What’s a Grammy Worth? : Some Say Being on TV Show Can Be Better Than Winning

Tonight, an estimated 30 million people will tune in to the 30th annual Grammy Awards at 8 p.m. on Channels 2 and 8. And Thursday, the media and fans will pore over the results, celebrating the winners, lamenting the losers, commenting on an upset or two, buzzing about who stole the show.

But what does it all mean to the artists’ careers?

According to managers, booking agents, record company executives, publicists and retailers, a Grammy can mean a lot--especially if an act sweeps the awards or wins one of the two key prizes--album or record of the year.

But a series of interviews with industry professionals turned up some surprises: Most say that performing on the Grammys telecast can be more beneficial to an artist’s career than winning an award. And some say that there is a downside to winning a lot of awards: It makes a successful record that much harder to follow. (Remember Christopher Cross and Toto?)

But most agree that big Grammy wins can boost sales. Three of the albums that won key awards last year--Paul Simon’s “Graceland,” Steve Winwood’s “Back in the High Life” and Anita Baker’s “Rapture”--have each sold more than 1 million copies since the telecast. The Grammys were especially important in bringing attention to the Simon and Baker albums, because they didn’t generate multiple hit singles.

Peter Grosslight, a partner at Triad Artists--Simon’s booking agency--said: “There’s no question that winning album of the year and performing on the show helped Paul’s tour. For a lot of people, it was the first time they had heard the music, and it defined what ‘Graceland’ was all about.”

Tina Turner’s career also was boosted by a strong Grammy showing, according to Lindsay Scott, vice president of Roger Davies Management. Turner won three awards in 1985, including record of the year for “What’s Love Got to Do With It?”

“It did something for Tina apart from just selling a few more records,” Davies said. “It sealed her comeback in people’s minds. The prestige effect was measurable.”

Whitney Houston’s Grammy victory two years ago for “Saving All My Love for You” capped her breakthrough,according to Clive Davis, president of Arista Records.

“There’s no question that Whitney benefited,” he said. “The peer recognition of the Grammys coupled with the very favorable TV exposure provided some fairly dramatic upward surges in her sales and in national recognition.”

In most cases, however, winning one or two Grammys doesn’t have a big effect on record sales or concert appearance fees. Where it does help, those surveyed agree, is in boosting an act’s prestige and credibility.

This was the case with Melissa Manchester, who won in 1983 for “You Should Hear How She Talks About You.”

“I’m not sure it sold any more records,” said her manager, Michael Lippman, “but it had a very positive effect PR-wise. I see it in the press so often: Anytime they refer to Melissa, they now refer to her as ‘Grammy award-winning artist,’ so psychologically that means a great deal.”

Mitchell Schneider, who runs the music division of Michael Levine Public Relations, said a Grammy is most useful for pop acts like Manchester and Sheena Easton.

“When you have an artist who may not be a critical favorite, I think a Grammy completely enhances their image and buys them years on their career,” he said.

Good rock artists tend to get better reviews, Schneider said, but pop artists frequently do not. So winning a Grammy and the prestige that can come with it “becomes its own statement.”

Schneider added that Grammy nominations and awards are useful in “legitimizing” an artist to mainstream media outlets.

“It’s like an ultimate seal of approval,” he said. “That’s something I’ve noticed as long as I’ve been in the business: When you say ‘Grammy Award winner,’ doors start flying open where they might have previously been closed. Obviously a publication like Rolling Stone doesn’t need a seal of approval from the Grammys to book a story, but for ‘Good Morning America,’ ‘The Tonight Show’ or even ‘Entertainment Tonight,’ a Grammy equals prestige.”

Larry Solters, a senior vice president at MCA Records, agreed. “The press potential backstage at the Grammys is phenomenal,” he said. “There’s not another event or party or situation that can be as fruitful for a music business publicist.”

