In the wake of Don Imus' racial slur about the Rutgers Women's Basketball team, his subsequent firing and the ongoing debate about misogynistic language used in rap lyrics, I thought I would discuss the origins of rap, it's inherent misogyny and how we can change it.
Rap music, which is commonly synonymous with Black music, emerged in the 1980s as a form of expression where music knowledge was not necessary but required the ability to craft words into rhythmic patterns. From the beginning, rap music reflected the inner-city Black youth experience in America, which focused on the alienation and social and economic deprivation of ghetto communities (Verney 95).
Rap and hip hop lyrics have evolved into a form of nihilism, which Professor Cornel West in the documentary "The Darker Side of Black" defines as "meaninglessness." Because mild to severe death, disease and destruction are what African American youth face on a daily basis, they over-dramatize it in their music, creating greater consequences than they probably realize.
Feminist writer bell hooks wrote that rappers are acting out the stereotypes of predatory and violent Black males in order to cater to the 70 percent of rap music consumers who are White. If this is true, then rap music is like the minstrel shows of the 19th century where Black people demeaned themselves for profit (Verney 99).
Rapper Chuck D, in "The Dark Side of Black" confirms that young rappers "are a product of what the [racial] hate produced. We disrespect ourselves. [Young rappers] are only going to talk what they know or what they think they know."
What rappers know is that African American power in this country is very limited. So to combat their disenfranchisement, music is used as an expression of power. Because Blacks cannot rap about running Fortune 500 companies (because they historically do not), they exercise their power in the bedroom. According to the documentary, sex is the only arena in which African American men can honestly feel and showcase their power, besides the ownership and use of guns. This combination of sex and violence has morphed into a fusion-theme in hip hop (especially Gangsta rap), what historian Michael Dyson calls "femiphobia." The language routinely refers to women as "bitches" and "hoes" and depicts them "as objects for male sexual gratification rather than as equal partners." While now there are female rappers and rap groups that use just as sexually-explicit lyrics, rap is still a men's club, reinforcing the denigration of women as a way to boost male self-esteem (Verney 96).
Rapper Ice Cube, whose 1990 album AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted sold over one million copies, performed the following lyrics in the song "It's a Man's World,"
Women they're good for nothing no maybe one thing
To serve the needs to my ding-a-ling
I'm a man who loves the one-night stand
Cause after I do ya
Huh I never knew ya
Ice Cube's defense of the lyrics at the time were that he had seen "a certain kind of woman" who used her body to make men do anything she wanted. He (who now, ironically, stars in kiddie movies like Are We There Yet?) also reaffirmed the idea that African American men use the exploitation of women to assert their manhood "in a society that has denied him the power that white men have consistently yielded (Streitmatter 157)."
And it has only gotten worse. America has puritan roots, making sexuality a taboo subject. In the last 100 years, America has gone from sexually repressed to sexually obsessed. From Girls Gone Wild commercials to Nelly's Tip Drill video, women are portrayed on the radio, television and Internet as objects. In "The Darker Side of Black," two Black women were interviewed as saying that they liked hip hop music but did not like the way it affected Black men's behavior. "A lot of young children," one explains. "Are changing their attitude because of the music."
Nobody has widely addressed the problem of misogynistic rap lyrics and the objectification of women in music videos since 2 Live Crew's album As Nasty as They Wanna Be was ruled obscene by a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida. The ruling was overturned by an appeals court due to the First Amendment. Now, after shock jock Don Imus used the term "nappy-headed hos" on his CBS radio program, the music industry and the Black community are discussing the possibility of banning three words from rap music: bitch, ho, and the N-word (which was recently debated after Michael Richards tirade at the Laugh Factory in Los Angeles earlier this year).
What we need to realize is Imus and other shock jocks are not journalists. They are not even upstanding, decent citizens. They are comedians who make jokes in lewd, crude manners. Howard Stern, the king of all raunch, was fined repeatedly for indecent language and content on his terrestrial radio program. In Robert L. Hillard and Michael C. Keith's book Dirty Disclosure: Sex and Indecency in American Radio, they explain that "it is not unusual for Howard Stern and his on-air staff to cajole a female guest into disrobing as Stern details her anatomy for his listening audience (77)."
With Stern objectifying women repeatedly on his program, it is not surprising that Imus, who claims to appeal to the intelligentsia while Stern is a "garbage mouth," uttered the racial slur. He was making a joke about the perception of the female African American basketball player. Much more offensive slurs have been stated prior and after the Imus incident, but he, unfortunately for him, was made an example (Hillard and Keith 88).
