If I were them - the deciders - I would start with a search, not find much, then quickly click the button to send me the boilerplate "denied" notification (if they even offer that courtesy), and move on to the next applicant. They might even have a database to determine if you're signed to a label (vs. self-releasing), which I wouldn't be in. Whoever these folks are, they're likely in a hurry to deny. Their productivity is being measured, and like with customer service departments, they are probably told by management to not spend too much time reviewing each form.
I previously macro-blogged about Twitter verification here: https://blog.scottcooley.com/2023/05/twitter-blues.html in which I expressed initial frustration about not getting verified by them, and then sort of concluded that the whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and not something to be bummed about. Why fill out a form in the first place? Credibility? Is that what I'm after?
When you're an established independent DIY solo artist, already past mid-career, yet still aspiring/emerging/hungry for more recognition - hoping for a larger audience for your music (more streams), you want to give the appearance of legitimacy, and so you want to look official. You are those things already, but anything that helps makes you look established and popular already, makes you even more so. You think that will help, but the thing is you need a bunch of reputable online sources to write about you. I suspect that if reviews of my music were to materialize online, they might contain some negativity that could stifle my spirit, so I've never submitted my albums to any bloggers or publications. I should point out that I don't perform live very often, so I'm really just a recording artist.
I'm a verified solo artist with Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, regular YouTube, Pandora, etc., which means I have an account to sign in to their "for Artists" parts of their websites because I've claimed my own profile in them. Some provide a prominent check mark icon of some kind, some don't. I also have my own domain. I've been mentioned in a podcast by another artist, had people post nice things about me in social media a few times, but there are no news articles or blogs about me as far as I know. I've tried to establish somewhat of an online presence. The TLDR is that's probably not enough.
I recently put a prominent link to my Bluesky profile page on my website because so far, I'm thinking it will become my primary social media and microblogging platform. I also recently filled out the verification form for Bluesky, I guess so people will see the coveted badge and trust that I'm the real Scott Cooley, not a fake impersonator or something. So, I'm authentic enough, but likely not notable enough. "Official" but not "high-profile".
While they review my credentials (or lack thereof), I thought I would do a little reviewing of them. I basically dread having to deal with any social media (or self-promotion for that matter), but so far, I like Bluesky better than any platform I've tried. I was fortunate to "join the early conversation" back in 2023 when it was fairly new, and I can report that it has improved significantly since then. Originally, I went with the standard scottcooley.bsky.social, but then changed it to this:
https://bsky.app/profile/scottcooley.com
Things you should know:
With your own domain, you just paste in a record on your registrar's site, two minutes and you're done (meaning you don't then have to host your own Linux server on a Rasberry Pi in your basement or something just to be able to log back in to Bluesky). They could make that clearer. I'm now questioning whether @scottcooley.com as my handle is better, but I'm not going to worry about what people think.
Things I didn't like about Twitter:
-they replaced the public profile page view with a sign-in requirement
-they never verified me with the blue check despite the notability evidence I provided
-the name change to X made no sense, the name was one of the coolest things about it
Things I like about Bluesky:
-public profile page
-simple, uncluttered user interface (retro vibe is similar to early Twitter)
-they didn't do the mobile-first thing, or mobile-only thing, and I prefer the early and decent web availability (don't use the app on my phone at all)
-fairly easy to find like-minded people
-human+auto moderation focus seems effective, is reassuring
-use the same account for other apps, future apps
Things I'm still not sure about:
-more extreme, in-your-face left wingers than I expected (which is still way better than the opposite)
-the full extent of why owning data I post publicly anyway is such a big deal
-remains to be seen if I'll become verified or not
-seems to be dominated by software developer types so far (there went my checkmark)
I previously blogged about "notability" for indie DIY solo artists who never seek out press coverage: https://blog.scottcooley.com/2014/07/from-nobility-to-notability.html
I used the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines to create my detailed Biography: https://www.scottcooley.com/biography#h.p_ID_285
Bottom line is I don't really want people to review my music or write about me publicly, so I don't look for such opportunities. If someone reached out for an interview, I'd grant it though. Various quotes say things along the lines of music being 10% creative and 90% marketing. My popularity (or lack thereof) reflects the fact that aside from a few social media announcements when I release new music, I engage in no marketing whatsoever (and I prefer it that way). My music has been on the dark side lately, which doesn't lend itself well to the New York Times discovering it and calling to interview me about it. Surprise me, Mr. Bluesky! Be my sunny day.
