Got a tip? Send it our way
Share your music news — big or small — with the Austin360.com team by sending us an e-mail.
Home > Austin Music Source > Archives > 2008 > February > 05 > Entry
Fight for control at SXSW
UPDATE: Swenson speaks on piggybackers below
Piggybackers. Pirates. Parasites. Since about the second year of the South by Southwest music festival, which heads for its 22nd campaign March 12-16, organizers have complained about fringe entities that are not sanctioned by SXSW, yet benefit from its sizzle. There’s no question that SXSW has become a youth market phenomenon, turning Austin, for four days, into the trendiest city on the planet. It’s a brand corporations are increasingly trying to attach themselves to, either in an official capacity or with big, splashy parties they do on their own.
The peripheral events add to the glamour of SXSW — even Perez Hilton came last year, and he didn’t need a badge or wristband to party around the clock. Still, SXSW fights hard to keep as much control of its moveable beast as possible. In recent years, they’ve even formed a “parasite crew” to seek out entities improperly using the SXSW name or trying to compete with sanctioned venues, the house of cards that SXSW is built upon. A few years back, SXSW even revoked the badges of Revolver magazine principals, refunding more than $4,000, because the magazine flew in the Cult to play a private party. Is SXSW being paranoid or protective?
Last year, organizers took heat for providing the fire marshal with a list of unofficial SXSW parties. Co-founder Roland Swenson’s reasoning was that if the fire marshal was going to enforce its safety codes and permits at official SXSW venues, they should do the same at other events in town. After all, if a deadly fire breaks out at a pirate party, the headline’s still going to read “Seven die at SXSW.” Subsequently, parties at the Blue Genie Theater, Factory People and the Gibson Guitar showroom, which each cost organizers tens of thousands of dollars, were shut down because party planners did not know about recent changes in the permit process and didn’t have their paperwork in order.
Did SXSW go too far? Or, having watched the demise of NYC’s New Music Seminar, the model for SXSW, are organizers just fighting to keep their baby from meeting a similar end? In an e-mail interview, we let Swenson tell his side of the control issue.
American-Statesman: Why does SXSW care if private party organizers fly in acts that aren’t part of the official SXSW lineup?
Swenson: There are three main reasons. First, we have an obligation to deliver the best shows we can find to the Austin clubs who work with us. When private party organizers use corporate sponsorships to bring in exclusive talent, build a temporary venue and give away alcohol, it impacts SXSW and our client venues in a very negative way. Corporate parties never book an unknown act; they only want headliners. The way that SXSW booked over 350 unsigned, relatively unknown acts last year was by using headliners to support those shows, and every known act we lost to a corporate party hurt.
Second, these corporations are using our name, our work, our reputation and our event to further their own business goals at our expense, and never acknowledge they are doing so. Last week I saw a proposal from a corporate sponsorship marketing company soliciting $150,000 for a “SXSW Show” that had nothing to do with us. If these entities are putting on these free parties to “help” artists and fans, there are 51 other weeks of the year that need it a lot more than during our event.
Finally, we sincerely believe that this is the trend most likely to eventually put SXSW out of business. We never take it for granted that SXSW will keep happening every year. We’ve watched huge events like ours collapse when they had once seemed invulnerable. Nothing in those cities has successfully replaced the events that collapsed. Despite what some people seem to think, artists and music fans from around the world won’t continue to flock to Austin every March if SXSW isn’t around to do what it does.
The once almighty New Music Seminar went out of business, in part, because they lost control of the clubs, many of which decided to book their own acts and run the door. What are some of the other events that have collapsed?
Besides New Music Seminar, the other big example is Popkomm, which was held in Cologne, Germany. For several years it was the largest music industry event in the world, attracting 15,000 registrants. The reasons for their collapse are complex and not totally comparable to SXSW. Probably their biggest problem was their dependence on government funding. But like the Seminar, they lost control of their festival booking to outside promoters. Because Popkomm was unable to book enough developing acts to maintain their music industry base, companies stopped attending the conference en masse, and it was over three years or so after their peak.
Subsequently, a group in Berlin bought the rights to the Popkomm name and have been presenting it there for the past five years or so. It’s a great event which I attend, but it has never approached what the Cologne event was at its peak.
