| |
Discussion: Gaga sabotaged Xtina and Katy?!
Member Since: 3/14/2013
Posts: 2,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by UAE
@NataliaKills, @kerlimusic, @PorcelainBlack
really now  |
Those flops unintentionally sabotaged their own careers.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/25/2012
Posts: 103
|
@missy WELL DONE AND WELL SAID! you really mastered / slayed the degree!!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/5/2012
Posts: 1,412
|
@missy
I read everything you wrote and agree with pretty much everything, except for the part where it seemed like you were insinuating that Gaga should not be held partially responsible for the sabotage. Gaga's team cannot force her to fan the flames of accusations that are damaging to another artists reputation. That was all her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/10/2010
Posts: 1,410
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/21/2010
Posts: 370
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marcoxxxo
Between Inter zone and black out were 4 years and even with Pérez **** on britney , Britney was able to surive ... Xtina on the Other hand just flopped beca use her álbum sucked
|
there was no twitter back then 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 25,077
|
Quote:
Originally posted by missy
Gonna explain why there may be truth to this from a BUSINESS perspective, for those confused as to why on earth this would even be a possible thing (note: not saying that it's true, just explaining general strategy). Just because I have a master degree in this **** and I need to kill an hour. So skip over this if you know the basics of business models. If you suffer from logophobia or smthg, hush and scroll down.
This is a totally normal form of promotion. Do you not remember Apple's aggressive campaign ads against Microsoft back in the day, Mac vs PC? Where they'd say stuff like "I'm a PC, I get viruses" (even though Macs get viruses too, simply the target audience isn't deemed intelligent enough to understand these things, but I digress..). Similar substitute products. They eat away at each other's profits and you must, must, must have a strategy in place to prove that you can diminish this from happening (normally by presenting points of differentiation and comparative advantages). Whoever is loaning you money (even behemoth companies like Apple must borrow money for tax purposes) is an objective source who will evaluate this. So:
It would be absolutely normal for her label, probably without her consent, to attack other acts appearing at the time so they don't distract from her attention. They don't need to do this anymore because she's securely positioned in her market segment, the differentiation is obvious to the GP. Keep in mind that especially with The Fame Monster, she was about to become the Queen of the unusual/club hits/video masterpieces - she just wasn't there yet, and that's why when she originally entered in 2008, she was just a messy blonde drunk party girl who wore slightly weird outfits. Her P.O.D. was "messy blonde w/ weird clothes". She could not enter as something completely unusual or you wouldn't relate, that market was unproven for that time period. But she was interested in "differentiating" herself from the others to secure a better legacy. They tested this with Paparazzi and it worked very well (MORE weird, MORE cinematography, LESS messy). Gaga is NOT a cheap act. She is probably THE most expensive to pop girl to maintain in history, if they'd ever release her budgets. She needs a huge budget to work with. With the outfits/huge videos/requirement for a huge amount of constant promo, she does not come cheap at all.
When they analyzed the "pop girl market", they saw the opportunity to allow her to be positioned in her own empty niche. She required a lot of investment, which they ultimately deemed a worthwhile risk due to the lack of competitors w/ similar traits. But you do not gamble with big investments, you do everything you can to make sure it performs as well as possible. How do you convince old senior financial advisors to give you a big budget like that without extensive proof that some of that money goes to her future value being secured? I'll tell you right now - in business, an overcrowded market is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY undesirable to enter with a gamble like that. It's basically an instant "no" - red market segment: "blood in the water", they need blue. Their business plan would have had to prove that she a) would be in an empty market segment with no/little competitors - the regular pop girl segment is an absolute no, too many people doing the same thing, too easy to slap a weirdish outfit on another girl, b) the promotional plan would have to attract regular pop listeners to give the niche market segment (so let's call it "dance pop w/ vivid visuals") a chance since they were NOT following the trend at the time, c) the product would have to not scare away said regular pop listeners/they need to enjoy the product, [identify it as a substitute] d) the promo plan would have to explain why the product (gaga) does a better job at the niche segment than any other act gunning for that position/any act that may enter in the future (Christina/natalia/porcelainblack would be chucked here). So in that case, anyone who may dare step into her segment has to be overshadowed - and more importantly, you need to find a way to tell people "THIS PRODUCT (Gaga) is similar but differentiated from THIS PRODUCT (established Christina or newcomer Porcelain Black) but achieves a similar purpose in a better way" without making GAGA herself appear like an aggressive bitch - she cannot be the mouthpiece. It's just smart marketing.
