National Exposure, for a Song

For millions of football fans, this year’s Super Bowl will be remembered as the day that veteran quarterback John Elway of the Denver Broncos finally won a championship ring.

But in the pop world, the telecast may go down as the revolutionary moment that finally ended the long-standing stigma that kept contemporary acts from allowing their current songs to be used in commercials.

Rather than a backlash, the placement of the Verve’s “Bitter Sweet Symphony” in a Nike ad during the telecast led to increased album sales for the British rock band and helped turn “Symphony,” a track in the album, into one of the most popular songs in the country. Just released as a single, “Symphony” is expected to debut in the upper half of the Billboard Hot 100 chart this week.

Some musicians--including, ironically, the Verve’s Richard Ashcroft--remain opposed to licensing their songs for commercials because they feel it cheapens their work by using it to sell a product. But the success of “Symphony” shows that pop fans, at least, no longer automatically react with the ridicule or anger that has historically followed the appearance in ads of such classic tunes as the Beatles’ “Revolution” or the Rolling Stones’ “Start Me Up.”

Indeed, the reaction has been so positive to the Nike ad, which is built around the opening segment of the Verve recording, that record company executives and bands now speak openly about commercial involvement. While artists can frequently command licensing fees of $100,000 to $200,000 or more from a commercial, the real payoff is in the massive exposure that high-profile commercials can bring an act.

This is especially important at a time when traditional means of pop exposure, notably radio, are less dependable. Radio formats have become so specialized over the last decade that it is hard to get the kind of massive, across-the-board airplay that was common in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

Music by several cutting-edge bands, including Stereolab and the Orb, will be featured in upcoming commercials in Volkswagen’s campaign to launch its new Beetle. In addition, Grammy winner Erykah Badu’s “On and On,” one of the most celebrated pop singles of 1997, was spotlighted in recent ads for Levi’s.

A song by Cornershop, an acclaimed British rock group, can be heard in a current Miller beer ad. Luscious Jackson, a rock quartet on the Beastie Boys’ Grand Royal label, was featured last year singing a Christmas song in a Gap ad.

The surprise in all of this is that songs for commercials are no longer just old hits by artists past their commercial prime--such as Bob Seger’s “Like a Rock,” the cornerstone of a Chevy campaign, or Sly & the Family Stone’s “Everyday People,” which is featured in Toyota ads.

The field is now becoming crowded with music by acts that are still building an audience, acts that would be most vulnerable to charges of “sellout” or “greed” for allowing their music to be used.

Among artists, record executives, managers and advertising personnel, the consensus is that artists are more willing to allow the commercial use of their songs--at least with the right product or campaign.

“The relationship between the advertising world and the music world still has a long way to go, but we are much more into it,” says Lori Lambert, a marketing executive with the Epic Records Group. “I’m trying to educate my friends in the advertising community that there is now much more openness on the part of artists that have credibility to be part of these kinds of campaigns, whereas 10 or 15 years ago, it was viewed as a sellout. . . . Opportunities in cross-marketing with other products are now being viewed as a positive.”

David Anderle, senior vice president of A&R; at A&M; Records, has watched the pop / ad relationship change over the years.

“I guess these new bands don’t have the same feeling that we had in the ‘60s, when it was considered absolutely deadly [to put your song in a commercial],” he said. “In the ‘60s, even putting a gold record on your wall was taboo. Everything was so anti-establishment.

“When I saw Luscious Jackson in a Gap commercial, I said, ‘Whoa, I guess it’s OK to be doing commercials.’ But it was a very charming commercial and done in such a sweet way.”

Yet, resistance remains.

Verve manager Jazz Summers said the only reason the band allowed “Symphony” to be used by Nike was to prevent other advertisers from using the recording.

Because the recording is built around a sample of an ‘60s orchestral version of the Rolling Stones’ “The Last Time,” the copyright on the song belongs to co-writers Mick Jagger and Keith Richards and ABKCO Music Inc., a New York publishing company.

Thus, anyone could have gone to ABKCO and bid to license the song. And ABKCO did receive requests to use “Symphony” in ads and in the film “Scream 2,” ABKCO’s Allen Klein confirmed. But no deal was struck until Nike arranged with the band to use its recording of “Symphony.”

About the band’s decision, Summers said, “The thinking was that once Nike used the song that no one else would touch it. It was better [seeing it in a classy ad] than seeing it end up in some [offensive] ad.”

Still, Ashcroft, who wrote the lyrics to “Symphony,” was so offended about the song being in a commercial that the band donated its $175,000 fee to charity. “No piece of music that I have any control over will ever be used again by the advertising industry,” he vowed.

Ashcroft’s thoughts echo the traditional stance of scores of artists, from Neil Young to Pearl Jam.

However, Kojo Bentil, vice president and general manager of Kedar Entertainment, whose artist roster includes Badu, said the R&B; singer was enthusiastic about having her song used in a commercial.

“We saw it as a great opportunity to get additional exposure for the song as well as for Erykah,” he said. “It was a unique opportunity. She actually asked about [appearing in the ad] because she does wear Levi’s.”

Similarly, Renee Lehman, manager of Cornershop, said the band was proud of the Miller commercial. “We loved the cinematic quality of it,” she said. “It was all about the [visual] and the song, and not so much about the product. And, it was good money and good exposure.”

But Mark Thomashow, the Nike executive who was involved in the negotiations a decade ago for the use of the “Revolution” ad and again in the “Symphony” campaign, said the record industry is wrong if it looks at the “Symphony” history and believes ad agencies are going to be searching after other current hits or current songs.

“I think ad agencies are just looking for the best piece of music, regardless of the copyright date,” he said. “There’s no formula that you need a new song to make a video work. The formula is that it’s the right song.”

Ultimately, the lesson of “Symphony” is that ad agencies have a much larger pool of songs to draw from in the future.

“If artists say they want to achieve certain [sales] goals, then we have to do certain things to make it work,” says Gary Richards, co-owner and president of 1500 Records, an alternative music label distributed by A&M.; “And if that means getting them exposed through TV commercials, then sometimes we have to follow that avenue.”

The change of attitude about using current songs in commercials, Richards said, is part of a wider shift in today’s music industry.

“There are a lot more acts [today whose] music is not so dear to them that they wouldn’t want to use it to sell products,” Richards said. “Everyone’s goal is to create something that’s a commercial in itself, whether it’s a video for MTV or whatever, to sell their record.”

Vicky Germaise, senior vice president of marketing for Atlantic Records, said the key ultimately is finding the right fit between a band and a product.

“I think for current contemporary artists that are concerned at all about credibility, a big national campaign is a mistake,” she says. “And yet, there are those magic instances where you find a compatible commercial partner. . . . If the visual accompaniment is just beyond question cool, it can work. But for toilet-bowl cleanser, no.”