Events like CMJ in New York and the Winter Music Conference in Miami are also struggling from being undermined by fringe events, and their influence has been diminished. But unlike SXSW, their events aren’t their primary businesses. CMJ is an industry trade magazine and Winter Music is a dance club promotion agency. Neither event has a comparable impact on their cities as SXSW and Austin.
How has SXSW operations been influenced by those failures?
Knowing that our continued existence is far from guaranteed makes us willing to fight (when we can) what we see as damaging to SXSW. The struggle is over who is ultimately going to control SXSW, our organization or guerrilla marketers backed by corporate interests. If SXSW loses, then SXSW eventually disappears. SXSW exists only because more entities choose to pursue a symbiotic relationship with us rather than a parasitic one. However, every year more marketing groups representing huge multinational corporations and their local proxies choose to feed off of us.
But every big event is going to have fringe elements. Do you think the NFL had a problem with corporate Super Bowl parties taking place in the Phoenix area to coincide with the recent Super Bowl? How is SXSW different?
There was no chance that Eli Manning was going to go play another game down the street from the stadium instead of playing for the Giants.
This is the first part in an ongoing dialogue with SXSW director Roland Swenson.
UPDATE: More from Roland Swenson
American-Statesman: Does SXSW consider all day parties to be piggybackers, or do you think some add to the event? If so, where do you draw the line?
Swenson: I’ve always said that the day parties at SXSW are part of what makes the event fun and useful. In 2007, SXSW sponsored 64 official day parties. All of the groups that put on those parties (and numerous other nonofficial parties, too) worked with us in a cooperative manner, and we helped many of them organize and promote their parties. Where we draw the line is when party organizers want to bring in artists that aren’t going to also make themselves available for a public, official SXSW Festival show.
One of the frustrating things the music festival has to often deal with is that many of the buzz bands’ handlers want their acts to play in a small venue where a lot of people won’t be able get in to see them. Causing a line of people waiting in line down the street, unable to get in is what they think looks successful.
Our protocol is to always get the people with badges in first, the people with wristbands next, and the “VIPs” wait along with everyone else. With parties, the “VIP” list is always first.
If SXSW turns into an event where the hottest acts only play private parties, where the sponsors control who gets into the show, SXSW won’t be the same event anymore, and we won’t last for long.
Definitely, there are a number of events that we consider to be parasites or as piggybacking on our event. Particularly damaging are the ones that go out and sell sponsorships to consumer products, telling them they are buying a “SXSW show” when they have no connection to us.
The whole “guerrilla marketing” trend is built on latching onto an existing event and draining off its resources by selling sub-events to sponsors, blurring the line to suggest they are part of the main event. We think that’s misleading and unfair competition.
We’re usually willing to come to some accommodation with corporate sponsors if they are willing to help us underwrite SXSW activities, but in some cases they just want to pose as the “rebels” while casting us as the “man.” How billion-dollar corporations can get so many people to believe that is a mystery to me.
The other phenomenon we’re seeing develop with the corporate sponsored private parties is that if you don’t fit the “target demographic” of the sponsor, you don’t get in to the party whether you have a badge or a wristband or no pass at all.
- Photos: SXSW music preview
- More SXSW
Permalink | Comments (36) | Post your comment Categories: SXSW
Comments
Click here to report comment abuse.
By David
February 5, 2008 8:34 PM | Link to this
This guy makes me ill. Roland you care about money….nothing more, nothing less. I decided this year to provide a list of venues to the fire marshall myself. I figured I would follow in your footsteps. There are clearly some SXSW venues that need to be investigated. It’s going to be just like you said last year so everyone is on a level playing field.
By Matt S.
February 5, 2008 11:22 PM | Link to this
This is tragic. Is not the American economy about, oh no, competition? Indeed it is. You do not see Myspace in a lawsuit with Facebook. How about Whole Foods and Central Market? Competition is good for America. Oppression will never survive. It may try, but it will not survive. SXSW, do not resort to prohibition Al Capone tactics. Speakeasy anyone? The SXSW giant will always thrive so they need not get nasty. As many Austinites know, The Heart of Texas Rock Festival(Texasrockfest.com) is in its 9th year. This #1 voted festival(see your Austin360.com A-List poll for Best Music Festival) helps those musicians with no stage, have a stage. What on earth is wrong with that?