What happened between that last The Fame video and The Fame Monster's first single? Bionic was being promoted full force - an abstract album from a major pop girl with rumors of expensive videos (NMT was expensive enough that Christina had to pay a portion from her own pocket). The first of it's kind amongst the pop acts of the time and it had potential to shift into the empty territory that Gaga was positioned to be the leader in. B2B was successful with a similar twist in image (except not weird outfits/dance music - 1920s costumes/soul music) - this was a clear risk for that segment, Bionic was shaping up to be unusual outfits/dance music. Another random example that you may understand - why does Nokia use Windows and not Android? Because Samsung was projected to be the leader in that segment and they'd risk being overshadowed although the system was less of a gamble. Keep in mind that Gaga had an UNDENIABLE boost of fame and attention previously due to the Christina comparisons - Just Dance took a very long time to take off because no one knew who the eff she was - until everyone asked about the same hairstyles. The comparison was proven to be an effective marketing tool for her - thus it could backfire. Christina dressed up for Keeps Getting Better, in such a themed/unusual costume for the GP, people were programmed to say "Gaga?" because they had already been programmed to associate Gaga as the messy blonde hair/bangs & kind of weird outfits (although they had no idea how much weirder Gaga was gonna get).The ads were EVERYWHERE on the Internet comparing the two. I don't know if Perez jumped in for the sake of bandwagonning or if he was paid/asked to do so. Keep in mind, small little reviewer blogs have people constantly trying to chuck stuff at them for a good review. Perez is one of the most popular celebrity blogs on the internet - it's worth $625 million with 3+million visitors a day (he claims almost 9 million but ignore him). It wouldn't be surprising if he was approached and asked to give Gaga a boost - especially since they were friends.
People I knew who had absolutely ZERO interest in Gaga or Christina would randomly tell me that Christina was copying Gaga, even though they couldn't pin point why. It's the same reason why computer idiots will say "Mac is better than PC" and the people who actually understand these things look on incredulously because you're just a sponge who absorbs whatever they hear, not actually someone who knows anything about computers. Mostly regurgitation and a need to fit in/appear informed.
They did market research with Not Myself Tonight (standard practice). Apparently it performed very, very well. Now keep in mind that yes, the video would turn people off. But there was a period of time between the single release and the video release filled with promo. Fans would call in and be flat out told, "no, we're not going to play that". There was a fan told that too many fans are requesting it and abusing the system so they won't play it because of that. This kind of market testing doesn't tend to fail so spectacularly without an external factor dipping it's hand in. If it was that unpredictable, no one would waste money testing songs. We can conclude the song would have performed well on the radio had external factors not been fiddling with it's performance. DJs do not pick the playlists - it is all decided prior to their shifts and they only have a very brief period for requests, and they pick things they want to hear.
tl;dr: business, baby! Gaga is not an act with a low budget, her brand requires a lot of cash. To ensure it's not a waste, the business plan would have to be airtight. It would be normal to use an aggressive promotion strategy such as comparative ads to increase interest in one act and damage the image of the other. Those acts were probably deemed "substitute products". Just because Gaga seems to not be that "terrible of a person" doesn't mean that she designs the promotional strategy. IF "SABOTAGE" OCCURRED, it wasn't her doing. It was really just normal business. The most she might have done is say something like "I saw what you wrote, ha ha, that's kinda true" but she wouldn't have her hand directly in the fiddling. She doesn't run her label. You are delusional if you think "the music speaks for itself". There is a bit of truth to every rumor. You are tricked left and right in this industry, and this has been well known for decades. Evidence suggests something happened with Bionic and Gaga's people may have had a part in it. Bionic was more threatening than other acts at the time because the GP wouldn't have been able to see past "electronic music + non-traditional sexy/normal outfits". After all, there are other acts that are more similar to Gaga and you hear nothing about them, there are other acts similar to Rihanna/etc and you hear nothing about them being compared (Rita Ora and Rihanna are almost the same person yet do you hear about Rita the way you heard about Gaga/Christina? People weren't suddenly Gaga/Xtina experts, nor did they care about how similar their content was. It is very noteworthy that it got so much attention twice within a 2 year span, for radically different reasons. Showbiz has a bad rap for a reason.
|
omg girl
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/20/2011
Posts: 6,868
|
Quote:
Originally posted by missy
Gonna explain why there may be truth to this from a BUSINESS perspective, for those confused as to why on earth this would even be a possible thing (note: not saying that it's true, just explaining general strategy). Just because I have a master degree in this **** and I need to kill an hour. So skip over this if you know the basics of business models. If you suffer from logophobia or smthg, hush and scroll down.
