Apple's new head of Apple Music publicity worked with Metallica, Madonna, more

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
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.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,253member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    nunzynunzy Posts: 662member
    Apple will soon control the entire industry. Then they will curate it.
    edited August 27 racerhomie3claire1
  • Reply 3 of 29
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,484member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,588member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    I wonder if Apple would agree. Still, what do they know, eh? :smiley: 
    wonkothesaneLukeCagefastasleepradarthekatlolliverRayz20161983claire1jony0
  • Reply 5 of 29
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,968member
    nunzy said:
    Apple will soon control the entire industry. Then they will curate it.
    Are you a bot? You have to tell us if you are.
    king editor the gratenunzylolliverRayz20161983
  • Reply 6 of 29
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,968member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    macxpresscanukstormradarthekatlolliverRayz2016claire1jony0
  • Reply 7 of 29
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,641member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    Amen....
    radarthekatlolliverfastasleepRayz2016claire1jony0
  • Reply 8 of 29
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,484member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    So you think Apple couldn’t stand up a streaming music service without paying Dre and Iovine $3B?
  • Reply 9 of 29
    Beats was just purchasing a demographic image. 3 billion for that? Yeah, it probably won’t go down in history as a sound business decision, but when you have people like the folks running Tidal using elementary school tactics to incite the uninformed -you have to do something. So they did. Maybe not the best move, but a committed and agile one. And it has been effective. Perhaps not equitably so considering the expense paid, but it seems it has totally quelled the childish attacks from those in the Demographics that had complaints - and turned them into customers instead. 

    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. 
    racerhomie3
  • Reply 10 of 29
    According to BB Gun's website, the firm handles publicity for Chris Cornell
    Dead people need publicity?

    <cough> too soon?
  • Reply 11 of 29
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,678member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    So you think Apple couldn’t stand up a streaming music service without paying Dre and Iovine $3B?
    It comes down to timing.  At that time, streaming music was starting to take off and Spotify had the mind share with respect to streaming music.  Apple needed to enter streaming music quickly and buying Beats was the best to do it.  If Apple had built a service from the ground up, chances are it could've been too late and Spotify would literally own the market.  As of right now, Apple Music's subscriber base is close to surpassing that of Spotify. So in hindisght, buying Beats was a smart move. Not just from a music streaming service perspective but from accessories (ie: headphones) perspective. A lot of hardware talent came with the Beats acquisition and that is starting to pay off as Apple introduces its own branded music accessories (starting with the AirPods and HomePod).  
    edited August 27 radarthekatlolliverfastasleepclaire1
  • Reply 12 of 29
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,731moderator
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    So you think Apple couldn’t stand up a streaming music service without paying Dre and Iovine $3B?
    What do you suppose they got for that $3b?  They bought a very visible maker of headphones and wireless earbuds, adding their product lines to Apple’s own.  This reduces distraction in the market, and allowed Apple to profit from adding these products to its existing worldwide distribution, including Apple stores (where Beats was already sold) and retail partners, at little incremental cost.  Like Apple products, Beats hardly needs advertising spend, leaving more money to flow to the bottom line.  Apple also added differentiation to an already differentiated product line., Beats had attitude, now they have the W1 chip to synch more seamlessly with Apple’s iPhones and Watch.  The Beats hardware product lines, on their own, justified the acquisition, in my opinion.  

    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.   
    edited August 27 lolliverfastasleepclaire1
  • Reply 13 of 29
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,968member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    So you think Apple couldn’t stand up a streaming music service without paying Dre and Iovine $3B?
    I didn't say that. But, do you think Apple didn't consider all possibilities before buying Beats? And maybe they have good reasons for what they did and continue to do? As this is the thousandth time this argument has come up with you, let me just remind you what everyone else has told you multiple times already — it's not just about buying an existing music service because they couldn't do it themselves, or a headphone business that they couldn't build themselves, or the executive talent that they couldn't have acquired elsewhere. It's a combination of all three, and really strong brand cache, and it's paid for itself already. So, not sure what your problem is with Beats but it's seriously annoying that you can't get over it and move on.

    edited August 28 radarthekat1983claire1
  • Reply 14 of 29
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,461member
    macxpress said:
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    Amen....
    Thirded …

  • Reply 15 of 29
    19831983 Posts: 1,127member
    hentaiboy said:
    According to BB Gun's website, the firm handles publicity for Chris Cornell
    Dead people need publicity?

