On Saturday I got drunk as did several of my friends. During our night of playing cards, games, general (slurred) chit chat, the flicking around TV channels, plus many alcoholic beverages… Throw in a Doctor in Psychology, someone who works for a secret government agency and myself into the mix… things got interesting.

During the night a music video of Ellie Golding came onto our screen, at the same time, for some unknown reason the room turned to silence. My friend, (the Dr) is also a keen musician. He also used to be a fan of hers, when she was “quirky”, “original” and “different”. His intoxicated point of view on her was thus

She is no longer an artist because she has changed her style, purely in order to sell more albums.

My angle was simply it’s clever. She is riding a wave that was created by a song she was featured in by Calvin Harris, that (compared to everything she had done to date) was very successful… After all most careers tend to be short.

She has changed her style briefly, to maximise her profit during a time where her music is relevant and popular. When she goes back to her own style, she would have created her own (larger) audience off the back of this success.

Feeling passionate about his view my friend persisted with his notion of it no longer being art and this common action is frowned upon by anyone who really appreciates music as art.

I felt passionate this was a load of crap

Three things sprang to mind why it makes sense and why it’s just good business

The beginnings of impressionism (Art)

Rogers adoption / innovation curve (popularity)

underdogs, misfits and rebels (quirky)

Impressionism (in short) was started by a handful of artist who shared a vision. At the time the Salon de Paris was one of art most prestigious expeditions in the world. Only the best art was displayed and thousands upon thousands of people showed up over the period of time the event took place.

These guys where the misfits, daring to be different against a.) what was currently popular and b.) what was normally selected to be on display. However, these artists where great artists and so for a few years at each event a couple of the groups paintings where chosen. The problem they faced was people visiting didn't see this style of painting as art, and they where not popular at events. Art at the Salon de Paris that became popular with its visitors was placed at eye level, paintings that where less so was placed one the second (middle) row, those that where even less so on the top row, and these where hardly recognized/noticed at all. One year some of the paintings by this group of Impressionists where placed in a small dull room to the back of the building, which was almost as bad as not getting selected at all.

To keep it short… One day a couple members choose to challenge the Salon de Paris and the group ran their own event. In the attic/loft of an ordinary local building (in Paris), they displayed a much smaller collection of art, each piece at eye level and in good light. Visitor numbers compared to the Salon de Paris where poor, however these artists where no longer small fish in a big pond, and had created there own much smaller pond where they would indeed be much larger fish.

Off the back that some of the artists displayed at the new event had previously been displayed at the Salon de Paris, The Impressionist movement and event turned out to become an incredible success... If you wanted to purchase all of the art the group produced today, you’d certainly need in excess of one billion dollars.

Rogers adoption/innovation curve states 2.5% of the population are innovators, 13.5% of the population are early adopters, 34% are the early majority, 34% are the late majority and 16% are the lagers.

To penetrate the mass market your product needs to be adopted by the first 16% of the population. By changing style and partnering with another artist who has a much larger audience (and who has already had mass market success), becoming more commercial means that when she goes back to her own style, she will have a much larger fan base, who in turn will be the adopters of her future records, plus having mass market recognition from this venture makes her chances of future adoption with the mass market more likely.

Rebels, misfits and underdogs are the individuals who dare to be different, those who innovate, lead us in new cultures and movements, and most of the time having to overcome massive hurdles and compete against much larger opposition.

With business I could go on about how weaknesses can be used as strengths and why underdogs can use their weaknesses to actually become strengths in order to be more competitive. There are several strong cases.. being dyslexic myself a favourite of mine is the fact that a alot of successful individuals are indeed Dyslexic.

Sir Richard Branson, Walt Disney, Bill Gates, Tommy Hilfiger, Steve Jobs, Theo Paphitis, Steven Spielberg, Lord Alan Sugar, Michelle Mone, Noel Gallagher, Roald Dahl, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sir Winston Churchill, WB Yeats… To name a few.

In modern times the underdog is successful more and more. It’s the David vs Goliath stories, the American dream. With modern times though it is also very much that Goliath needs to also side with David in order to innovate and to create new markets. The large organisations can reach full market penetration without David, can stop growing and become irrelevant.

The principle is the same with art and musicians. By partnering with David, Goliath also benefits. Its a win, win.