This is a totally normal form of promotion. Do you not remember Apple's aggressive campaign ads against Microsoft back in the day, Mac vs PC? Where they'd say stuff like "I'm a PC, I get viruses" (even though Macs get viruses too, simply the target audience isn't deemed intelligent enough to understand these things, but I digress..). Similar substitute products. They eat away at each other's profits and you must, must, must have a strategy in place to prove that you can diminish this from happening (normally by presenting points of differentiation and comparative advantages). Whoever is loaning you money (even behemoth companies like Apple must borrow money for tax purposes) is an objective source who will evaluate this. So:
It would be absolutely normal for her label, probably without her consent, to attack other acts appearing at the time so they don't distract from her attention. They don't need to do this anymore because she's securely positioned in her market segment, the differentiation is obvious to the GP. Keep in mind that especially with The Fame Monster, she was about to become the Queen of the unusual/club hits/video masterpieces - she just wasn't there yet, and that's why when she originally entered in 2008, she was just a messy blonde drunk party girl who wore slightly weird outfits. Her P.O.D. was "messy blonde w/ weird clothes". She could not enter as something completely unusual or you wouldn't relate, that market was unproven for that time period. But she was interested in "differentiating" herself from the others to secure a better legacy. They tested this with Paparazzi and it worked very well (MORE weird, MORE cinematography, LESS messy). Gaga is NOT a cheap act. She is probably THE most expensive to pop girl to maintain in history, if they'd ever release her budgets. She needs a huge budget to work with. With the outfits/huge videos/requirement for a huge amount of constant promo, she does not come cheap at all.
When they analyzed the "pop girl market", they saw the opportunity to allow her to be positioned in her own empty niche. She required a lot of investment, which they ultimately deemed a worthwhile risk due to the lack of competitors w/ similar traits. But you do not gamble with big investments, you do everything you can to make sure it performs as well as possible. How do you convince old senior financial advisors to give you a big budget like that without extensive proof that some of that money goes to her future value being secured? I'll tell you right now - in business, an overcrowded market is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY undesirable to enter with a gamble like that. It's basically an instant "no" - red market segment: "blood in the water", they need blue. Their business plan would have had to prove that she a) would be in an empty market segment with no/little competitors - the regular pop girl segment is an absolute no, too many people doing the same thing, too easy to slap a weirdish outfit on another girl, b) the promotional plan would have to attract regular pop listeners to give the niche market segment (so let's call it "dance pop w/ vivid visuals") a chance since they were NOT following the trend at the time, c) the product would have to not scare away said regular pop listeners/they need to enjoy the product, [identify it as a substitute] d) the promo plan would have to explain why the product (gaga) does a better job at the niche segment than any other act gunning for that position/any act that may enter in the future (Christina/natalia/porcelainblack would be chucked here). So in that case, anyone who may dare step into her segment has to be overshadowed - and more importantly, you need to find a way to tell people "THIS PRODUCT (Gaga) is similar but differentiated from THIS PRODUCT (established Christina or newcomer Porcelain Black) but achieves a similar purpose in a better way" without making GAGA herself appear like an aggressive bitch - she cannot be the mouthpiece. It's just smart marketing.
