The Telegraph - Hayley's happy with her image

Diving into these troubled waters, for better or worse.

What’s so wrong with Hayley’s label looking for answers, unless they believe Hayley’s career is everything they would like it to be? A record company exists to sell records. It has a marketing department whose job is to promote those sales. It would be the strangest company in the world that didn’t look for new and novel ways to do just that. Hayley Westenra is good looking. If I’m in the marketing department at Decca, and I know it’s my job to create new ways to sell Hayley Westenra’s music, I’m a fool if I ignore her physical appeal.

Now, it’s no secret that in terms of sales the States have been a disappointment (apparently it’s because we are the land of tarts and original sin). Decca is probably responding to an internal mandate to do something. How many times have we read on this board that Decca should do this or that, or just do more. I’m sure they feel they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

My problem with all of this is I don’t think it will matter. I come from a marketing background and I know that image is a complex thing. If Hayley tarts it up she might sell a few more records. Looks do matter. Let me repeat that – looks matter. Plain-looking high profile female singers are an endangered species. But “tarting up” the exterior is not really where the money is. Any increase in sales will only be on the margins.

The case of Taylor Swift is interesting for comparison. For those that don’t know, Taylor is an American country cross-over artist. Like Hayley, Taylor hit the music scene when she was 16. She’s now 19. Taylor doesn’t have half the voice Hayley does, but more than compensates with astonishing song writing skills and charismatic performances. Both women are visually stunning. Taylor is exceptionally close to her family (listen to her song “The Best Day”), talks openly about her spiritual side and generally has not given in to the call for more skin. Yes, there are some bare arms, an occasional short skirt and rumors of boyfriends, but you won’t see any bikini shots or revealing candids floating around the Internet. Like Hayley, she seems to prefer dresses on stage.

With all of that, and without compromising her image or slipping out of her clothes, Taylor is on the verge of becoming the biggest star in America.

The main reason she’s huge is that she writes and sings about the lives and loves of young women, and that’s the demographic sweet spot in today’s download market. And it matters that she’s good looking because that’s the way her female audience wants to see her, since it’s the way they want to see themselves. And of course they see themselves in her lyrics every time they listen. Taylor Swift looks like the princesses she writes about. It’s not about her gowns or cleavage – it’s about the artist matching the message. If there’s no connection – if it’s not believable - your audience will let you know. And that’s why looks and image matter.

If Hayley’s not comfortable in the role, an image swap will only betray that fact. In the end, her audience will tell her if the role and the role model fit. I think Hayley knows that.

She obviously isn't uncomfortable with showing some cleavage, but when she does, she's not trying to look "sexy". I think it's the "sexy" image that would make her uncomfortable.

You raise an interesting point, Libby, two in fact, the other, earlier one, being that you write as a woman and in the debate about image it is important to hear the female view, Your picking up on Socalboy's point

And it matters that she’s good looking because that’s the way her female audience wants to see her, since it’s the way they want to see themselves. And that’s why looks and image matter.

and develolping it further is interesting.

Returning from my aside to the reason for posting is your point about her comfort zone. Hayley is a person with a great sense of respect, it is respect for others in the patience with which she listens and gives her time and that derives from an inbuilt sense of self-respect. She is happy being a girl and being feminine from which derives a comfortableness in exhibiting her femininity in many ways, in being girllish and in dressing that shows off that feminity to its best advantage. It is that which determines the style of her dress, its shortness and its flaredness as well as the cleavage it shows. I do wonder sometimes 'is she fully taking into account all angles of view?', such as when she decides to do a signing and is therefore bent down to the table-top when people's viewing angle is immediately that much higher and closer. I think she does because on the few occasions I have noticed this I have always thought it a case of 'so far and no further' and she has never breached that limit. Dignity and grace is her all and she never strays.

In this the words one should use are 'allure', 'enticing', 'sensual'. These words imply sexiness but in a band of quality that respects womankind as a whole and the decenct normality of sexual attraction between man and woman in a civilised and cultured world.

That is the key and harps back to the press debate. She is not a tabloid girl but would 'flirt' with the broadsheets. She's llively not stuffy and The Mail in family mode for a weekend double-page spread would not be a bad exposure for her. When one uses the word 'sexy' I associate this with The Sun and The Mirror possibly The Express. This is not Hayley. However these are certainly the papers for wide exposure and possibly an audience from which she might draw many fans, look at their theatre ad pages.

One can understand Decca's viewpoint but have they not presented their thoughts clumsily and raised a red herring? She is the girl she is, that is their product and is it not they who are failing to support that product through the right media? Arguably it is they who are failing her in the way they promote her, not she failing them?

