Re: Greatest Hits (Wal-Mart Exclusive) - Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band


"Evan Z" <no@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gjgf2k$aq5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jim Mitchell wrote:

Who cares, Denise? The chance to have his music heard by that isolated subset of the population that inexplicably can only be reached through Wal-Mart outweighs any black eyes to his reputation or integrity.

This is a surprisingly snarky comment in what I think has been a pretty good conversation. (I'm agnostic on the Walmart deal, for what it's worth, and I've never shopped at Walmart despite living for a bunch of years in Walmart country.)

One thing I notice in conversations like this one is that concerns about Bruce's integrity (an issue that matters) and concerns about Bruce's reputation (a public relations issue that I think we can all agree matters much less) get mixed-up or conflated as though they're a single issue. Jim's post above is a good example.

I'm open to the argument that the Walmart deal is a genuine black eye for Bruce. But the constant references to how the Walmart deal *looks* (for example, the reference above to his "reputation *or* integrity") strike me as pretty weak. Because that's a huge "or." If his integrity is really diminished, that matters. But if it just looks bad--if public relations is all that's at stake here--then who cares?

I for one would be disappointed if Bruce turned down a chance to reach a different audience only because it would look bad to a segment of the audience he already has.

--
ez

You're right that it's an overly snarky comment, although it's based mostly in response what I read on the links that Denise posted. But I think it goes beyond just how it "looks" to the general public, and I'd like to believe that my dislike of it has more substance than just a tarnished reputation to someone I admittedly put on a pedestal. Sure, there's a certain amount of symbolism in this, since the company's business practices and impact on labor unions and small business communities seems to be in contradiction to the things that Springsteen stands for in his music. That's the abstract "ideal" that has more to do with PR than with any economic realities. But it's also a direct business deal with that company, which in a small but significant way legitimizes what they do. In my limited understanding of business and economics, the pros of a Wal-Mart (marginally lower priced goods made available to working people) are outweighed by the overall negative impact to a community and to our economy. If we're not willing to look at the "bigger picture" consequences of of how we live our lives and conduct business, especially when we're in the financial position to do so, then I think we deserve to be called out on our double standards and to have questioned the validity of the things about which we are outspoken.

And I still have a hard time buying the argument that he's somehow reaching a "different audience" this way- as if there's a true dichotomy between those who shop exclusively at Wal-Mart, and the rest of us music consumers in the US. Except in extremely rural communities, where is that a reality? Sure they're a huge retailer with the capability of giving a lot of publicity to an established singer with an otherwise niche audience. But that's hardly the only way to promote music or reach a diverse group of people. To make the decision to align yourself with such a divisive and controversial company with the rationale that it will reach a new audience is, at best, dubious, and at worst dishonest and hypocritical.

.

Loading