What happened between that last The Fame video and The Fame Monster's first single? Bionic was being promoted full force - an abstract album from a major pop girl with rumors of expensive videos (NMT was expensive enough that Christina had to pay a portion from her own pocket). The first of it's kind amongst the pop acts of the time and it had potential to shift into the empty territory that Gaga was positioned to be the leader in. B2B was successful with a similar twist in image (except not weird outfits/dance music - 1920s costumes/soul music) - this was a clear risk for that segment, Bionic was shaping up to be unusual outfits/dance music. Another random example that you may understand - why does Nokia use Windows and not Android? Because Samsung was projected to be the leader in that segment and they'd risk being overshadowed although the system was less of a gamble. Keep in mind that Gaga had an UNDENIABLE boost of fame and attention previously due to the Christina comparisons - Just Dance took a very long time to take off because no one knew who the eff she was - until everyone asked about the same hairstyles. The comparison was proven to be an effective marketing tool for her - thus it could backfire. Christina dressed up for Keeps Getting Better, in such a themed/unusual costume for the GP, people were programmed to say "Gaga?" because they had already been programmed to associate Gaga as the messy blonde hair/bangs & kind of weird outfits (although they had no idea how much weirder Gaga was gonna get).The ads were EVERYWHERE on the Internet comparing the two. I don't know if Perez jumped in for the sake of bandwagonning or if he was paid/asked to do so. Keep in mind, small little reviewer blogs have people constantly trying to chuck stuff at them for a good review. Perez is one of the most popular celebrity blogs on the internet - it's worth $625 million with 3+million visitors a day (he claims almost 9 million but ignore him). It wouldn't be surprising if he was approached and asked to give Gaga a boost - especially since they were friends.
People I knew who had absolutely ZERO interest in Gaga or Christina would randomly tell me that Christina was copying Gaga, even though they couldn't pin point why. It's the same reason why computer idiots will say "Mac is better than PC" and the people who actually understand these things look on incredulously because you're just a sponge who absorbs whatever they hear, not actually someone who knows anything about computers. Mostly regurgitation and a need to fit in/appear informed.
They did market research with Not Myself Tonight (standard practice). Apparently it performed very, very well. Now keep in mind that yes, the video would turn people off. But there was a period of time between the single release and the video release filled with promo. Fans would call in and be flat out told, "no, we're not going to play that". There was a fan told that too many fans are requesting it and abusing the system so they won't play it because of that. This kind of market testing doesn't tend to fail so spectacularly without an external factor dipping it's hand in. If it was that unpredictable, no one would waste money testing songs. We can conclude the song would have performed well on the radio had external factors not been fiddling with it's performance. DJs do not pick the playlists - it is all decided prior to their shifts and they only have a very brief period for requests, and they pick things they want to hear.
tl;dr: business, baby! Gaga is not an act with a low budget, her brand requires a lot of cash. To ensure it's not a waste, the business plan would have to be airtight. It would be normal to use an aggressive promotion strategy such as comparative ads to increase interest in one act and damage the image of the other. Those acts were probably deemed "substitute products". Just because Gaga seems to not be that "terrible of a person" doesn't mean that she designs the promotional strategy. IF "SABOTAGE" OCCURRED, it wasn't her doing. It was really just normal business. The most she might have done is say something like "I saw what you wrote, ha ha, that's kinda true" but she wouldn't have her hand directly in the fiddling. She doesn't run her label. You are delusional if you think "the music speaks for itself". There is a bit of truth to every rumor. You are tricked left and right in this industry, and this has been well known for decades. Evidence suggests something happened with Bionic and Gaga's people may have had a part in it. Bionic was more threatening than other acts at the time because the GP wouldn't have been able to see past "electronic music + non-traditional sexy/normal outfits". After all, there are other acts that are more similar to Gaga and you hear nothing about them, there are other acts similar to Rihanna/etc and you hear nothing about them being compared (Rita Ora and Rihanna are almost the same person yet do you hear about Rita the way you heard about Gaga/Christina? People weren't suddenly Gaga/Xtina experts, nor did they care about how similar their content was. It is very noteworthy that it got so much attention twice within a 2 year span, for radically different reasons. Showbiz has a bad rap for a reason.
|
And there you have it!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2012
Posts: 8,824
|
not porcelain & natalia 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/10/2008
Posts: 1,964
|
Some fanbase are really sad. Like, really. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 3,555
|
Lol @ people still believing Perez' ******** and giving him the attention that makes him continue to be an annoying piece of crap.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Quote:
Originally posted by missy
Gonna explain why there may be truth to this from a BUSINESS perspective, for those confused as to why on earth this would even be a possible thing (note: not saying that it's true, just explaining general strategy). Just because I have a master degree in this **** and I need to kill an hour. So skip over this if you know the basics of business models. If you suffer from logophobia or smthg, hush and scroll down.