By Will on Nueces
February 6, 2008 12:31 AM | Link to this
SXSW was over the year this dude got control. Now it’s overpriced and over-crowded. That’s what Swenson wants to protect.
By Defend South Austin
February 6, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
Hmmm, smells like Roland has been hanging with the ACL people too long. It’s all about the money…
Long live the day parties!
By robert t - east side
February 6, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
this is ridiculous! you are pissed so many of your supporters off last year by turning in list of private parties to the fire dept (i thought that was the lowest) deal with your own problems and leave other alone! so greety!
Hey Sewnsen, are you going to send your parasite crew over to the fire department for pre-SXSW sandwiches? you guys have gotten so greety, plus wrist bands are a rip-off anyway. Why not just move it to Dallas? You are making a fortune to begin with.
By chris
February 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
The main issue I have with SXSW, which I have had for years, is that it became less about the music and more a “elitist” event. Instead of allowing other independent clubs/promoters to join forces in the promotion of the music/film industry in the capital city, it shunned them and even went as far as “tattleing” on other “non sanctioned” events to the city. When you let events stagnate by not introducing new blood or alternate events, such as NMS and Popkomm did, you should expect a collapse
By Pat
February 6, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
All good points, but SXSW is taking the wrong approach to its “parasites” and other detractors. Perhaps SXSW should be working with these corporate sponsors to integrate their efforts, save resources, and make events more accessible for everyone instead of just VIPs. A big problem is SXSW’s reputation for strong-arming competitors and sponsors rather than engaging them in discussions that might bear something mutually beneficial for everyone. They have an almost universally bad rep among local musicians regardless of whether their particular bands play the fest. How can they repair that image? How about re-investing in the local music community upon which it depends? Earmark a percentage of their profits to SIMS (every year,) lend their name to some charity events, and hold something during the summertime when clubs are hurting, and advertise these efforts so everyone remembers them when festival time comes around. A little responsible corporate citizenship goes a long way for whole lot of our local businesses. Such behavior might help SXSW garner the local support it obviously needs to help it survive.
By westafrican dancer
February 6, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Roland is right and I like the way he responded. While I used to volunteer and enjoy the conference and of course the side parties, hey you are up anyway, I can see how it can eventually undermine the conference.
I also understand it’s more complicated locally due to the large number of musicians who live here and feel left out when this event starts.
Bottom line, if it wasn’t for SXSW there would not be the hoard of visitors who will check out the city and run across local acts not booked.
Hopefully there can be some balance and not a lot of bloodshed over this.
By Jenny
February 6, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Roland you have been telling these lies so long I actually think you are starting to believe them. You are an idiot! Wasting resources. The fire department had to investigate your list. I am quite sure they had better things to do. What does the person living in Austin get out of this festival? More traffic, more idiots like yourself walking around. How does your festival benefit me? I go to a party and it gets shut down like I am in high school. Because ROland provided a list to the fire department. How convenient! I am supplying on this year. Hope you are ready!
By dan skarbek
February 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
long live day parties and non sactioned sxsw events!
By Matt
February 6, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
Don’t you think that SXSW might be enjoying a symbiotic relationship with these “parasites”? Do you think so many major headlining bands or artists from overseas would be coming over if it wasn’t for these additional day parties or corporate sideshows? They aren’t coming over for the $250 they get paid by SXSW or to be crammed into a 100 cap room and play a 30 minute set after no soundcheck.
The reason SXSW has been able to grow is BECAUSE OF the day/corporate parties.
By djpinklady
February 6, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
yeah. well i’d like to personally think sxsw for ruining the parties last year. fire marshalls were everywhere, parties had to be moved last minute. sucks for the people like me that attend these parties specifically to network. the reason i attend year after year.
all that to avoid a headline. sounds shammy to me. i think the public is smarter than that. wake up sxsw. your getting too big for your britches. come down for a second.
