The 5 Browns show how to get great blurbs: Have your publicist write them
The 5 Browns are a family piano act, a quintet of talented Utah natives who all went to Juilliard. The siblings were discovered and packaged by Joel Diamond, a producer whose other artists have included the likes of Engelbert Humperdinck and Jay-Z; he made the five Browns into The 5 Browns, and a commercial success. They’ll be in St. Louis next weekend for a concert at Powell Symphony Hall and a book signing at the Steinway Piano Gallery.
They’re Steinway artists, record for RCA, tour extensively, and have a new book, “Life Between the Keys.” The chatty volume offers a self-aggrandizing introduction by Diamond, first-person accounts about their lives – as students and as professional musicians – their Mormon religion and their distaste for what one brother, Greg, calls “the divine bubble…the classical music establishment.”
Goodness knows, the “classical music establishment” offers ample opportunities and targets for those inclined toward poking at it. Taking a rebellious pose helps to get the Browns more notice; it’s a legitimate marketing tool. Besides, I’m in favor of just about anything that makes more people aware of the riches to be found in classical music. The book is aimed at their fans, and that’s great; more power to them if they can help bring bigger audiences to great music.
But I did find something in it that bothered me enough to dig a little further. On the very first page, nestled in the midst of a collection of lavish quotes from various outlets, was this: “The boundless talent of The 5 Browns is expanding the borders of classical music.” It was attributed to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Well, I knew I hadn’t written it - and yet it seemed curiously familiar. I checked the Post-Dispatch archives, and found it in a calendar piece edited by my colleague Pat Derfler. I asked him about it. “Total PR!!!!” he responded. “I took the info off of the release. Score another for the You-can’t-believe-everything-you-read team. Scary world.”
Blurbs normally come from reviews. Sometimes they come from preview stories. Ideally, they’re credited, since the reputation of the author makes a difference to informed readers. Taking a quote from a calendar item - and that originated in one’s own press release, at that - seemed cheesy at best.
It took a few days to track down someone who would speak to it. Ken Howell of Newman Communications, the company promoting the book, responded, “Blurbs are chosen on the basis that using them in marketing materials will help sell the product. When a paper runs a mention of a book or band or product - any mention of the book, be it a mention in a calendar, a full review, or whatever - they do so with the full understanding that it can and will be used in promotional materials. The paper lifted the quote from the 5 Browns’ press release without attributing it and if it is not attributed how could it be interpreted as anything but their opinion?” What, the PR people don’t recognize their own stuff?
Howell defended the use of anonymity in the page-load of blurbs: “Blurbs almost never quote the reviewer unless the reviewer has name recognition. A review from Michiko Kakutani, for example, would be attributed to Michiko Kakutani. A review from Joe Schmo in Peoria would not be attributed to Joe Schmo.” Okay, so we don’t need to know whether the blurb from the Dallas Morning News was written by their classical music critic, my respected colleague Scott Cantrell, by a stringer, or by a clerk, because we’re all just “Joe Schmo” anyway. Got it.
But what about this quote: “The new champions of classical music — Yahoo!!” That could be any one of millions of users. “Totally irrelevant,” says Howell. “Yahoo.com alone is recognizable. Jane Doe from Yahoo.com tells us no more information than we had to begin with.”
The world of PR has long been known for its use of creative quotes and ellipses, but Howell’s declaration opens up a whole new world of possibility. What’s to stop a publicity team from taking out an ad or posting an online response in, say, The New York Times, writing extravagantly over-the-top praise for a client, and then publishing that, in quotes, as being from The Times?
I was going to offer some possible phrases for Howell and his colleagues to use in those ads and online contributions, but there’s apparently a very real danger that they could end up embellishing The 5 Browns’ next effort. After all, it no longer matters where something runs or where it originated in order to be considered legitimate fodder for the Blurb-o-Matic.
It was probably a mistake… one hack wrote it, left, and the next guy didn’t recognize it. From what I’ve seen of the Browns, its not only a fair statement its an understatement. They are excellent.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you are making a jump that it was done with any duplicitous intent.
Does this surprise people? Really? Take a look at any local music rag. You will find “unbiased and in-depth” articles about local musical acts, including supposedly “candid” interviews with the talent, written by well-known music PR folks. It would be fine, if said PR folks were not pretending to be unaffiliated with said bands, when in fact they are representing them in the marketplace.
For example, an article in STL Sound is written by the editor of another local music mag, say STL Playback. This seems innocent, right? The writer/editor has to make a living and sometimes is forced to stoop to writing fluff freelance articles here and there. So why not do it for a colleague, a friend in need of reviews and interviews on local musicians?
The problem lies in the fact that said editor is also the manager and PR person of the band she just reviewed. She writes about the musicians in what appears to be a surprisingly pleased tone… in reality, it is nothing more than a rouse. An advertisement intended to make money for the “impartial” writer of the piece, wrapped up (disguised) in the sycophantic language of a groupie-like “critic”–puh-leeze! This is why STL music scene stinks! There are no agents with integrity around this town.
I would dispute that, Eileen, in terms of “expanding the boundaries of classical music” — I don’t hear much depth in their playing, and many-hands piano arrangements were popular back in the 19th century (there is nothing new under the sun) — but I’m not blaming them for doing what they can to promote themselves. I do think their publicists have been and are being dishonest. That PR material is only a couple of years old. Mr. Howell should have have the courage to say, “Someone made a mistake, and we’re sorry.”