This is a totally normal form of promotion. Do you not remember Apple's aggressive campaign ads against Microsoft back in the day, Mac vs PC? Where they'd say stuff like "I'm a PC, I get viruses" (even though Macs get viruses too, simply the target audience isn't deemed intelligent enough to understand these things, but I digress..). Similar substitute products. They eat away at each other's profits and you must, must, must have a strategy in place to prove that you can diminish this from happening (normally by presenting points of differentiation and comparative advantages). Whoever is loaning you money (even behemoth companies like Apple must borrow money for tax purposes) is an objective source who will evaluate this. So:
It would be absolutely normal for her label, probably without her consent, to attack other acts appearing at the time so they don't distract from her attention. They don't need to do this anymore because she's securely positioned in her market segment, the differentiation is obvious to the GP. Keep in mind that especially with The Fame Monster, she was about to become the Queen of the unusual/club hits/video masterpieces - she just wasn't there yet, and that's why when she originally entered in 2008, she was just a messy blonde drunk party girl who wore slightly weird outfits. Her P.O.D. was "messy blonde w/ weird clothes". She could not enter as something completely unusual or you wouldn't relate, that market was unproven for that time period. But she was interested in "differentiating" herself from the others to secure a better legacy. They tested this with Paparazzi and it worked very well (MORE weird, MORE cinematography, LESS messy). Gaga is NOT a cheap act. She is probably THE most expensive to pop girl to maintain in history, if they'd ever release her budgets. She needs a huge budget to work with. With the outfits/huge videos/requirement for a huge amount of constant promo, she does not come cheap at all.
When they analyzed the "pop girl market", they saw the opportunity to allow her to be positioned in her own empty niche. She required a lot of investment, which they ultimately deemed a worthwhile risk due to the lack of competitors w/ similar traits. But you do not gamble with big investments, you do everything you can to make sure it performs as well as possible. How do you convince old senior financial advisors to give you a big budget like that without extensive proof that some of that money goes to her future value being secured? I'll tell you right now - in business, an overcrowded market is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY undesirable to enter with a gamble like that. It's basically an instant "no" - red market segment: "blood in the water", they need blue. Their business plan would have had to prove that she a) would be in an empty market segment with no/little competitors - the regular pop girl segment is an absolute no, too many people doing the same thing, too easy to slap a weirdish outfit on another girl, b) the promotional plan would have to attract regular pop listeners to give the niche market segment (so let's call it "dance pop w/ vivid visuals") a chance since they were NOT following the trend at the time, c) the product would have to not scare away said regular pop listeners/they need to enjoy the product, [identify it as a substitute] d) the promo plan would have to explain why the product (gaga) does a better job at the niche segment than any other act gunning for that position/any act that may enter in the future (Christina/natalia/porcelainblack would be chucked here). So in that case, anyone who may dare step into her segment has to be overshadowed - and more importantly, you need to find a way to tell people "THIS PRODUCT (Gaga) is similar but differentiated from THIS PRODUCT (established Christina or newcomer Porcelain Black) but achieves a similar purpose in a better way" without making GAGA herself appear like an aggressive bitch - she cannot be the mouthpiece. It's just smart marketing.
What happened between that last The Fame video and The Fame Monster's first single? Bionic was being promoted full force - an abstract album from a major pop girl with rumors of expensive videos (NMT was expensive enough that Christina had to pay a portion from her own pocket). The first of it's kind amongst the pop acts of the time and it had potential to shift into the empty territory that Gaga was positioned to be the leader in. B2B was successful with a similar twist in image (except not weird outfits/dance music - 1920s costumes/soul music) - this was a clear risk for that segment, Bionic was shaping up to be unusual outfits/dance music. Another random example that you may understand - why does Nokia use Windows and not Android? Because Samsung was projected to be the leader in that segment and they'd risk being overshadowed although the system was less of a gamble. Keep in mind that Gaga had an UNDENIABLE boost of fame and attention previously due to the Christina comparisons - Just Dance took a very long time to take off because no one knew who the eff she was - until everyone asked about the same hairstyles. The comparison was proven to be an effective marketing tool for her - thus it could backfire. Christina dressed up for Keeps Getting Better, in such a themed/unusual costume for the GP, people were programmed to say "Gaga?" because they had already been programmed to associate Gaga as the messy blonde hair/bangs & kind of weird outfits (although they had no idea how much weirder Gaga was gonna get).The ads were EVERYWHERE on the Internet comparing the two. I don't know if Perez jumped in for the sake of bandwagonning or if he was paid/asked to do so. Keep in mind, small little reviewer blogs have people constantly trying to chuck stuff at them for a good review. Perez is one of the most popular celebrity blogs on the internet - it's worth $625 million with 3+million visitors a day (he claims almost 9 million but ignore him). It wouldn't be surprising if he was approached and asked to give Gaga a boost - especially since they were friends.