But in the aftermath, all people can ask is, what do we do now? Some say we must clean up rap music. Reverend Al Sharpton stated in an article, "We must deal with the fact that ho and the b-word are words that are wrong from anybody's lips. It would be wrong if we stopped here and acted like Imus was the only problem. There are others that need to get this same message."
However some rappers think the Imus incident and rap lyrics are not related. "Comparing Don Imus' language with hip-hop artists' poetic expression is misguided and inaccurate and feeds into a mindset that can be a catalyst for unwarranted, rampant censorship," hip hop mogul Russell Simmons stated in the same article.
Although unpublicized, women are standing up against this misogyny. In 2004, rapper Nelly wanted to visit Spelman College to conduct a bone marrow drive for his ill sister. Because of the demeaning portrayal of women in his video Tip Drill, the students protested his visit unless he participated in a discussion about the video. He declined. This is just one example of the small protests against misogyny in music that are occurring frequently. The perception that Black women do not care about their portrayal is incorrect.
So, again, what do we do now? The First Amendment gives us Freedom of Speech and rap music is exercising that right. Don Imus exercised that right and lost his job. Black women are exercising that right and do not seem to be making any progress in changing rap music's violent and misogynistic language.
At the core of this issue is race and the inherent inequality on which this country was founded. Until we are truly equal will we be able to express our power in ways that do not demean other groups of people. This "us versus them" complex that we have as Americans, African Americans, men and women is what creates conflict, prejudice and hate, which is reflected in our music, comedy and broadcasting. Equality and justice will not come from limiting the First Amendment. As hopeless as this situation appears, many people do believe Don Imus' example is a positive step forward. People are more aware of the ramifications of violent, racist and misogynistic language and in a free country, that is about all we can do to start the cycle of change. As long as people mobilize for change, the culprits, whether racist shock jocks or misogynistic rappers, cannot help but take notice.
Cultural critic, author and columnist Stanley Crouch said at the end of the Detroit Free Press article, "I was in the civil rights movement. I know it takes a long time when you're standing up against extraordinary money and great power. But we're beginning to see a shift."
Franklin, Marcus. "After Imus, is rap music now in the crosshairs?" Detroit Free Press. 13 Apr 2007.
Hillard, Robert L. and Michael C. Keith. Dirty Discourse. Ames [IA]; Iowa State Press, 2003.
Streitmatter, Rodger. Sex Sells!. Cambridge [MA]; Westview Press, 2004.
The Darker Side of Black. Dir. Isaac Julien. Black Audio Film Collective/ Normal Films for BBC Television and the Arts Council of Great Britain, 1993.
Verney, Kevern. African Americans and US Popular Culture. London; Routledge, 2003.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Imus Played the Race Card. And Lost.
People love controversy. People love listening to talking heads and shock jocks who push the limits. That is why Imus, Stern and all of those highly-offensive, not-very-compelling personalities became popular. They say things of immediate consequence that fade into oblivion within minutes in our attention-deficit society. But in the aftermath of Imus' slur, the public outrage, Imus' suspension, and subsequent firing, the race card is being played on many different levels. Imus is a white guy who insulted a successful women's basketball team as black women. He apologized for his words but then exposed the double standard that appears in rap lyric and music videos (of course, most rap artists are black and feature derogatory portrayals of women, mostly black women). This back and forth, which is both an acceptance of responsibility but also a red flag against popular culture, had spawned discussion about the condition of our media and why targeted social groups passively accept their image.
I think what most people are neglecting to talk about is the deep, underlying race issue. If the slur, which I will not repeat because we all know what it is, was cut down to the last word, would the public be so up in arms?
I think not; well, not to extent it was taken. This is not a gender issue, this is a race issue. First of all, Imus had no need to add the racially-specific adjective. Why was that necessary? But of course one could argue why is anything Imus says necessary, but he knew what he was doing. I hardly doubt Imus would say those three words together in his off-air life, so why bring it out on the air when he knew the consequences?
But maybe he didn't know the consequences. In the shock jock business, very few are fired. They are brought in to stir up the waters, to bother people, to (duh) SHOCK people. That is their thing. It is not pretty, not nice, not necessary at all, but the radio industry embraced it. Imus probably thought he would say the slur, ruffle the feathers of a few people, maybe get slapped on the wrist, and life would go on as normal. Unfortunately for him, that did not happen and his career in this incarnation is over.
Is Imus really to blame? In a country where Mad Max can drunkenly insult Jews, where Kramer can drop the N-word at a comedy club and where our cheap labor (and not the war we are fighting) is blamed for all our economic problems, is it really shocking for some radio personality to use racially-charged language on the air? I am not defending the slur, but I am just floored when people claim that America no longer has a race problem. Clearly there are people in this country, even famous people, who have racial prejudices. Racial stereotypes are still being used as punchlines, from Chris Rock's jokes about "crackers" to stealing a watermelon from a grocery store, and we laugh. But we did not laugh at Imus. Why? Because he is white. Black people can tell jokes about white people and themselves, but white people cannot return the laugh. The double standard is present and justified, but unfortunately for Imus, he tried to be funny and now nobody is laughing.