By The 666
February 6, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
south by so what sxswsux
By xxx
February 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
Roland is unreal. He’s always been the owner (of the few that own the fest) that clubs and music biz people love to hate…and with reason. That being said there is some truth to some of his points. HOWEVER, why does sxsw have to make this a war with the supposed leeches? Part of the reason people come to sxsw is because how big it is and how many diff things are going on. Whether or not Queens of the Stone Age play a party or sxsw show, all the national press will read “QOTSA at SXSW”…so Roland’s point about sxsw getting a bad rep is a party has fire issues is mute.
Here are some thoughts:
1) pay bands (especially headliners forgoing their 10k guarantees) more than $250 VS wristbands and they won’t have to play day parties to make enough money to make it worth it. Most fests have clauses that bands can’t play another show because of the money they’re being paid and lock them in…but we all know sxsw is too greedy to ever pay band X or Y what they deserve, so The Vice party or whoever is going to have to. 2) work WITH the parties instead of against them. work with the corporations that are begging to be involved, but sxsw keeps shooting down. And NOT because sxsw anti corporate, like they want people to believe, but because working with all will conflict with their big money sponsors like at&t, dell, miller, etc, etc.
What started out as a fest showcasing locals has become a fest showing OFF labels bands and breaking edgy acts, with less and less emphasis on local and smaller acts. That’s just business and understandable, but these other acts and companies that have gotten denied from sxsw time and time again started playing parties and day shows, which have grown bigger and bigger. SXSW opened the floodgates and need to deal with it, either financially or community based, but the USvsTHEM attitiude is just giving more and more negativity to the festival that it doesn’t need. If sxsw falls apart it will be Roland and the like-minded thinkers at the office, NOT the corporations or parties.
By coffee hound
February 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
It’s SXSW that’s parasitic on the city. For more, see windsorparkcoffeerumors.blogspot.com.
By Mike Webb
February 6, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this
SXSW is no better than the “corporate” monster it seeks to control. If a bar does not get the honor or does not wish to take part should they not be allowed to book bands? I don’t think so!! If I choose to have a party during SXSW is that not my right? Of course it is!!This is America!! If I choose not to spend way too much money on a wrist band that guaranty,s me nothing,.. should I be denied the oppurtunity to a band that is not part of SWXS? As a working Austin musician I can honestly tell you That it is my belief That organizer,s of SXSW should get get out the music business and become lawyers!! Thats where the real money is!!SXSW is a parasite on the austin music scene. Mike Webb
By SIGS
February 6, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
Roland suckers people into working for free and requires free rooms for top acts and him self.. He is all about the money… The best acts always played the fringe parties anyway… ACL gets what Lapolozia does not. Try and land a decent keynote, like bono.. or Clapton.. No talent lou reed, he can tell you about being in a puplicated driven band
By Edward R. Mullett
February 6, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this
Seriously yall this is a moo point. Austin has been dead for years. We will all soon be living in Houstallas so quit your b!tching. Of course Roland and Louis do this for the money. Do you think they do this for the good of the city? Are you serious? My uncle told me that Austin died when the Armadillo closed. I never believed him until recently. RIP Austin.
By loudrockmusic
February 6, 2008 6:57 PM | Link to this
Who throws a lot of these parties? Local businesses. Why? Their customers want to see alot of these acts, but can’t because they don’t want to pay $150 for a chance see one or two bands. These parties are customer apprecitation, for gosh sakes.
If SXSW wants to make money (seems to be the priority), why don’t they offer heavily discounted wristbands to locals? Like in Vegas, where if you’re a resident, you get cheap tickets to shows and discounted cover for clubs on the Strip. You have an Austin ID, you’ll get a cheap wristband. That would raise a lot of cash. It’d look good too, if you donated the locals’ money to something like SIMS.
Anyhoo, I ain’t paying for a wristband. Me and my out of town friends will subsist on free day parties all over the east side and downtown. Night-wise, well, we’ll see what we can sneak into and what don’t get shut down.
By Benjamin Reed
February 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Link to this
This was not an article and only barely an interview. Sympathetic platform for pro-Sx propaganda.
SXSW does generate revenue for the city, but they should not be allowed to say who in the city may benefit. Second, their existence is a privilege— the city isn’t theirs for two weeks in March, even though they act as if it is.
Honestly, it sounds like they’d rather not compete. Using the fire marshal to protect yourself from having to compete with edgier, more compelling venues is weak. For people who love money as much as they do, you’d think they’d have a better understanding of capitalism.
By Jauqeline
February 6, 2008 7:28 PM | Link to this
Most of the fringe parties which were shut down, appealed to niche markets for which there were no official parties. They were not direct competition. They did not take away patrons from official parties! I’m sorry if not everyone in this town can afford 1,000 for a badge to gain access into your elitist parties. You need to figure out a better way of dealing with your perceived “threats”, maybe something ethical? Your practices are bordering illegal and downright embarrassing. Get over your greed.
By Emmett
February 6, 2008 8:05 PM | Link to this
Who does this Kenneth Starr look-alike think he is? How could we allow such a geek to have control over when people can and cannot party? The greatest writers of fiction could not create such a greed head. Fight for your right to party.
By niz
February 6, 2008 8:07 PM | Link to this
speaking as an artist who has played sxsw several times, a huge part of the appeal of going to the festival is being able to play both sxsw sanctioned and unofficial satellite events. it is not worth it for us to go down for one show in a massive sea of events, but if we have several shows at a variety of events, then it certainly is worth it. there is a ton of stuff going on during this week, most of it happening at the same time, and playing multiple shows and giving people multiple opportunities to see your act is the only way to make the best of your time at sxsw. the official showcases are important, yes, but so are the satellite parties. fighting to eliminate them will only harm the festival because they are a huge part of the appeal for both the artists and attendees.
By RealTalkPlayazClick
February 6, 2008 8:09 PM | Link to this
None of y’all commenters know anything about business, SXSW, history, or anything. You are Austin slacker fools who have nothing better to do with your time than cry about stuff. And THAT is what makes Austin suck at times, whiny little worthless fools like yourselves. Complaining about an incredible music fest that brings people from all over the world to your backyard is a joke. And I’d love to see how you’d react if someone used your name to make a profit and didn’t break you off a dime.
By t. Cooke
February 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Link to this
As I read this interview I kept thinking, “Wow, this guy is killing everyone’s good time, and SxSW will just be for the corporate idiots who talk over the bands. SxSW week will only get worse for everyone who isn’t profiting from the SxSW wristbands if this guy has his way.”
By Genie
February 6, 2008 9:26 PM | Link to this
Re: RealTalkPlayazClick
I think it’s pretty telling that the only pro-SXSW commenter is a complete idiot.
By xxx
February 6, 2008 9:45 PM | Link to this
Re: RealTalkPlayazClick Someone should email this guy at his desk job at the festival office he’s typing from at: RealTalkPlayazClick@sxsw.com and let him know he needs to stop blogging and get back to work cause Roland wants his coffee. Now THAT is an austin slacker.
By getoverit
February 6, 2008 10:46 PM | Link to this
Poor hipsters. Drove all the way over to Springfield for free alcohol and the party got shutdown. Get over it.
SXSW is a business and has always been an industry event. I’m not sure who’s getting rich off it, probably no one, but there’s most likely a handful of full time salaries to be paid, a few dozen part timers and then an avalanche of expenses.
Some people try to ascribe these views to Roland. They are the views of SXSW. The same SXSW that started 20 years ago in Austin and helped generate generate the buzz and excitement that contributes to the stream of rockers and hipsters that stream into Austin from Brooklyn, Portland, SF, and around the world. Perhaps it’s luck that SXSW is still around after all these years. Maybe it’s the love and support of the Austin community. And it could be a little bit of hard work and effort from the people who started it all in the first place.
By Anon4this Ohyeah
February 6, 2008 10:53 PM | Link to this
Roland has a point and, of course, he has a vested interest in keeping his rice bowl full.
I hope he knows what a narrow path he must walk.
It’s not all one way. SXSW gets as much from being in Austin as Austin gets from hosting SXSW.
Austin is a cool place without SXSW. Part of the reason Austin is a cool place is because so many musicians flock to Austin. Musicians will flock to Austin regardless of SXSW. Maybe not in such a volume all at the same time, but they’ll be here.
The smartest thing everybody can do is to ride this thing. Make as many connections as possible, soak up as much free sh*t as possible, and try not to be too much of a Captain Bringdown for other peoples’ trips.
Finally, I would encourage anybody wishing to write a persuasive comment to get a dictionary or ask an English major to read over their comment before hitting “Post”—many reasonable points are undercut by bad grammar or spelling.
By Where's McInnes
February 6, 2008 11:31 PM | Link to this
I think Roland’s basic point is the fact that I don’t pay any money, to anyone, to have a great time at SXSW anymore. Haven’t done so in the past 5 years or so. Why? Because I can see every band I would have to pay for, and others, for free during the day and late at night. And it’s a lot more fun than standing in Stubbs or Buffalo Billiards.
Eventually, with others like me, this means SXSW goes belly up. No sweat off my back, it’ll be just like Austin, 23 years ago. And with no organizing infrastructure in place, all you wino’s will have to drink Sparks, smoke cigarettes, and coddle Vice teet, someplace else.
Basically, if you’re complaining about not being able to go to parties sponsored by annoying moustached promotion companies from LA, you don’t belong on earth anyway.
Kisses, Where’s McInnes
By Jimi Lonestar
February 6, 2008 11:50 PM | Link to this
SXSW is our Mardi Gras in this city. The effort to control every aspect of it is unrealistic, inherently greedy, and ridiculous. The ‘one-liners’ that help Roland explain away the truth are no longer working with the public. We know that SXSW is better because of the creative force that surrounds it. The fight to control it is not only futile, its embarrassing.
The fact that virtually every comment related to this article is in direct contradiction to the comments made within it, should be self-explanatory.
Musicians play shows to gain exposure, and hopefully, sell more records and build more tours as a result of that exposure. Rolands attempt to capture and further monetize that is a disgrace to the values that this city was built on.
Parasites? Ummm…Pot…Kettle…Black…Idiot.
SXSW will die if this guy continues to get a microphone. Time to impeach and adjust to 2008.
By whateverman
February 7, 2008 12:12 AM | Link to this
geez, how much does a corporation have to pay to have their TINY logo on a banner with 20 other TINY logos??? let’s ask this question. this is all about money for the organization and it is shameless that this person would have the nerve to say it is about independent bands and artists. no one benefits but the organization. ask any bar owner or waitress or bartender or waiter who is enslaved to make no money if the organization does not promote their venue. ask any band that is trying to also make a dime while they are in austin. they don’t get paid to get their. and, if a promoter or corporation helps them out, so be it. the organization needs to get over themselves.
By shadylady
February 7, 2008 12:48 AM | Link to this
the KARL ROVE look-alike gets: *VOLUNTEERS to work his festival *priority access to every venue in town *huge corporate sponsors PAYING to be involved *a monopoly on all downtown hotels at a DISCOUNTED rate for headlining acts only. *bands PAY THEM to play the festival in exchange for a wristband that doesn’t guarantee anything *free press and media coverage which increases corporate sponsorship money as the festival grows in popularity year after year.
he’s an evil genius really.
By go to noise pop...
February 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
sxsw is now sundance. packed and not worth your time. go to noise pop.
By Don
February 8, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
I’ve recently moved to Austin and have never attended SXSW. My impression from reading the comments is that SXSW seems to provoke a lot of emotion and an extreme amount of whining. While success may have created an ungangly, hard-to-control beast, its still a unique event that’s beneficial to Austin and ultimately beneficial to performers. However, here I only see complaints and few suggestions for improvments. If its so terrible then start your own festival at some other date or other city. All it takes is some organizing, money, sponsors, networking, and coordination with venues, hotels, and the city. How hard could it be? If you’re a performer, then perhaps SXSW functions as a fitness test for the population. Only the talented, persistant, dedicated, and, yes, lucky, survive to become successful. Don’t forget to have fun, yall.
By D
February 15, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
I would have no issue with SXSW if the festival was operated as a non-profit or not for profit entity. The heavy use of volunteer labor, the breaks from the city for services, the corporate sponsorships- all these are acceptable in support of a good cause; but in the case of SXSW, everything the festival receives gratis out of good will just adds to the profit margin.