Bob Merlis, Warner Bros. Records’ vice president/national publicity director, noted that Grammys can have another benefit. “Even when winning a Grammy doesn’t mean a whole lot of sales, it can create a receptive atmosphere for the next album--like it did when Los Lobos won (in 1983) for best Mexican-American performance.”

The Los Angeles-based group went on to top the charts with its remake of “La Bamba,” which is nominated this year for record and song of the year.

The sales power associated with winning a Grammy has been enhanced in recent years by record companies working more closely with music retailers on setting up Grammy-related merchandising campaigns.

Mitch Perliss, director of purchasing for the 50-store Music Plus chain, said that the tie-ins are having some effect. “Winning a Grammy doesn’t resurrect anything from the dead,” he said, “but it does give it a little bit of a push if it’s still a current, viable record.”

Winning a Grammy can also briefly boost the fee an artist can command in concert.

John Marx, vice president in charge of the contemporary music division at the William Morris Agency, said that a Grammy win can boost an act’s concert fee by as much as 20% for a period of four to eight weeks.

But he added, “In terms of increasing the price, a hit record reverberates for a much longer period of time. A Grammy is a more short-term lift in profile and leverage from the vantage point of an agency.”

For all this talk about winning Grammys, many feel that performing on the annual telecast is more helpful to record sales and concert business. The theory is that people soon forget who won or lost, but a galvanizing performance will be remembered.

Triad’s Grosslight said flatly, “Performing on the Grammys is much more important than winning--as far as touring is concerned.”

MCA’s Solters explained why: “The music industry skews towards a very limited audience, but the Grammy TV show attracts a demo (audience demographic) from 6 to 60. If you perform on the Grammys, you can reach people who haven’t bought a record in years.”

But there’s a danger in Grammy success. Sweeping the awards can suddenly put an act on the defensive, making it the target of a critical backlash and the victim of inflated expectations.

That’s what happened to Christopher Cross, who won five awards in 1981, including album, record and song of the year. It also applied to Toto, whose members won a combined total of six awards in 1982, including record and song.

Larry Fitzgerald, who co-manages Toto with Mark Hartley, said, “It makes everybody crazy is what it does.

“Everybody is so expectant on the next release that it puts (on) an incredible amount of pressure to maintain that profile. And you’re definitely a target. It gives the critics something to really shoot at.”

MCA’s Solters said that Cross’ sweep--unprecedented for a new artist--suddenly put the Texan on the defensive. “It was like, ‘Who does he think he is?’ ” said Solters.

Tim Neece, who managed Cross in the early ‘80s and now represents Bruce Hornsby, noted, “In Christopher’s case, it really gave him quite a bite to have to follow up with his second album. In the public’s eye, the bigger you are on the first album, the more they expect from you on the second. So that stacks up against you a little bit.”

Would Cross have been better off in the long run if he had just won for best new artist?

“I wish there was some way we could go back in a time machine and find out,” said Neece. “And I’m sure Christopher does too.”

But Fitzgerald wouldn’t give back Toto’s Grammys even if he could. “I would never undo it because it gave them the kind of credibility from their peers that was so important to them as musicians. Besides that, it was a damn exciting evening. It was almost silly. It was wonderful. It was a great rush.”

The Grammys were ridiculed for years for ignoring rock artists in favor of middle-of-the-road pop acts. But the criticism has eased recently as such critically hailed rockers as Bruce Springsteen, Prince and U2 have been nominated for Grammys for album and/or record of the year.

Arista’s Davis said, “For many years, rock artists didn’t get their just due. But with each succeeding year, it’s becoming more representative. The lack of recognition being accorded our major rock artists is gradually being corrected.

“By and large, I think the procedure is fair,” Davis added. “There’s no real accusation of company block voting, and I don’t think any such attempt is made.”

Warners’ Merlis added, “The Grammys represent the mainstream of the industry. I don’t see any Red Hot Chili Peppers nominations, but I don’t think it’s that far-fetched that someday they couldn’t get one.