Yes, this reflects badly on the media. Rap music is the perfect example; it objectifies black women to the point where they will have someone swipe a credit card between their butt cheeks (see Nelly's Tip Drill video...but view at your own risk). The media allows this indecency to broadcast and be heard or viewed by whoever happens hear or see it on radio or television. However, this reflects even worse on our society. Why we (African American women as well as all women) accept this is beyond me. I would never allow myself to be portrayed that way and yet I am accepting it by allowing these songs and videos to be play without public outrage.
Imus will be a footnote in the book on Race in American Media. To avoid this happening again, we need to address the bigger issue and not worry about what those stupid shock jocks are saying just to get a laugh or a groan.
I think what most people are neglecting to talk about is the deep, underlying race issue. If the slur, which I will not repeat because we all know what it is, was cut down to the last word, would the public be so up in arms?
I think not; well, not to extent it was taken. This is not a gender issue, this is a race issue. First of all, Imus had no need to add the racially-specific adjective. Why was that necessary? But of course one could argue why is anything Imus says necessary, but he knew what he was doing. I hardly doubt Imus would say those three words together in his off-air life, so why bring it out on the air when he knew the consequences?
But maybe he didn't know the consequences. In the shock jock business, very few are fired. They are brought in to stir up the waters, to bother people, to (duh) SHOCK people. That is their thing. It is not pretty, not nice, not necessary at all, but the radio industry embraced it. Imus probably thought he would say the slur, ruffle the feathers of a few people, maybe get slapped on the wrist, and life would go on as normal. Unfortunately for him, that did not happen and his career in this incarnation is over.
Is Imus really to blame? In a country where Mad Max can drunkenly insult Jews, where Kramer can drop the N-word at a comedy club and where our cheap labor (and not the war we are fighting) is blamed for all our economic problems, is it really shocking for some radio personality to use racially-charged language on the air? I am not defending the slur, but I am just floored when people claim that America no longer has a race problem. Clearly there are people in this country, even famous people, who have racial prejudices. Racial stereotypes are still being used as punchlines, from Chris Rock's jokes about "crackers" to stealing a watermelon from a grocery store, and we laugh. But we did not laugh at Imus. Why? Because he is white. Black people can tell jokes about white people and themselves, but white people cannot return the laugh. The double standard is present and justified, but unfortunately for Imus, he tried to be funny and now nobody is laughing.
Yes, this reflects badly on the media. Rap music is the perfect example; it objectifies black women to the point where they will have someone swipe a credit card between their butt cheeks (see Nelly's Tip Drill video...but view at your own risk). The media allows this indecency to broadcast and be heard or viewed by whoever happens hear or see it on radio or television. However, this reflects even worse on our society. Why we (African American women as well as all women) accept this is beyond me. I would never allow myself to be portrayed that way and yet I am accepting it by allowing these songs and videos to be play without public outrage.
Imus will be a footnote in the book on Race in American Media. To avoid this happening again, we need to address the bigger issue and not worry about what those stupid shock jocks are saying just to get a laugh or a groan.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Triangle Becomes a Sqaure
This week on "The Internet Engine/Media Company Love Triangle":
Today Google, who I called "the other woman" in my last post about the Yahoo/Viacom agreement, announced a long-term deal with Clear Channel Communications Inc. in which Google can place advertising for its online customers on Clear Channel's plethora of radio stations. This comes on the heels of Yahoo and Viacom's advertising agreement, which is another slap in Google's face by Viacom and is Yahoo's attempt to reclaim the title of Internet search engine giant.
But now Google has found just what she needed; an equal partner in an untouched media outlet. Google has not gone wrong yet and this is just another high-profile notch in her proverbial bedpost.
However, the real question is not whether Google will prosper after this agreement. It is whether Google could help the ever-struggling consolidated radio business. Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner, represents all that is wrong with radio: consolidation, lack of on-air talent, nationally-spun play lists, and just total lack of consideration for the listeners. Endorsement from a popular and trusted company like Google might bring Clear Channel back into the public's good graces. Drew Hilles, Google Audio's national sales director, even said in this Associate Press article, "This radio partnership with Clear Channel is a pretty big statement that Google is in the radio industry to stay and have a big impact." Yet, one of the major problems identified in radio is advertising, which is the focus of the deal. Google will bring new advertisers to Clear Channel while Clear Channel gives Google a new media outlet. The content will not change, advertising might become even more cumbersome and the public will not be aware of any change unless they read my sources and or my blog. Who cares if Google and Clear Channel are advertising bedfellows if radio still plays obnoxious commercials and radio content still sucks?