    <cough> too soon?
    I was about to say!
  • Reply 16 of 29
    19831983 Posts: 1,127member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    So you think Apple couldn’t stand up a streaming music service without paying Dre and Iovine $3B?
    What do you suppose they got for that $3b?  They bought a very visible maker of headphones and wireless earbuds, adding their product lines to Apple’s own.  This reduces distraction in the market, and allowed Apple to profit from adding these products to its existing worldwide distribution, including Apple stores (where Beats was already sold) and retail partners, at little incremental cost.  Like Apple products, Beats hardly needs advertising spend, leaving more money to flow to the bottom line.  Apple also added differentiation to an already differentiated product line., Beats had attitude, now they have the W1 chip to synch more seamlessly with Apple’s iPhones and Watch.  The Beats hardware product lines, on their own, justified the acquisition, in my opinion.  

    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.   
    Exactly! Well said...
    claire1
  • Reply 17 of 29
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,461member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    So you think Apple couldn’t stand up a streaming music service without paying Dre and Iovine $3B?

    Again, your arguments are worryingly inconsistent:

    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3082409/#Comment_3082409

    Apple has no experience creating the kind of software needed for automobiles either. CarPlay is not an autonomous/self driving vehicle software platform. I’d honestly trust Apple more building a car chassis than car software. 

    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?"






    edited August 28 claire1fastasleep
  • Reply 18 of 29
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,791member
    Beats was just purchasing a demographic image. 3 billion for that? Yeah, it probably won’t go down in history as a sound business decision

    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.
    claire1fastasleep
  • Reply 19 of 29
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,484member
    Iovine and Dre were dead weight and they should've never been given any kind of advisory role at Apple.

    Apple should never have purchased Beats. They didn’t need it to stand up a streaming music service.
    Thankfully, you're not in charge.
    So you think Apple couldn’t stand up a streaming music service without paying Dre and Iovine $3B?
    What do you suppose they got for that $3b?  They bought a very visible maker of headphones and wireless earbuds, adding their product lines to Apple’s own.  This reduces distraction in the market, and allowed Apple to profit from adding these products to its existing worldwide distribution, including Apple stores (where Beats was already sold) and retail partners, at little incremental cost.  Like Apple products, Beats hardly needs advertising spend, leaving more money to flow to the bottom line.  Apple also added differentiation to an already differentiated product line., Beats had attitude, now they have the W1 chip to synch more seamlessly with Apple’s iPhones and Watch.  The Beats hardware product lines, on their own, justified the acquisition, in my opinion.  

    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.   
    No offense to you personally but this comment is so sad in so many ways. Even sadder is how many would agree with it. Prior to Apple purchasing Beats I can’t find one article or comment from anyone saying Apple wasn’t hip enough and needed to buy Beats to get “street cred”. And what does that even mean? Appealing to a certain demographic or people of a certain skin color? Apple didn’t buy Beats when it was up and coming they bought it at the peak of its popularity and when it was even starting to become less popular as many reviews pegged the product as not good and over priced (I under stand they’ve improved since). I remember several years ago walking into a Best Buy and seeing nothing but Beats in the headphones section. Now they occupy one small corner next to Bose and Sony and premium headphones like B&O, Audio-Technica, AKG etc.

    I don’t think Apple was lacking hipness nor do I think buying Beats made them more hip.
  • Reply 20 of 29
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,484member

    mjtomlin said:
    Beats was just purchasing a demographic image. 3 billion for that? Yeah, it probably won’t go down in history as a sound business decision

    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.
    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. 
Sign In or Register to comment.