Another significant prerequisite in organizing management is consistency, or continuity – depending on how you want to put it. This requirement is ever-present, just like control and abandon. You can’t escape this, even if you wanted to. Hence, the best thing, as a manager, is to embrace it. However, like many other concepts in music business management, continuity has its flip side. You can play with it within certain limits. Also, when you understand the boundaries, you can successfully break them. A few basics before it.
Continuity can be assessed by utilizing past, present, and future time frames.
The past is something that must always be taken into consideration – it paves the way for us. It also encompasses the brand message, if you want to put it that way. Everything that follows should be in line with what has already happened. If we deviate significantly from how we are accustomed to being seen, our four audiences may react differently than we desire. The present, in turn, is a spot where we can make a difference, here and now. All actions also aligns with this moment.
The future, on the other hand, is where we must embrace the past. When we take action in the present, it has consequences. When we make plans for the future, they have consequences too. When we talk about consistency now, we’re not so much talking about consistency between things, but rather functional continuity – how different audiences evaluate our actions. In some situations, inconsistency between things is a perfectly logical outcome from a functional perspective. That is, sometimes successful boundary-breaking, the reverse version of continuity, is the consistent solution.
Let’s consider a marketing stunt executed by the management, in which the artist is introduced completely detached from their previous context. If, as a result of such an operation, the artist’s popularity increases, attracting new audiences while maintaining the existing ones, it can be considered a success in the music business. Even though it may not align with the artist’s previous image, what interests us now is its actual impact. Will different audiences start seeing the artist differently and expect similar stunts, or can the artist revert to their previous image as if this had never happened?
Now it’s crucial to look beyond the actions, into their invisible effects. If the artist’s fans, the media, and the industry start perceiving things differently, it’s easy to rectify by returning to the previous state. However, if algorithms start redefining the artist as a result of such an action, its consequences could be far-reaching and difficult to correct. Consider that the popularity resulting from this deviation surpasses the artist’s regular following; the artist may begin to be defined accordingly. Consequently, algorithms may prioritize mimicking this deviation over the artist’s so-called normal style. When we discuss the functional side of story, information, or any other content in the future, we mean this.
Nowadays, differentiation often occurs in the digital realm, where it may not be immediately perceptible. Its results seem to reflect in algorithmic inputs. A skilled management can harness this in a way that aligns with the artist’s image, goals, and narrative. We will revisit this topic later. Many contemporary artists who are aware of the issue have also noticed the same thing.
Among other things, these topics are discussed in one-on-one consultations, as I’ve mentioned earlier. If you feel that you need assistance with them, please don’t hesitate to reach out. You can also read about this in the book – here’s the link to it.