The Viacom/Yahoo and the Google/Clear Channel deals are just the beginning of the consolidation of media. We thought the club could not get much smaller and now it has. I think that these companies are going to make a great amount of revenue from each other and I supposed that is the point of multi-year, undisclosed but mostly likely multi-million dollar agreement. I would just like to know when these companies are going to start including their consumers in their love-fests. All we want is a little consideration, a little power of suggestions and a little love. Then maybe the companies can roll in their dough and the consumers can roll in their good-quality entertainment (with a few commercials here and there brought to you by Google and Yahoo).
As always, tune in next week. Or maybe even tomorrow. You never know how quickly things heat up, or cool down.
Today Google, who I called "the other woman" in my last post about the Yahoo/Viacom agreement, announced a long-term deal with Clear Channel Communications Inc. in which Google can place advertising for its online customers on Clear Channel's plethora of radio stations. This comes on the heels of Yahoo and Viacom's advertising agreement, which is another slap in Google's face by Viacom and is Yahoo's attempt to reclaim the title of Internet search engine giant.
But now Google has found just what she needed; an equal partner in an untouched media outlet. Google has not gone wrong yet and this is just another high-profile notch in her proverbial bedpost.
However, the real question is not whether Google will prosper after this agreement. It is whether Google could help the ever-struggling consolidated radio business. Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner, represents all that is wrong with radio: consolidation, lack of on-air talent, nationally-spun play lists, and just total lack of consideration for the listeners. Endorsement from a popular and trusted company like Google might bring Clear Channel back into the public's good graces. Drew Hilles, Google Audio's national sales director, even said in this Associate Press article, "This radio partnership with Clear Channel is a pretty big statement that Google is in the radio industry to stay and have a big impact." Yet, one of the major problems identified in radio is advertising, which is the focus of the deal. Google will bring new advertisers to Clear Channel while Clear Channel gives Google a new media outlet. The content will not change, advertising might become even more cumbersome and the public will not be aware of any change unless they read my sources and or my blog. Who cares if Google and Clear Channel are advertising bedfellows if radio still plays obnoxious commercials and radio content still sucks?
The Viacom/Yahoo and the Google/Clear Channel deals are just the beginning of the consolidation of media. We thought the club could not get much smaller and now it has. I think that these companies are going to make a great amount of revenue from each other and I supposed that is the point of multi-year, undisclosed but mostly likely multi-million dollar agreement. I would just like to know when these companies are going to start including their consumers in their love-fests. All we want is a little consideration, a little power of suggestions and a little love. Then maybe the companies can roll in their dough and the consumers can roll in their good-quality entertainment (with a few commercials here and there brought to you by Google and Yahoo).
As always, tune in next week. Or maybe even tomorrow. You never know how quickly things heat up, or cool down.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Internet Love Triangle
Yesterday Viacom and Yahoo announced a multi-year advertising deal. Although the financial terms were not disclosed, Viacom is expected to get 70-80% of the revenue generated by the text-based ads that will appear with search results on content-related Viacom websites.
This "marriage" is Viacom's latest slap in Google's face, after suing them last month for $1 billion in damages from YouTube's copyright infringing content (which Google denies existed after Viacom demanded their content be removed from the video sharing site earlier this year). Google has the largest Internet advertising network, with partnerships with AOL.com, MySpace.com and Ask.com, so for Viacom to go with Yahoo is a bit of a gamble and some might say that they could do better. Everyone would have thought that Viacom and Google would have partnered up in this world of uncertainty. But you never know, do you?
At the same time, this is a great relationship for Yahoo. After being the number one engine on the Internet in the "early days," the younger Google has taken over the market, leaving Yahoo without strong advertising partners like those listed above. But the squabble between Viacom and Google has left Yahoo reaping all the benefits. Now with Viacom on its side, Yahoo may be able to garner the profits it has lost to its arch-nemesis.
This is a dramatic, messy and sexy love triangle worthy of a soap opera. Now that Viacom and Yahoo are tied together for an indefinite amount of years to come, we have plenty of time to see if their partnership will be all that they had hoped. Will their love eclipse Google, who is the other, younger woman in this scenario? Google has the market on its knees with its advertising partnerships and its acquisition of YouTube. If Yahoo does not come through, Viacom may have to get on one knee and beg Google to forget the $1 billion lawsuit and ask her to marry...it.
Tune in next week.
