Apple's new head of Apple Music publicity worked with Metallica, Madonna, more
Apple recently hired music industry veteran Brian Bumbery, who worked on public relations projects for Metallica, Green Day, Chris Cornell, Madonna and more, to head similar projects for the company's Apple Music arm.
Bumbery, whose seven-year-old publicity firm BB Gun Press worked with Apple "for many months," recently joined the tech giant as Director, Apple Music Publicity, reports Variety.
According to BB Gun's website, the firm handles publicity for Michelle Branch, Chris Cornell, Fergie, Josh Groban, Muse, Meghan Trainor, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Shania Twain and other big-name artists. The company also dabbles in corporate brand PR, with clients including Bacardi, Citi and Hilton.
Prior to Apple and BB Gun, which will continue to operate under Bumbery's colleague Luke Berland, Bumbery handled publicity for Warner Bros. from 2002 to 2011. Before WBW the industry veteran worked with Dashboard Confessional, Pet Shop Boys, Saves the Day and other acts for independent PR firm Score Press.
Bumbery's entrance at Apple comes amidst a shakeup in the streaming service's executive structure. Music mogul and Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine recently completed a transition from head of Apple Music to a consulting role, leaving former VP of Apple Music & International Content Oliver Schusser in charge of the streaming arm.
Under Iovine, Apple Music had been growing at a rapid pace. Apple CEO Tim Cook in May said the service surpassed 50 million subscribers and trial customers, a figure that at the time was expected to advance to 60 million paying customers by year's end.
In July, reports claimed Apple Music surpassed worldwide market leader Spotify in the U.S., though confirmation of the feat has yet to be announced.
Bumbery, whose seven-year-old publicity firm BB Gun Press worked with Apple "for many months," recently joined the tech giant as Director, Apple Music Publicity, reports Variety.
According to BB Gun's website, the firm handles publicity for Michelle Branch, Chris Cornell, Fergie, Josh Groban, Muse, Meghan Trainor, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Shania Twain and other big-name artists. The company also dabbles in corporate brand PR, with clients including Bacardi, Citi and Hilton.
Prior to Apple and BB Gun, which will continue to operate under Bumbery's colleague Luke Berland, Bumbery handled publicity for Warner Bros. from 2002 to 2011. Before WBW the industry veteran worked with Dashboard Confessional, Pet Shop Boys, Saves the Day and other acts for independent PR firm Score Press.
Bumbery's entrance at Apple comes amidst a shakeup in the streaming service's executive structure. Music mogul and Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine recently completed a transition from head of Apple Music to a consulting role, leaving former VP of Apple Music & International Content Oliver Schusser in charge of the streaming arm.
Under Iovine, Apple Music had been growing at a rapid pace. Apple CEO Tim Cook in May said the service surpassed 50 million subscribers and trial customers, a figure that at the time was expected to advance to 60 million paying customers by year's end.
In July, reports claimed Apple Music surpassed worldwide market leader Spotify in the U.S., though confirmation of the feat has yet to be announced.
Comments
Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
Of course an entirely Apple branded and developed fresh move would have like done the same with the addition of some fresh public faces.
But we are where we are and Apple seems to have won with that move.
Lovine was an opportunist. Don’t think he helped much.
Still the move reinforces Apple as a serious and committed, yet unconventional culture. “Stay hungry, stay foolish” per Jobs. I think that served them well here and will continue to down the long road.
<cough> too soon?
Getting Dre and Iovine created tremendous publicity and street cred for Apple Music and Apple’s resurgence into the realm of music. It’s hip to be Apple once again after the company became a bit long in the tooth with iTunes and their Radio offering. It might be true today that Apple no longer needs Iovine and Dre, but, again my own opinion, bringing them aboard at the juncture Apple was at a few years ago was a great move to align Apple once again with the greater music scene.
Again, your arguments are worryingly inconsistent:
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3082409/#Comment_3082409
Yes, so on the one hand, you don't trust Apple to build car software.
But on the other hand you think Apple should be building a streaming service.
Though, at some point, they had no experience of either.
In both case (in all cases in fact), Apple will apply the same strategy.
Decide you're going to do something.
Decide how you're going to do it.
Acquire talent to allow you to do it.
iTunes
The iPod
The iPhone
The Apple Watch
Processor chips
Music Streaming
AI
Maps
TouchID
FaceID
In all these cases, Apple has either acquired talent (through hiring or the acquisition of companies) to enable them to realise their goals.
Apple's goal wasn't to build a processor chip; their goal was to build a processor chip that actually worked. So rather than get the janitor to do it, they hired the best talent they could find.
Apple's goal wasn't to build a streaming service; their goal was to build a successful streaming service; so rather than get Eddie Cue to build it; they brought in the best talent in they could find to make sure they built it right. Because while they understand that streaming is not going to ever be a big earner for them, they know that they can't rely on another service that could disappear at any moment. Three billion got them the contacts, the experience, the world's most successful audio accessory line, and a head start in the streaming business. Three billion was a steal for the headphone line alone (which was making about $1billion a year in revenues when Apple bought them out).
But this has been explained to you soooooo many times by sooooo many different people, that I think you really need to stop asking the same question, and ask yourself if the problem is you: "Is it something else? is there something about the Beats purchase that I don't like. Is it Iovine? Is it Dre? What sets these two acquihires apart from the scores of others that Apple makes? Is it that Dre is too old to wear white sneakers? Or do I have a problem with his naturally tropical complexion?"
Seriously!?
They got...
1. A well-established, popular brand name, that can exist outside of Apple's own branding.
2. An extremely popular line of consumer audio gear.
3. Direct ties to the music industry; Dre and Iovine (This makes it much easier to convince others to come aboard.)
4. A human curated streaming music service and the organization and talent behind it.
Today, Beats brand is still very strong and Apple's streaming service is doing extremely well.
I don’t think Apple was lacking hipness nor do I think buying Beats made them more hip.
How many legacy Beats employees are still at Apple? Last I read the top leasership is gone and it’s legacy iTunes employees running the show. Beats might still be popular but nearly what they were years ago. Best Buy’s headphone section used to be all Beats. Now Beats is just one of many featured brands. Finally I can’t believe with the success of iTunes all these years Apple had no industry connections, or that the best connections were Iovine and Dre. Remember the gawd awful AM introduction at WWDC? According to John Gruber the Beats deal was all Eddy Cue. He was the only executive arguing for it. I think he was a sucker for Iovine’s pitch and somehow got Cook and the board to go along with it.