2007-07-15 03:41:11 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Advertising & Marketing ➔ Other - Advertising & Marketing
Not always the case, but when it is, it's because it was cheaper to pay the royalties and the other performer than it was to pay the original performer.
With a recent song, this is sometimes also done to grab your attention...you hear something very familiar, but it does not sound "quite right", so you look to see what's going on, and consequently pay more attention to the commercial...
2007-07-15 03:46:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually the reason is COST. It costs significantly more to get the original singer/band to play the song compared to just paying royalties and having a not-so-famous person sing the same song.
2007-07-15 21:37:11 · answer #2 · answered by icefalcon27 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's significantly cheaper!
The costs (and rules) associated with licensing music are phenomenally expensive and complicated.
However, the cost for a band to do a cover song is actually really cheap. And then it's easy to get licensing from an unknown band, who will usually negotiate the licensing directly.
2007-07-15 10:48:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Covering the song with another band is cheaper for the advertiser. Also, they may want to convey a certain musical style to make their product more appealing to their perceived customers.
2007-07-15 10:47:53 · answer #4 · answered by righteousjohnson 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no idea. but it's not always somebody else. maybe it's because it costs the commercial company too much to get the original singer.
2007-07-15 10:54:00 · answer #5 · answered by gilmore girl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