"As featured on the [ad] commercial" next to tracklistings on compilations as a measure of that song's quality

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Does the presence of a clue as to what the song is show up the general lack of interest it would otherwise gather? Or is it just a bit of extra marketing, surplus to any other promotion the song would get, or is it just to increase the marketable value of the compilation further?

Example, Backyard Dog's "Baddest Ruffest" ("as featured in the Coca-Cola commercial"), which I don't really rate. Side question: are these songs generally carried purely by the ad?

― the impossible shortest special path! (the impossible shortest specia), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Papas Fritas did this for their recent comp. AS SEEN IN THE DENTYNE COMMERCIAL! I guess they just want to tell people where they might have heard it. It's like saying "featuring the #1 hit..." I guess.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I find the words "featuring the #1 hit" usually start alarm bells ringing, so it would make sense that I view the "featured in" line as suspicious too.

― the impossible shortest special path! (the impossible shortest specia), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm more bothered when the sticker notes what the "secret track" is.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

It notes the secret track? Really? I've never seen this... do you have an example?

― the impossible shortest special path! (the impossible shortest specia), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

First one I saw was Lauryn Hill's debut, which highlighted the "hidden track" "I can't take my eyes off of you." There's been some others.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

That is truly bizarre.

― the impossible shortest special path! (the impossible shortest specia), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

to have and have not.

― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 4 April 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.