Liedtke, Michael. "Viacom, Yahoo Reach Multiyear Ad Deal." ABCNews.com. 10 Apr 2007.
This "marriage" is Viacom's latest slap in Google's face, after suing them last month for $1 billion in damages from YouTube's copyright infringing content (which Google denies existed after Viacom demanded their content be removed from the video sharing site earlier this year). Google has the largest Internet advertising network, with partnerships with AOL.com, MySpace.com and Ask.com, so for Viacom to go with Yahoo is a bit of a gamble and some might say that they could do better. Everyone would have thought that Viacom and Google would have partnered up in this world of uncertainty. But you never know, do you?
At the same time, this is a great relationship for Yahoo. After being the number one engine on the Internet in the "early days," the younger Google has taken over the market, leaving Yahoo without strong advertising partners like those listed above. But the squabble between Viacom and Google has left Yahoo reaping all the benefits. Now with Viacom on its side, Yahoo may be able to garner the profits it has lost to its arch-nemesis.
This is a dramatic, messy and sexy love triangle worthy of a soap opera. Now that Viacom and Yahoo are tied together for an indefinite amount of years to come, we have plenty of time to see if their partnership will be all that they had hoped. Will their love eclipse Google, who is the other, younger woman in this scenario? Google has the market on its knees with its advertising partnerships and its acquisition of YouTube. If Yahoo does not come through, Viacom may have to get on one knee and beg Google to forget the $1 billion lawsuit and ask her to marry...it.
Tune in next week.
Liedtke, Michael. "Viacom, Yahoo Reach Multiyear Ad Deal." ABCNews.com. 10 Apr 2007.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
A DRM-Free World
April 2, 2007 will mark the day that DRM began its inevitable downfall. EMI announced a deal with Apple's iTunes that they will license their entire catalog of music without digital rights management (copyright protection) for $1.29, 30 cents more than the standard 99 cent rate for iTunes music. This DRM-free revolution began with Apple CEO Steve Jobs' letter to the music industry back in February and now EMI has set the precedent for the rest of the industry to follow suit. Now that consumers are getting what they have been asking for, will they stop file sharing?
This is my opinion. As a former file sharer and a current consumer of the iTunes 99 cent model, I do not believe that consumers will stop file sharing just because they can use EMI files any way they want. First, music consumers today do not think of music in terms of labels. People will not choose EMI over other labels just because their music does not have copyright protection; they will choose the content they want. I cannot imagine EMI assumes they will make more money from this innovation unless all of their content is outstanding. Secondly, the average consumer does not even know what DRM is and how it affects their music consumption. People file share because they do not want to pay for music, not because they think DRM cramps their style. Some people, whether industry or technology enthusiasts or people who just like to share their music like myself, do feel the effects of DRM and will appreciate this legal option, but that population is very small relative to all the music consumers in this country. Lastly, iTunes is charging 30 cents more for DRM-free downloads than regular downloads. That is the biggest mistake in this agreement. Why would consumers pay more for DRM-free music when they can get the same thing for free through file-sharing? Yes, the sound quality on these songs will be better than even the average 99 cent download, but sound quality matters to about the same small percentage of consumers that like to share all of their music. If given the choice to change all of my current EMI iTunes music to DRM-free for 30 cents a piece, I would not do it. I should not have to re-purchase my music. I will be much more picky about my purchases if they are over a dollar than if they are 99 cents. Its merely change but we are a frugal society.
There are positives to this new development. Although the single downloads are $1.29, albums are still $9.99. Since online downloading has become a large portion of music distribution, we have become more of a singles culture, which I think has contributed to the decrease in CD revenues. If singles are more expensive but albums remain constant, consumers might be more inclined to buy albums. This could be a very positive element of the new DRM-free world.
So we are forging ahead into a DRM-free world. Steve Jobs called it and EMI stepped up to the plate. We just have to wait to see if they hit the ball out of the park or strike out. But, like all of Apple's endeavors, they will look good in their uniform.
This is my opinion. As a former file sharer and a current consumer of the iTunes 99 cent model, I do not believe that consumers will stop file sharing just because they can use EMI files any way they want. First, music consumers today do not think of music in terms of labels. People will not choose EMI over other labels just because their music does not have copyright protection; they will choose the content they want. I cannot imagine EMI assumes they will make more money from this innovation unless all of their content is outstanding. Secondly, the average consumer does not even know what DRM is and how it affects their music consumption. People file share because they do not want to pay for music, not because they think DRM cramps their style. Some people, whether industry or technology enthusiasts or people who just like to share their music like myself, do feel the effects of DRM and will appreciate this legal option, but that population is very small relative to all the music consumers in this country. Lastly, iTunes is charging 30 cents more for DRM-free downloads than regular downloads. That is the biggest mistake in this agreement. Why would consumers pay more for DRM-free music when they can get the same thing for free through file-sharing? Yes, the sound quality on these songs will be better than even the average 99 cent download, but sound quality matters to about the same small percentage of consumers that like to share all of their music. If given the choice to change all of my current EMI iTunes music to DRM-free for 30 cents a piece, I would not do it. I should not have to re-purchase my music. I will be much more picky about my purchases if they are over a dollar than if they are 99 cents. Its merely change but we are a frugal society.