Peter S.

Recent posts in this thread have acknowledged that image is important. I don't disagree with that but for a record company to demand that an artist should look sexy beyond their wishes or their comfort zone is not acceptable IMO. To my mind, that is no different to them demanding that a strictly classical artist should record a heavy metal album. That simply wouldn't be Hayley and neither are outfits that are overly or overtly sexy or revealing.

One thing that so many of us admire about Hayley is her respectability. It has often been said that she is an excellent role model. I feel sure that the level of respect would be significantly reduced if she gave in to these demands.

There is nothing wrong with the way you look, Hayley, so strick to your principles and your true fans love you for it.

Roger

Hi Roger and Larry,

I think the point here is being made is that Hayley's media image is simply being herself. There is nothing false or manufactured about her, what you see (or rather hear) is what you get.

There are many artists who deliberately create a false image, like some of the more extreme rock and pop acts. They do this to attract attention, things like The Who smashing their instruments, Arthur Brown with his hair on fire, even Jimi Hendrix, considered one of the worlds most accomplished rock guitarists, still needed to resort to gimmicks, Bowie and Madonna, there are lots of them. For female artists, a favourite way of attracting attention is to wear skimpy, so called "daring" clothes. The stage persona is not what the person is like in real life.

Hayley, on the other hand, seems to prefer to be herself. This will not attract attention in the same way, and perhaps this is what Decca were after. I think they have got it wrong.

Hayley's gimmick is to be Hayley. Her true fans love her for it. There is nothing fake about Hayley. She sings in a way that would expose every defect in her voice or technique, she doesn't try to hide behind an image, or her backing musicians, or electronic distortion of her voice to hide its real sound. I have said before that the less that gets between the listener and Hayley's voice, the better she sounds. I prefer to hear her with a small group of musicians, or even better perhaps unaccompanied, rather than with a full orchestra. Hayley must be one of the most honest performers on the planet.

I think that Hayley wants to be appriciated for her music, not for gimmicks. Singing is what Hayley is good at. There are any number of female artists who can look "sexy" prancing about half naked, but how many can sing like Hayley?

For most of us here, Hayley's music is enough. That is what is exceptional about her, and what she should concentrate on. I know that selling music to people who don't much like music and have uncritical ears but buy music based on liking a performer's "image" is big business, but for Hayley to aim for that market is to throw away her greatest asset.

Martin

I think perhaps some of you gentlemen are missing one salient point :wink: it is not that easy for any female to go from girlhood to womanhood style wise and that is the challenge Hayley faces. By the sounds of it the record label are suggesting a 'tarty' look although I really can't believe they used that word but hey it is in the Telegraph personally as I have said above I would prefer to use something like sophistication or perhaps an Audrey Hepburn type approach?

You have to remember 93% of first impressions are based on how we look - and that includes all the body languages stuff as well. Which is why the entertainment industry get so excited about it. The other thing you have to remember is that appealing to the basic instincts is important but fashion is a strange thing too as something that works with one person at one time can be soon out of date. So the fashion of an Amy Winehouse is fast fading and so may be the look of a Katherine Jenkins indeed it may well be that in the growing austere times appeal changes dramatically.

But as you are all the fans who have been with her a long time the most important thing is and no one will want to do anything that will alienate you so I do hope that all concerned can come up with something that works well for everyone because another of the most important facts of first impressions is the person looks comfortable!

Di

Hi Peter,

Yes, you made the point that occurred to me, most peoples first encounter with Hayley will be hearing her music, perhaps on he radio or a CD. I have to admit that I am perhaps unusual, in that I saw Hayley, at least for a few seconds as she walked onto the stage, before I heard her. Seeing her, a tiny skinny but otherwise unremarkable 16 year old did not prepare me for what happened when she started to sing. So even though I saw her before I heard her, it was her voice that impressed me so hugely.

I agree, I too love Hayley's version of Now is the Hour, in fact I love all four of the new recordings from ROD. Just listen to Songbird, the Bach Ave Maria and Majesty if you have it. All show off Hayley's "New" voice, which I think is more beuatiful than ever.

It is hard for me to understand how anyone who loves fine singing can fail to be blown away by Hayley. There must be plenty more of them out there, although judging by some of the results of phone-in TV talent contests, they might not be the majority.

Martin

I guess that would be the perfect situation but surely unless she manages to have a track played on radio how are new people to solely hear her? The majority of people will become aware of Hayley at a concert or on TV?

This is the permanent conundrum for singers - when someone works it out there will be a lot of very successful vocalists out there!

Di