People I knew who had absolutely ZERO interest in Gaga or Christina would randomly tell me that Christina was copying Gaga, even though they couldn't pin point why. It's the same reason why computer idiots will say "Mac is better than PC" and the people who actually understand these things look on incredulously because you're just a sponge who absorbs whatever they hear, not actually someone who knows anything about computers. Mostly regurgitation and a need to fit in/appear informed.
They did market research with Not Myself Tonight (standard practice). Apparently it performed very, very well. Now keep in mind that yes, the video would turn people off. But there was a period of time between the single release and the video release filled with promo. Fans would call in and be flat out told, "no, we're not going to play that". There was a fan told that too many fans are requesting it and abusing the system so they won't play it because of that. This kind of market testing doesn't tend to fail so spectacularly without an external factor dipping it's hand in. If it was that unpredictable, no one would waste money testing songs. We can conclude the song would have performed well on the radio had external factors not been fiddling with it's performance. DJs do not pick the playlists - it is all decided prior to their shifts and they only have a very brief period for requests, and they pick things they want to hear.
tl;dr: business, baby! Gaga is not an act with a low budget, her brand requires a lot of cash. To ensure it's not a waste, the business plan would have to be airtight. It would be normal to use an aggressive promotion strategy such as comparative ads to increase interest in one act and damage the image of the other. Those acts were probably deemed "substitute products". Just because Gaga seems to not be that "terrible of a person" doesn't mean that she designs the promotional strategy. IF "SABOTAGE" OCCURRED, it wasn't her doing. It was really just normal business. The most she might have done is say something like "I saw what you wrote, ha ha, that's kinda true" but she wouldn't have her hand directly in the fiddling. She doesn't run her label. You are delusional if you think "the music speaks for itself". There is a bit of truth to every rumor. You are tricked left and right in this industry, and this has been well known for decades. Evidence suggests something happened with Bionic and Gaga's people may have had a part in it. Bionic was more threatening than other acts at the time because the GP wouldn't have been able to see past "electronic music + non-traditional sexy/normal outfits". After all, there are other acts that are more similar to Gaga and you hear nothing about them, there are other acts similar to Rihanna/etc and you hear nothing about them being compared (Rita Ora and Rihanna are almost the same person yet do you hear about Rita the way you heard about Gaga/Christina? People weren't suddenly Gaga/Xtina experts, nor did they care about how similar their content was. It is very noteworthy that it got so much attention twice within a 2 year span, for radically different reasons. Showbiz has a bad rap for a reason.
|
Well Spoken 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
It's funny how people only use Perez when it's convenient for them to do so.
But when he starts attacking your fave his opinion doesn't matter, right? Y'all stay doing the most.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/15/2011
Posts: 4,771
|
In b4 Swine is Zombie copycat
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 5/15/2010
Posts: 15,858
|
Lemme wait on my seat...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 1,807
|
Porcelain, Xtina, Natalia & Curly sabotaged themselves, and Katy is slaying... so I don't get it. That pedophile pig stalker can stay trying it though. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
Quote:
Originally posted by missy
Gonna explain why there may be truth to this from a BUSINESS perspective, for those confused as to why on earth this would even be a possible thing (note: not saying that it's true, just explaining general strategy). Just because I have a master degree in this **** and I need to kill an hour. So skip over this if you know the basics of business models. If you suffer from logophobia or smthg, hush and scroll down.
