Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 485–499 | Cite as

The featuring phenomenon in music: how combining artists of different genres increases a song’s popularity

  • Andrea OrdaniniEmail author
  • Joseph C. Nunes
  • Anastasia Nanni
Article
  • 118 Downloads

Abstract

The appearance of songs including featured artists on Billboard’s Hot 100 music charts has increased exponentially in the past two decades. This particular type of creative collaboration involves one artist integrating another artist’s contribution, either instrumentally or vocally, into their work and publicizing it with a “featuring” credit. According to broad literature in sociology on categorical boundaries, artists who deviate from existing genres are expected to be penalized for violating collective expectations and norms. We find songs featuring other artists actually have a greater likelihood of making it into the top 10 than songs not featuring other artists. Additionally, consistent with theorizing about congruency in the co-branding literature, we observe that the greater the difference (cultural distance) between the genres of the artists involved, the more likely the song is to reach the top of the charts. We argue that by combining the expertise of specialists in each genre, as well as comingling audiences while still maintaining each collaborator’s original positioning, artists who feature artists from other genres are able to produce more successful songs.

Keywords

Music Genre Category boundaries Hot 100 Featuring Artist Co-branding 

Notes

References

  1. Askin, N., & Mauskapf, M. (2017). What makes popular culture popular? Product features and optimal differentiation in music. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 910–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharjee, S., Gopal, R. D., Lertwachara, K., Marsden, J. R., & Telang, R. (2007). The effect of digital sharing technologies on music markets: a survival analysis of albums on ranking charts. Management Science, 53(9), 1359–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bradlow, E. T., & Fader, P. S. (2001). A bayesian lifetime model for the “Hot 100” Billboard songs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(454), 368–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crandall, D., Cosley, D., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., Suri, S. (2008). Feedback effects between similarity and social influence in online communities. Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD ‘08 (pp. 160–168). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Desai, K. K., & Keller, K. L. (2002). The effects of ingredient branding strategies on host brand extendibility. Journal of Marketing, 66, 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 440–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernandes, C.R., Polzer, J.T. (2015). Diversity in groups. In Scott, R., Kosslyn, S. (eds) Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Goldberg, A., Hannan, M. T., & Kovács, B. (2016). What does it mean to span cultural boundaries? Variety and atypicality in cultural consumption. American Sociological Review, 81(2), 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haampland, O. (2017). Power laws and market shares: cumulative advantage and the Billboard Hot 100. Journal of New Music Research, 46(4), 356–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannan, M. T. (2010). Partiality of memberships in categories and audiences. American Review of Sociology, 36, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hanneman, R.A., Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods (online at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext). Accessed 28 Jan 2018.
  15. Hesbacher, P., Anderson, B., Snyderman, P., & Koppel, R. (1982). Record world and billboard charts compared: singles hits, 1970–1979. Popular Music and Society, 8, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kovács, B., & Hannan, M. T. (2015). The space of categories and the consequences of category spanning. Sociological Science, 2, 252–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanseng, E. J., & Olsen, L. E. (2012). Brand alliances: the role of brand concept consistency. European Journal of Marketing, 46(9), 1108–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lena, J. C., & Peterson, R. A. (2008). Classification as culture: types and trajectories of music genres. American Sociological Review, 73(5), 697–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mattsson, J. T., Peltoniemi, M., & Parvinne, P. M. T. (2010). Genre-deviating artist entry: the role of authenticity and fuzziness. Management Decision, 48(9), 1355–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molanphy, C. (2015). Feat. don’t fail me now: the rise of the featured rapper in pop music. Slate.com, Culturebox, Arts, Entertainment and More. Published July, 31, 2015 at http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/07/the_history_of_featured_rappers_and_other_featured_artists_in_pop_songs.html
  22. Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12(4), 529–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murray, F. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: hybrid exchange strategies as a source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 341–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Negro, G., Hannan, M. T., & Rao, H. (2011). Category reinterpretation and defection: modernism and tradition in Italian winemaking. Organization Science, 22(6), 1449–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Negus, K. (1998). Cultural production and the corporation: musical genres and the strategic management of creativity in the US recording industry. Media, Culture and Society, 20(3), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newmeyer, C.E., Venkatesh, R., Ruth, J.A., Chatterjee, R. (2018). A typology of brand alliances and consumer awareness of brand alliance integration. Marketing Letters, 29(3), 275–289.Google Scholar
  27. Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy, 40, 500–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: an investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterson, R. A. (1992). Understanding audience segmentation: from elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics, 21, 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rao, A. R., & Ruekert, R. W. (1994). Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 87–89.Google Scholar
  31. Rose, T. (1994). Black noise: rap music and black culture in contemporary America. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  32. Rossi, P. (2014). Even the rich can make themselves poor: a critical examination of the use of IV methods in marketing. Marketing Science, 33(5), 655–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shepard, R.N. (1987). Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science. Science, 237(4820), 1317–1323.Google Scholar
  34. van Venrooij, A. (2009). The aesthetic discourse space of popular music: 1985-86 and 2004-05. Poetics, 37, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walchli, S. B. (2007). The effects of between-partner congruity on consumer evaluation of co-branded products. Psychology and Marketing, 24(11), 947–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ward, M. K., Goodman, J. K., & Irwin, J. R. (2014). The same old song: the power of familiarity in music choice. Marketing Letters, 25, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2000). Co-branding: brand equity and trial effects. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(7), 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wernerfelt, B. (1988). Umbrella branding as a signal of new product quality: an example of signalling by posting a bond. The Rand Journal of Economics, 19(3), 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wooldridge, J.M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bocconi UniversityMilanItaly
  2. 2.Marshall School of Business, HOH 604University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations