Finland’s Rock Ambassadors Abroad
@ 4:10 am The New York Times ran an article this past Sunday on the interesting phenomenon of foreign governments fronting the costs of US tours for their rock bands. While the article is actually a good example of the kind of interesting, minor-issue journalism that the left-leaning Times is good at, the writer of this piece seems at a loss in understanding what the phenomenon really means, – always a good sign, since journalists should only report facts, not their own opinions.
The Finnish band Bloodpit is included, though they get mentioned only at the very end (view this link soon, as the NYT permits free viewing for only about a week or two before articles disappear to their pay-only archives)
The piece highlights a lot of good questions, and even points to a government study (that of Scotland’s) which examined if it’s worthwhile to spend taxpayers’ money like this. Yet the question that was never asked is why would foreigners need to spend tax money on marketing in the US to begin with, if they have self-sustaining welfare states?
In any case, most of the Finnish taxpayers’ money spent on Bloodpit might have gone down the drain, as the conclusion of the article points out:
In their home country, Finland, and at European rock festivals, the earnest rockers Bloodpit are used to playing to hordes of fans. But when a government grant brought the band to America earlier this year, it played at a Los Angeles club during Musexpo, an upstart music conference specializing in international talent.
“The only thing that was different,†said Matthau Mikojan, who sings and plays guitar with the band, “was that in the audience, instead of our fans, there were suits.â€Â
Did these band members realize they had just hit the jackpot? Or did they disappear into a bar after the gig, instead of mingling with the audience and making contact with the music industry heavies?
Oh well. Not to worry. The pockets of Finnish taxpayers are, in the end, a bottomless pit.
How do they pick one band over another? Is it also a lottery? What tax program do these program funds come from? TV-tax, ALV, income tax? Tax on blank cds and DVDs?
Ah, the wonders of Government aid. Take a look at the non-profits that get from RAY. Are you really gambling to help horses?
Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:25 am
I don’t know. I think that some of these investments might be worth the cost. The rock industry may not be the best place to focus that funding, but I could see the government footing some of the bill for promoting Finnish folk singers abroad.
Comment by giustino — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 5:18 am
The crazy thing is that, if Bloodpit eventually makes it big, the tax payers won’t even be able to recoup their investment and benefit from the band’s success. That’s because Bloodpit won’t be able to live in Finland anymore, due to the high tax rates.
By the way, there are some Bloodpit videos on youtube.com.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 6:30 am
Bloodpit won’t be able to live in Finland anymore, due to the high tax rates.
Yeah, exactly like the HIM, Nightwish, Apocalyptica, Rasmus folks etc don’t live here anymore. What on earth are you babbling about again?
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:33 am
Apocalyptica, by the way, just won Espoo’s the “enterprise of the year” award.
Finland’s “rock export” is getting rather big. A few, like Ville Valo, have already made a million or more.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:41 am
Phil – I’m not sure what your point is, because quite clearly most government pump lots of money into what is in effect trade missions to promote their national products abroad, as well as supporting innovation at home? Whether music is net earner for Finland, I don’t know, but presumably.
Comment by Toby — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 8:34 am
To #6; That was Finnpundit writing.
And for Finnpundit, that was a very good article. I would suggest you would look into html-tags. a href is pretty easy tag after all (that’s how you make a link)..
How much does exporting a band to America cost anyway? What do we gain of it? It might be that sending that band to America promoted our country abroad (if Musexpo advertised them) and so on.
It have been the critical point to someone, that made some people to invest in Finland (stock market) or visit here (tourism). Or Bloodpit might make it big there, which would mean more taxes from record companies and fans coming to Finland (as they do now for HIM).
And even if someone or something (either a person or wellfare state) is doing “well” (or being self-sufficient, as Finnpundit put it), we could always do better. There is no such thing as “doing too well”. Finnpundit should be thrilled of us following the American way!
Comment by iJusten — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
There is no such thing as “doing too wellâ€Â. Finnpundit should be thrilled of us following the American way!
I think one difference, that Finnpundit is elucidating (but, perhaps not intentionally), is that the ‘American way’ tends to be self-supporting; whereas we rely on state support in an attempt to achieve the same goal. Nevertheless, I wish the band success.
Now, I just need to convince the government that my talents should be ‘exported’…..but, perhaps I should discover my talents first
Or Bloodpit might make it big there, which would mean more taxes from record companies and fans coming to Finland (as they do now for HIM).
Depends on where they eventually make their ‘tax home.’ Naturally, there are many factors which determine these things—not just pure finances—but if only finances were to be considered, then the Finnish government has a self-defeating strategy. Although I don’t hang with wealthy musicians or actors, I know enough people in business who’ve moved away to find a more favorable financial atmosphere.
But, I do agree that the strategy works as a public relations feat for Finland. Maybe it will indeed bring tourism to Finland; that’s good! However, Finnpundit asks why we are still dependent on relatively wealthy (that is, relative to us here in Europe) American consumers. After all, we have 400M people here in Europe. Also, do we have these same programs implemented in Asia?
I don’t know the answer; but I do think it’s a valid question posed by the Pundmeister.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
However, Finnpundit asks why we are still dependent on relatively wealthy (that is, relative to us here in Europe) American consumers.
What on earth is that to suppose to mean? Finnish bands want to become big in the states, and that tells that they couldn’t exist otherwise?
Finnpundit is a blood-thirsty nut-case. A while back he felt truly sorry that the Israeli army had killed just one Finn in Lebanon. Then he keeps babbling this nonsense about how the EU is dependent on the American worker-consumer. Huh? It’s logical only if your brain is short-circuited the same way his is.
Taking into account the figures below, perhaps somebody could expalain how the EU is supposed to be dependent on the USA but not vice versa.
“… €731 billion of EU Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the US and around €772 billion of US FDI in Europe. The overall “transatlantic workforce” is estimated at 12 to 14 million, of which roughly half are Americans who owe their jobs directly or indirectly to EU companies. In the year 2005, exports of EU goods to the US amounted to €250 billion, while imports from the US amounted to €234 billion. Concerning trade in services, EU exports to the US amounted to €108.6 billion in 2004 while EU imports from the US amounted to €93.0 billion.”
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Yes, there are music export programs in place for Asia.
Comment by Toveri — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Finnish bands are
talentedpopular, they’ll do fine on their own. Our tax money goes to fund some band on tour while our essential state services get worse and worse.But I guess this is a case of “Oh well you fund THE OPERA, you should fund other forms of music too!!”
Comment by Phil — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
It’s a good question, but you could also ask how many American companies depend or at least find large portion of their income from Europe. It isn’t like we are moving to American markets; American markets are also moving here. The whole point of Marshall Plan way back when was to get Europe back on it’s feet so it could buy American goods.
Also, I think that the larger companies are harvesting innovations outside America and spinning them out as American goods – developed elsewhere. For example, the new Disney-properties with long-term value (the movies are pretty short-term, merchandise-vise) are WITCH and Monster Allergy, both developed in Europe (comics) and animated in Japan. Merchandise from China.
I’m not saying this is a bad thing – its globalisation and I’m still hoping that in the long term it’s good for everyone. But as America innovates, creates and maintains its products outside its borders, it’s pretty nasty to point fingers when other countries try to do so too. American products dominate shelves in stores, competing with finnish goods. Globalisation works both ways, and I’m not sure if everyone has understood it.
Comment by iJusten — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
But I guess this is a case of “Oh well you fund THE OPERA, you should fund other forms of music too!!
More likely because it can become even bigger industry the way it has done in Sweden.
Comment by Anonymous — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
At the end of the day, any way you slice it, or excuse, this was money not used on:
– Health care
– Unemployment
– Adult training
– Welfare
– Humanitarian aid
All areas that can use more funding. If you had a choice between supporting this type of stuff or lowering ALV to 20% from 22, what would you choose?
Comment by Fred Fry — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
More likely because it can become even bigger industry the way it has done in Sweden.
Right cause Sweden’s music success is all thanks to government spending rather than talent.
Thanks to the internet, if music is good, it’ll get heard and bands will become successful. For way too long, music execs would decide what’s popular music and what’s not. Now there jobs have less and less importance, but looks like the state will take over and decide what music is good and should be exported.
Comment by Phil — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Phil, are you sure there is any industry in Sweden where the government has no part in the success of that industry?
In Sweden, the welfare state has always been a partnership between government and industry. The bigger the business, the bigger the stake the government has in funding it. Music export in Sweden is a huge business.
One interesting aspect is that the NYT article takes up the problems of the state giving money to badly-behaving people who might give a bad picture of that country abroad.
After all, with Swedish music export industry it’s been quite easy. The huge worldwide success of ABBA was quite the opposite to rock stars behaving badly. Swedish pop stars have reinforced the image of Swedes as well-behaved and government money spent on them has not led to the problems that the article indicates. I think Finnish international stars are just as ready to take on the roles of ambassadors.
The article points out that some US stars are critical of the government. But many people who have a favorable view of the government as an abstract entity can have a negative view of a particular government such as the Bush Administration. I’m not saying US rock stars are particularly politically conscious, I’m just suggesting perhaps some of those who pen anti-Republican songs might very well be those very stars who have a favorable view of government intervention and who could truly appreciate the government subsidizing their craft.
Comment by Helsinkian — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Finnpundit wrote: rock bands [...] welfare states?
This blog should become a place where Pundy is forced to write about random topics, just so readers get to marvel at how he is able to switch to ranting about the evils of welfare states, no matter what the ostensible subject.
“Kärpät and HPK are the two best teams in the SM-Liiga this season [...] But clearly the welfare state will put an end to that.”
“Two delphins drowned after getting stuck in fishing nets [...] We can thank the retarding influence of the welfare state!”
“Jyväshyvä makes delicious chocolate chip cookies [...] THE WELFARE STATE WANTS TO LIQUEFY MY BRAIN!”
Make it happen, Phil.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Tue, Nov 14th, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
6. Toby most government pump lots of money into what is in effect trade missions to promote their national products abroad, as well as supporting innovation at home
The whole idea with trade equalization is that governments stop pumping subsidies into their domestic industries, and instead let them compete with the rest of the world on an equal basis. Most of the wealth of the developed world is based on it.
As to trade missions, yes, these band subsidies are small enough to be equal to monies spent on trade missions, which are really not subsidies. Yet you’ll never see US bands receiving any such government monies on their concert tours throughout the world.
The alternative argument would probably be that these subsidies are actually not subsidies, but really forms of cultural support in a world dominated by American media. But I find it strange that bands that play American-style rock music, and most of the time even sing in English, are supposedly preserving the indigenous cultures of their native countries. So that argument would eventually fall flat.
7. JustenIt have been the critical point to someone, that made some people to invest in Finland (stock market) or visit here (tourism). Or Bloodpit might make it big there, which would mean more taxes from record companies and fans coming to Finland (as they do now for HIM).
But why is it exactly necessary for Finland to advertise in the US? Why is American free-market, less-taxed capital needed in a Finnish social welfare state? Doesn’t a social welfare state draw enough capital from its own taxed economic activities? If not, doesn’t it say something about the international viability of such states? In other words, doesn’t it mean social welfare states need to have an exploitative relationship with those states that are not social welfare states?
8. Kristian However, Finnpundit asks why we are still dependent on relatively wealthy (that is, relative to us here in Europe) American consumers. After all, we have 400M people here in Europe. Also, do we have these same programs implemented in Asia?
Exactly.
9.Finnish bands want to become big in the states, and that tells that they couldn’t exist otherwise?
They can exist otherwise, but why do they want to exist big in the States?
12. Justen But as America innovates, creates and maintains its products outside its borders, it’s pretty nasty to point fingers when other countries try to do so too. American products dominate shelves in stores, competing with finnish goods. Globalisation works both ways, and I’m not sure if everyone has understood it.
It really doesn’t work both ways. On the one hand, there is the US, which winds up taking all the wealth it creates and pumping it right back out to the rest of the world. On the other hand, there is the EU, which takes the wealth it earns from the world and burns it up in easy living standards and cushy lifestyles just for themselves.
And when you take American free markets away from the equation, EU welfare states would collapse, while American markets could survive very well without the EU.
Welfare states are the big wastrels of the global trade equation. They simply take and take, and give very little in return (except for paltry foreign aid, to keep some African kleptocrats on their side, but even that is only to cover their stingy motives in holding on to welfare state subsidies).
But, to return to the bands, there is absolutely no reason European governments should be spending money like this in the States. It is a form of subsidy, which should be illegal, as it falls into the kinds of unfair trade practices condemned by the US and EU alike. To exclude cultural venues from economic considerations is a big mistake, since it is obvious that the goal of these bands (awkward as they are) is not to promote cultural awareness, but to make it big in the most successful consumer society in the world.
These bands, in the end, represent a form of dumping, whereby products are dumped on another marketplace at a lower price than what they cost to produce. It is an illegal ploy often used by those who simply can’t compete openly in the marketplace, without subsidies.
In any case, of course, no one is going to do much about it, as the amounts are so small. But chalk it up as one more instance where American benevolence in opening its markets up and sharing its wealth with the rest of the world is quite established.
Comment by Finnpundit — Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 5:31 am
You forgot to mention, Phil, or did you even know that for a band to take a tour in the US requires THOUSANDS of dollars in visa (not the credit card) fees extracted by the US government (because they’re technically “working foreigners.”
Completely dissimilarly on the other hand, Finland takes no visa fees at all for foreign performers who come to play.
Comment by SUPERinfer — Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 8:03 am
The huge worldwide success of ABBA was quite the opposite to rock stars behaving badly
To say that ABBA owes their success to the Finnish government is kinda insulting to the band. Their talent is what made them. And I’d give #2 credit to their record label ..and that was back before the internet.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 11:43 am
I find it strange that bands that play American-style rock music, and most of the time even sing in English, are supposedly preserving the indigenous cultures of their native countries.
Heh, good point!
Comment by Phil — Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
You forgot to mention, Phil, or did you even know that for a band to take a tour in the US requires THOUSANDS of dollars in visa (not the credit card) fees extracted by the US government (because they’re technically “working foreigners.â€Â
That ain’t right for the US government to do that! But I guess with all the money they make from touring in the US, I guess it’s worth it for them.
Even with the high visa fees for bands in the US and no visa fees for bands visiting Finland, it’s still a hell of a lot cheaper to see them in the states than in Finland
Comment by Phil — Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
Interesting point by superInferior….
On one hand, America can argue that it’s against the principle of fair competition for governments to support industries. Yet, on the other hand, America protects its own market by imposing high VISA fees.
I’m not going to say that it should be the Finnish government’s job to promote music acts, etc. But, in this case, one side-effect seems to be that the Finnish government is leveling the international playing field.
Are there other details to consider?
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
The world according to Finnpundit:
Why is American free-market, less-taxed capital needed in a Finnish social welfare state? Doesn’t a social welfare state draw enough capital from its own taxed economic activities? If not, doesn’t it say something about the international viability of such states?
Strong economies don’t bother with any of that “foreign trade” nonsense.
In other words, doesn’t it mean social welfare states need to have an exploitative relationship with those states that are not social welfare states?
Selling CDs to American goth kids is highly exploitative.
It is a form of subsidy, which should be illegal, as it falls into the kinds of unfair trade practices condemned by the US and EU alike.
The US and EU are against subsidies.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Wed, Nov 15th, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
24. No, you’re all wrong on all points.
Strong economies don’t bother with any of that “foreign trade†nonsense.
All economies are interested in more business, even that of Finland’s. Which is exactly why the welfare state is a failure, as it can only survive by freeriding on non-welfare state economies.
Selling CDs to American goth kids is highly exploitative.
Goth kids form a multi-million dollar marketplace. The fact that they cannot get product from one particular source because a foreign government uses taxes to subsidize another source is not only distorting the marketplace, but also disrupting the freedom of choice for those kids interested in that particular cultural phenomenon: i.e. “here’s music for you, brought to you by some government”.
The US and EU are against subsidies.
Ideally, but not quite in practise, yet. For the most part, the US is the leader in the scrapping of subsidies, followed by the EU. However, there’s so much more work to be done.
Comment by Finnpundit — Thu, Nov 16th, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Hey, Finnpundit managed to write a whole post without blood-thirsty war-mongering! Congratulations! But, what do you say, the Americans should kill the Europeans in the band. Right? Did you just forgot to mention it?
Comment by Tomi — Thu, Nov 16th, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Finnpundit wrote: All economies are interested in more business, even that of Finland’s. Which is exactly why the welfare state is a failure
I laughed out loud right here. I’m not afraid to admit it.
as it can only survive by freeriding on non-welfare state economies.
If by “freeriding on non-welfare state economies” you mean “hawking its wares at an expo”, then sure, you’ve got us bang to rights. The Finnish economy is absolutely depended on Bloodpit’s album sales. Good call.
Incidentally, do the various subsidies the US pays out mean that non-welfare states are economic failures that can only survive by “freeriding”? Interested anarcho-syndicalist readers want to know.
Goth kids form a multi-million dollar marketplace.
Bless their black socks.
The fact that they cannot get product from one particular source because a foreign government uses taxes to subsidize another source
It’s true: Finland prevents goth kids from buying Marilyn Manson CDs. Go to any record store in America and ask for the new My Chemical Romance record. A heavily accented blonde guy wearing a standard model “Suomi” track suit will emerge from the backroom, abduct you, and brainwash you into voting for the Democrats.
Ideally, but not quite in practise, yet.
Guffaw.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Thu, Nov 16th, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
Hey, Finnpundit managed to write a whole post without blood-thirsty war-mongering!
Poor Pundy has been almost completely neutered by the recent election results. One kinda feels sorry for him.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
28. On the contrary, if you’d been reading more carefully, I welcomed the changes in Congress, – for the obvious reasons.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sun, Nov 19th, 2006 @ 8:49 pm