This is a totally normal form of promotion. Do you not remember Apple's aggressive campaign ads against Microsoft back in the day, Mac vs PC? Where they'd say stuff like "I'm a PC, I get viruses" (even though Macs get viruses too, simply the target audience isn't deemed intelligent enough to understand these things, but I digress..). Similar substitute products. They eat away at each other's profits and you must, must, must have a strategy in place to prove that you can diminish this from happening (normally by presenting points of differentiation and comparative advantages). Whoever is loaning you money (even behemoth companies like Apple must borrow money for tax purposes) is an objective source who will evaluate this. So:
It would be absolutely normal for her label, probably without her consent, to attack other acts appearing at the time so they don't distract from her attention. They don't need to do this anymore because she's securely positioned in her market segment, the differentiation is obvious to the GP. Keep in mind that especially with The Fame Monster, she was about to become the Queen of the unusual/club hits/video masterpieces - she just wasn't there yet, and that's why when she originally entered in 2008, she was just a messy blonde drunk party girl who wore slightly weird outfits. Her P.O.D. was "messy blonde w/ weird clothes". She could not enter as something completely unusual or you wouldn't relate, that market was unproven for that time period. But she was interested in "differentiating" herself from the others to secure a better legacy. They tested this with Paparazzi and it worked very well (MORE weird, MORE cinematography, LESS messy). Gaga is NOT a cheap act. She is probably THE most expensive to pop girl to maintain in history, if they'd ever release her budgets. She needs a huge budget to work with. With the outfits/huge videos/requirement for a huge amount of constant promo, she does not come cheap at all.
When they analyzed the "pop girl market", they saw the opportunity to allow her to be positioned in her own empty niche. She required a lot of investment, which they ultimately deemed a worthwhile risk due to the lack of competitors w/ similar traits. But you do not gamble with big investments, you do everything you can to make sure it performs as well as possible. How do you convince old senior financial advisors to give you a big budget like that without extensive proof that some of that money goes to her future value being secured? I'll tell you right now - in business, an overcrowded market is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY undesirable to enter with a gamble like that. It's basically an instant "no" - red market segment: "blood in the water", they need blue. Their business plan would have had to prove that she a) would be in an empty market segment with no/little competitors - the regular pop girl segment is an absolute no, too many people doing the same thing, too easy to slap a weirdish outfit on another girl, b) the promotional plan would have to attract regular pop listeners to give the niche market segment (so let's call it "dance pop w/ vivid visuals") a chance since they were NOT following the trend at the time, c) the product would have to not scare away said regular pop listeners/they need to enjoy the product, [identify it as a substitute] d) the promo plan would have to explain why the product (gaga) does a better job at the niche segment than any other act gunning for that position/any act that may enter in the future (Christina/natalia/porcelainblack would be chucked here). So in that case, anyone who may dare step into her segment has to be overshadowed - and more importantly, you need to find a way to tell people "THIS PRODUCT (Gaga) is similar but differentiated from THIS PRODUCT (established Christina or newcomer Porcelain Black) but achieves a similar purpose in a better way" without making GAGA herself appear like an aggressive bitch - she cannot be the mouthpiece. It's just smart marketing.
What happened between that last The Fame video and The Fame Monster's first single? Bionic was being promoted full force - an abstract album from a major pop girl with rumors of expensive videos (NMT was expensive enough that Christina had to pay a portion from her own pocket). The first of it's kind amongst the pop acts of the time and it had potential to shift into the empty territory that Gaga was positioned to be the leader in. B2B was successful with a similar twist in image (except not weird outfits/dance music - 1920s costumes/soul music) - this was a clear risk for that segment, Bionic was shaping up to be unusual outfits/dance music. Another random example that you may understand - why does Nokia use Windows and not Android? Because Samsung was projected to be the leader in that segment and they'd risk being overshadowed although the system was less of a gamble. Keep in mind that Gaga had an UNDENIABLE boost of fame and attention previously due to the Christina comparisons - Just Dance took a very long time to take off because no one knew who the eff she was - until everyone asked about the same hairstyles. The comparison was proven to be an effective marketing tool for her - thus it could backfire. Christina dressed up for Keeps Getting Better, in such a themed/unusual costume for the GP, people were programmed to say "Gaga?" because they had already been programmed to associate Gaga as the messy blonde hair/bangs & kind of weird outfits (although they had no idea how much weirder Gaga was gonna get).The ads were EVERYWHERE on the Internet comparing the two. I don't know if Perez jumped in for the sake of bandwagonning or if he was paid/asked to do so. Keep in mind, small little reviewer blogs have people constantly trying to chuck stuff at them for a good review. Perez is one of the most popular celebrity blogs on the internet - it's worth $625 million with 3+million visitors a day (he claims almost 9 million but ignore him). It wouldn't be surprising if he was approached and asked to give Gaga a boost - especially since they were friends.