There are positives to this new development. Although the single downloads are $1.29, albums are still $9.99. Since online downloading has become a large portion of music distribution, we have become more of a singles culture, which I think has contributed to the decrease in CD revenues. If singles are more expensive but albums remain constant, consumers might be more inclined to buy albums. This could be a very positive element of the new DRM-free world.
So we are forging ahead into a DRM-free world. Steve Jobs called it and EMI stepped up to the plate. We just have to wait to see if they hit the ball out of the park or strike out. But, like all of Apple's endeavors, they will look good in their uniform.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The Blame Game
I love NPR, National Public Radio. It is the bright shining glimmer of hope in a world where radio has become a repetition of obnoxious commercials, offensive jocks and bad music. NPR has quality news programming and play lists that stray away from commercial radio, MTV and the United States in general. They know that the Internet is the future, so they stream web casts in the Internet along with their terrestrial radio content. NPR is good radio on every level.
But NPR, as well as all other public and commercial radio who have updated with web casting, is facing a possible crisis: The Copyright Royalty Board has proposed royalty hikes for music on the Internet. These increases are justified by Sound Exchange, an entity created by (who else?) the Recording Industry Association of America, to collect royalties from Internet, satellite and digital music. The current royalty system is two-tiered: small web casters pay 12% of the annual revenue for royalties while large companies like Yahoo pay royalties based on the number of songs played in a "tuning hour." However, Sound Exchange, who claims to protect the artist and the record companies, decided that there should be a universal royalty system. This could put many small Internet broadcasting companies out of business. Accuradio, which operated over 320 Internet radio stations, made about $400,000 last year in revenue. Under the old system, they paid out $48,000. The new system, which will be based on a per-song, per-user fee, will make Accuradio's annual royalties $600,000, much more than their annual income.
Why has this happened? Why have the proponents for the record industry gone after its one friend?
I call this the Blame Game. The record companies have seen a decrease in CD sales in the last few years. According to them, here are a few options why this has happened:
1. CDs are so 20th century. Consumers are tired of just your average, basic compact disc with twelve tracks. They want more. They want two-sided CDs, they want DVD components with live performances and music videos, they want a steak dinner with their CD. Clearly CDs have gone out of style and the record manufacturers must find a way to augment the format to attract people. It has worked wonders. Just look where Tower Records is now.
2. File sharing has turned music consumers into thieves! How can record companies compete with free stuff? I know! Sue their consumers for finding a new way to discover music! It is clear that the way to bring people back to buying CDs is to take them to court, humiliate them, and take their money in large sums.
3. Web casting has contributed to the decrease in CD sales so the record companies must make up the difference by putting them out of business. Record companies want to support and protect the artists. They do this by not allowing them on the Internet, because consumers are never on the Internet. Everyone still listens to terrestrial radio to get their new music and the Internet clearly cannot reach as many people. Internet broadcasting is not the future. So we must penalize all the web casters for being stuck in the past.
My sarcasm is harsh but this game of blame is a symptom of the record companies not recognizing the simple truth that they need to change their model. The model is dead. They are seeing the repercussions of their ignorance and instead of address the problem, they go after their long-term partners. This is worse than cheating, this is a divorce where one side tries to leave the other destitute. The record companies need to embrace web casting, because the Internet is where all their consumers have gone. Trying to drag them back kicking and screaming will not work. You must go to them, adjust to their needs, and they will give you what you need.
Web casters have until tomorrow to file a motion for a re-hearing of the Copyright Royalty Board. For my and and everybody's sake, I hope they come out on top in this ugly divorce.
Contreras, Felix. "New Royalty Rules May Reshape Internet Radio". All Things Considered. National Public Radio. 27 Mar 2007.
