe the current climate, and I think they're right on target with this statement.

a climate whereby doors are closed to the upper echelon professionals of our industry because of being lumped together with the poor quality of the custom recording amateurs.



The proposal isn't perfect, though. I've read Doug Harrison's four "logic flaws" regarding AGM, and while I agree with him in principle, I think there's a more serious area. This area has nothing to do with whether NQC can be trusted to choose which artists qualify as AGM artists (they probably can, but some will disagree); or whether the church really wants to hear the top echelon of current Southern Gospel artists (they do, but just don't know it); or whether artists will want to pay to be spiritually "certified" (they will, if it means singing at huge events); or whether or not the word "american" opens more doors than the word "southern" (it probably does).

The flaw is that AGM assumes the answer to EVERY area of the market is licensing their brand. If everyone pays, no one is the salesman. AGM is too "license happy." Sure, artists, record labels, etc. should pay for access to the brand, but the media (even radio) is expected to pony up licensing fees as well.

The title is right. This is definitely "The Plan To Power Brand."

In some ways, it can be viewed as a house of cards. This won't work unless a number of key entities get on board. They pretty much admit that if Singing News balks, their plan won't work. Here's a quote from the document that emphasizes just how crucial they consider a Singing News endorsement to be:

This re-branding would need to be promoted and emphasized by the Singing News, both in the positioning of their magazine and their editorial content. We would need support from the Singing News focusing the vast majority of their coverage on the artists and events that qualify to carry the brand.

Whether or not they sign on to be an official AGM publication, I suspect Singing News will get on board with promoting AGM given the number of ads AGM should be able to afford to buy, what with licensing fees coming in from virtually every corner of the market...but what if radio doesn't get on board? Media outlets"really aren't expected to sign up until they see the success of the brand in other areas. The document states:

With the brand secured and established, media outlets would want to use the brand...

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense in terms of establishing the brand to give media outlets a license for FREE from the outset, as long as their content qualifies?

It makes no financial sense to ask budget strapped, tight-wad SG radio owners to pay for the privilege of promoting AGM artists...$3000 annually, no less, to be able to say, "You're listening to the best in American Gospel Music" and print the AGM logo on their business cards. Here's the biggest whopping logic flaw of all...RADIO WOULD BE PAYING AGM FOR THE HONOR OF RESTRICTING THEIR PLAYLIST TO AGM ARTISTS. Isn't that something AGM ought be buying? I'm not talking about payola, of course...of course I'm not...I'm just pointing out how ludicrous this seems.

It would make a lot more sense to to bring radio on board as one of the key beneficiaries of AGM's efforts, not one of the providers for AGM's success. I should mention that the $3000 annual fee also gives radio stations the opportunity to report to the AGM chart and be considered in the AGM Awards. They want radio to PAY to report to a chart. Get that? PAY.

I think AGM could very well attract new fans to the industry, and that is naturally everyone's greatest hope for this proposal.

My second greatest hope for AGM was that it might offer a way to cure what has been the Achilles Heel of this industry for decades...horrible SG radio programming. This sure doesn't seem like a plan that will work in that regard. Southern Gospel radio is in the mire both financially and in terms of programming quality. SG radio needs to be saved from itself, not asked to pay a portion of the price for getting AGM up and running.

I guess I could sum up my reaction to the proposal by saying I think AGM will probably land somewhere around 70% on the more good than harm meter. Seriously, my total reaction to the overall proposal is favorable. Obviously I'm somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% annoyed that the biggest problem in the entire genre was addressed in such unrealistic terms, though.

If they flip that junk around, this thing might really fly.
Posted on Sep 27, 2006 - 11:01 AM | [3] Comments | Southern Gospel Music | Permalink

Is This Stealing?

Situation: An established group needs to fill a hole in their lineup, and they'd like to be able to announce that a new singer has been hired at the same time they anounce their current member is leaving. They approach a hot new talent who happens to be a member of another group. They haven't advertised an opening in their organization, but they tell him the job could be his at certain rate of pay if he's interested.

Question: Was that a bad thing for the group to do?

Many would say, "Yes"...especially group owners whose groups are often referred to as "farm teams." They'd say one gospel group shouldn't "steal" group members from another.

The response of others would be, "No"...it was a business decision that not only benefits the group with the larger name, but also benefits the young singer who...let's face it...was traveling way too much for his sanity and for not nearly enough pay. And in theory, it also benefits the fans who get to hear a new mix that hopefully improves the overall quality of the group.

Here's my take...
When I'm approached by a potential new employer, there's no obligation to provide my current employer with a blow by blow report of the interview process.

However, once I DO decide to take a new job, I tell my current employer as soon as I've accepted the new job and then I offer to work a fair notice...good communication is key. Telling them I'm leaving as soon as I know I'm leaving and offering to work the notice is where my obligation begins and ends. Whether I initiated contact or my new employer inititiated contact is totally irrelevant.

The same thing goes for preachers changing churches. If they do their job as long as they are at the first church and work a fair notice before they leave to go to the new church, what's the beef if their new church approached them or they approached the church first? Why would it be any different in a Southern Gospel group?

That being said, I do believe a "fair notice" varies considerably depending on the job. If you're at McDonalds, one week is probably more than plenty, but in a Southern Gospel group, I think we're talking more in terms of several weeks (and even as much as two or three months if the group you're leaving has just released a new CD with your voice and face on it).

Unfortunately, this sort of situation often creates hurt for a number of people...the group that hires the replacement singer gets a reputation for "breaking up" groups that pay less...the other group's product sales suffer if the singer didn't work a fair notice...the singer gets a bad rap if he isn't totally up-front with his previous employer and sometimes gets a bad rap even if he is...he may keep it secret from his employer for a while after he's decided to take the new job offer, maybe at his new group's request, both of which are wrong. Even if he IS forthcoming about the situation, he may still get fired from his previous group to pre-empt his new employer's announcement about his transition (which is also wrong).

It's a situation that comes up all too frequently with Southern Gospel groups. I'd be interested to know how some of you readers feel about the issue...it would also be interesting to hear the opinions of some group members and/or group owners on this issue...whether you agree or disagree with my observations, I think it would make for an interesting discussion.

Turnover happens all the time in this industry. If it hasn't happened in your group for a while, it probably will come sooner than later, so when it happens, act like grown-ups.

Or perhaps a better way of putting it is a quote attributed (but so far unconfirmed by me) to Sherriff Taylor..."Y'all act like you got some smarts."
Posted on Sep 27, 2006 - 08:55 AM | [0] Comments | Southern Gospel Music | Permalink

Page 1 of 1 pages

Categories

Archives

Syndicate

Southern Gospel News

Southern Gospel Blogs

Links

Member Login