People I knew who had absolutely ZERO interest in Gaga or Christina would randomly tell me that Christina was copying Gaga, even though they couldn't pin point why. It's the same reason why computer idiots will say "Mac is better than PC" and the people who actually understand these things look on incredulously because you're just a sponge who absorbs whatever they hear, not actually someone who knows anything about computers. Mostly regurgitation and a need to fit in/appear informed.
They did market research with Not Myself Tonight (standard practice). Apparently it performed very, very well. Now keep in mind that yes, the video would turn people off. But there was a period of time between the single release and the video release filled with promo. Fans would call in and be flat out told, "no, we're not going to play that". There was a fan told that too many fans are requesting it and abusing the system so they won't play it because of that. This kind of market testing doesn't tend to fail so spectacularly without an external factor dipping it's hand in. If it was that unpredictable, no one would waste money testing songs. We can conclude the song would have performed well on the radio had external factors not been fiddling with it's performance. DJs do not pick the playlists - it is all decided prior to their shifts and they only have a very brief period for requests, and they pick things they want to hear.
tl;dr: business, baby! Gaga is not an act with a low budget, her brand requires a lot of cash. To ensure it's not a waste, the business plan would have to be airtight. It would be normal to use an aggressive promotion strategy such as comparative ads to increase interest in one act and damage the image of the other. Those acts were probably deemed "substitute products". Just because Gaga seems to not be that "terrible of a person" doesn't mean that she designs the promotional strategy. IF "SABOTAGE" OCCURRED, it wasn't her doing. It was really just normal business. The most she might have done is say something like "I saw what you wrote, ha ha, that's kinda true" but she wouldn't have her hand directly in the fiddling. She doesn't run her label. You are delusional if you think "the music speaks for itself". There is a bit of truth to every rumor. You are tricked left and right in this industry, and this has been well known for decades. Evidence suggests something happened with Bionic and Gaga's people may have had a part in it. Bionic was more threatening than other acts at the time because the GP wouldn't have been able to see past "electronic music + non-traditional sexy/normal outfits". After all, there are other acts that are more similar to Gaga and you hear nothing about them, there are other acts similar to Rihanna/etc and you hear nothing about them being compared (Rita Ora and Rihanna are almost the same person yet do you hear about Rita the way you heard about Gaga/Christina? People weren't suddenly Gaga/Xtina experts, nor did they care about how similar their content was. It is very noteworthy that it got so much attention twice within a 2 year span, for radically different reasons. Showbiz has a bad rap for a reason.
|
GREAT read. Thank you for this education. Should be added to OP.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/14/2013
Posts: 1,297
|
He's lying once more.
AND I love Porcelain sooo much, but the blonde/black hair fights in here are silly and soo 2011/12. Gaga pulls off a different look every day. She didn't copy P just because she used that hairstyle for 1 day. Also, Porcelain's and Gaga's music are totally different. For ****'s sake.
BTW CHECK OUT PORCELAIN BLACK'S NEW SONGS MAMA FORGIVE ME AND PRETTY LITTLE PSYCHO. Thank me later.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 3,681
|
Perez's stories have more holes than Ellen & Portia getting it on
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/15/2012
Posts: 6,964
|
Gaga didn't sabotage anyone, Christina sabotaged herself by releasing weak material after 'Stripped' and waiting too long to do it, the reason 'Back to Basics' wasn't a flop is because it was riding off the success of 'Stripped' but it didn't make her brand bigger or anything, it was diminished, and the fact that she released a greatest hits after only roughly 3 albums of new material was too fast.
Then with 'Bionic', 'Not Myself Tonight' isn't a bad song but it wasn't comeback material at all, and 'You Lost Me' was underpromoted, thing is Christina needs way tighter material and a inspired image to really come back and Gaga has nothing to do with that.
And Katy Perry? Please, she has an awesome team behind her and has tasted a lot of success, she's far from being sabotaged.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 23,375
|
Idk what's worst tho Piggy actually being able to really hurt Xtina's career or y'all actually believing he had enough power to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