But NPR, as well as all other public and commercial radio who have updated with web casting, is facing a possible crisis: The Copyright Royalty Board has proposed royalty hikes for music on the Internet. These increases are justified by Sound Exchange, an entity created by (who else?) the Recording Industry Association of America, to collect royalties from Internet, satellite and digital music. The current royalty system is two-tiered: small web casters pay 12% of the annual revenue for royalties while large companies like Yahoo pay royalties based on the number of songs played in a "tuning hour." However, Sound Exchange, who claims to protect the artist and the record companies, decided that there should be a universal royalty system. This could put many small Internet broadcasting companies out of business. Accuradio, which operated over 320 Internet radio stations, made about $400,000 last year in revenue. Under the old system, they paid out $48,000. The new system, which will be based on a per-song, per-user fee, will make Accuradio's annual royalties $600,000, much more than their annual income.
Why has this happened? Why have the proponents for the record industry gone after its one friend?
I call this the Blame Game. The record companies have seen a decrease in CD sales in the last few years. According to them, here are a few options why this has happened:
1. CDs are so 20th century. Consumers are tired of just your average, basic compact disc with twelve tracks. They want more. They want two-sided CDs, they want DVD components with live performances and music videos, they want a steak dinner with their CD. Clearly CDs have gone out of style and the record manufacturers must find a way to augment the format to attract people. It has worked wonders. Just look where Tower Records is now.
2. File sharing has turned music consumers into thieves! How can record companies compete with free stuff? I know! Sue their consumers for finding a new way to discover music! It is clear that the way to bring people back to buying CDs is to take them to court, humiliate them, and take their money in large sums.
3. Web casting has contributed to the decrease in CD sales so the record companies must make up the difference by putting them out of business. Record companies want to support and protect the artists. They do this by not allowing them on the Internet, because consumers are never on the Internet. Everyone still listens to terrestrial radio to get their new music and the Internet clearly cannot reach as many people. Internet broadcasting is not the future. So we must penalize all the web casters for being stuck in the past.
My sarcasm is harsh but this game of blame is a symptom of the record companies not recognizing the simple truth that they need to change their model. The model is dead. They are seeing the repercussions of their ignorance and instead of address the problem, they go after their long-term partners. This is worse than cheating, this is a divorce where one side tries to leave the other destitute. The record companies need to embrace web casting, because the Internet is where all their consumers have gone. Trying to drag them back kicking and screaming will not work. You must go to them, adjust to their needs, and they will give you what you need.
Web casters have until tomorrow to file a motion for a re-hearing of the Copyright Royalty Board. For my and and everybody's sake, I hope they come out on top in this ugly divorce.
Contreras, Felix. "New Royalty Rules May Reshape Internet Radio". All Things Considered. National Public Radio. 27 Mar 2007.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Online Video Content: Spring Fling or A Very Long Engagement?
Almost a week ago media conglomerates NewsCorp and NBC Universal announced that they were teaming up with Internet portals AOL, Yahoo and MSN to distribute new video content online. The content will include full length television shows and films as well as the clips that we have all become accustomed to when using prospective rival YouTube. Just like other video content companies such as Joost, NewsCorp and NBC Universal do not see their venture as competition for YouTube or vice versa. I disagree. Yes, YouTube focuses mostly on user-created content but the film and television clips they do have receive a decent amount of hits on the website. I believe that consumers on average do not want to search several different sites for different content. If a site says they contain video content, that should mean they have both professionally produced videos in addition to user-created content. Of course I am a proponent for marketplace competition but why cannot each of these sites be all-inclusive? Maybe because Viacom sued Google and YouTube for $1 billion dollars last month. The fear of copyright infringement has almost ruined it for us.
The question I would like to pose, and it might be provocative, but really is online video content the future? NewsCorp and NBC Universal obviously think so if they are venturing away from their traditional business (which I think needs more attention because quality television content is hard to find these days) and putting both feet in the video content realm. But as quickly as technology and consumers change, how do we know that next year online video content will still be as popular as it is today? I rarely watch YouTube or online television. Maybe I'm old-fashioned and I like watching shows on my 20" screen as opposed to my tiny laptop, but I really think that video content is going to hit a plateau, and all of the media conglomerates are going to find themselves in a relationship that has lost its passion. But maybe I am wrong. This could be a very long engagement. We just have to wait and see.
Kawamoto, Dawn and Greg Sandoval. "NBC, NewsCorp. push new Web rival to YouTube." ZDNet. 22 Mar 2007.
The question I would like to pose, and it might be provocative, but really is online video content the future? NewsCorp and NBC Universal obviously think so if they are venturing away from their traditional business (which I think needs more attention because quality television content is hard to find these days) and putting both feet in the video content realm. But as quickly as technology and consumers change, how do we know that next year online video content will still be as popular as it is today? I rarely watch YouTube or online television. Maybe I'm old-fashioned and I like watching shows on my 20" screen as opposed to my tiny laptop, but I really think that video content is going to hit a plateau, and all of the media conglomerates are going to find themselves in a relationship that has lost its passion. But maybe I am wrong. This could be a very long engagement. We just have to wait and see.
Kawamoto, Dawn and Greg Sandoval. "NBC, NewsCorp. push new Web rival to YouTube." ZDNet. 22 Mar 2007.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Democratization May Be Big Brother In Disguise
Campaign advertising has always been a cutthroat creative medium for political candidates to praise themselves and criticize their opponents. Even in those disguised as unbiased public service announcements, there is always a little line of text at the bottom of the screen that says "Paid for by the (fill-in-the-blank) Campaign." But now in the age of YouTube and cheap yet high-quality user-created video content, average people are getting into the political circus.
"Hillary 1984," the Obama-supporting spoof of the iconic 1984 Macintosh commercial where a hammer is hurled at a Big Brother computer screen (symbolizing IBM), has been on YouTube for about two weeks and has been viewed by over 2 million people. Now it is known that the creator, an Internet professional named Phil de Vellis, worked for a firm that supported the Obama campaign but claims to have created the commercial on his Mac computer on a Sunday afternoon. "The specific point of the ad," he wrote, "was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Sen. Clinton's 'conversation' is disingenuous. And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power." de Vellis has since resigned from his company, Blue State Digital, while they assert that he was fired.
de Vellis himself has said that now that his "citizen ad" has taken off, "the game has changed." The average citizen has the means to create an impact on the 2008 Presidential Election using basic software. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and value the democratization of the Internet, so I support the power of knowledge and influence that the public has been given. However, with all the misinformation given by traditional campaign ads, I think citizen ads have the potential to muddy the already murky water. Democratization gives power to the people, but most people are not informed enough to use that power effectively. Unless the United States decides to convert to a truly democratic society, there will always be those with power and those with a little more power to tip the scales.
While "Hillary 1984" may be a peak into the democratized future of campaign advertising, the fact that it was created by a professional leaves me feeling that this might just be a passing phase. I think the majority of Americans are apathetic (just look at the percentage of people who actually vote--it is very disturbing how low it is) and those who will put in the time to get their political views heard will be those who either have a professional, personal or ethical stake in the process. I hate to think so little of my fellow Americans but again, the public is misinformed, or just not informed at all. This leaves our country vulnerable for Orwell's prophecy. Maybe Big Brother is not so far away.
Noyes, Katherine. "'Hillary 1984' Creator: 'The Game Has Changed'." TechNewsWorld. 22 Mar 2007.
"Hillary 1984," the Obama-supporting spoof of the iconic 1984 Macintosh commercial where a hammer is hurled at a Big Brother computer screen (symbolizing IBM), has been on YouTube for about two weeks and has been viewed by over 2 million people. Now it is known that the creator, an Internet professional named Phil de Vellis, worked for a firm that supported the Obama campaign but claims to have created the commercial on his Mac computer on a Sunday afternoon. "The specific point of the ad," he wrote, "was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Sen. Clinton's 'conversation' is disingenuous. And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power." de Vellis has since resigned from his company, Blue State Digital, while they assert that he was fired.
de Vellis himself has said that now that his "citizen ad" has taken off, "the game has changed." The average citizen has the means to create an impact on the 2008 Presidential Election using basic software. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and value the democratization of the Internet, so I support the power of knowledge and influence that the public has been given. However, with all the misinformation given by traditional campaign ads, I think citizen ads have the potential to muddy the already murky water. Democratization gives power to the people, but most people are not informed enough to use that power effectively. Unless the United States decides to convert to a truly democratic society, there will always be those with power and those with a little more power to tip the scales.
While "Hillary 1984" may be a peak into the democratized future of campaign advertising, the fact that it was created by a professional leaves me feeling that this might just be a passing phase. I think the majority of Americans are apathetic (just look at the percentage of people who actually vote--it is very disturbing how low it is) and those who will put in the time to get their political views heard will be those who either have a professional, personal or ethical stake in the process. I hate to think so little of my fellow Americans but again, the public is misinformed, or just not informed at all. This leaves our country vulnerable for Orwell's prophecy. Maybe Big Brother is not so far away.
Noyes, Katherine. "'Hillary 1984' Creator: 'The Game Has Changed'." TechNewsWorld. 22 Mar 2007.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Free Downloads and Advertising: A Match Made in Heaven?
Would you consider purchasing a Hyundai if they gave you a free Mp3 download of a song by alternative rock band The Ataris?
That is exactly what Hyundai is hoping with a new Internet advertising campaign where they place banners on websites like Pandora.com, ComedyCentral.com and Billboard.com. When a user clicks on the banner, a 20-second Elantra commercial is screened in a pop-up while a song from the band plays and is simultaneously downloaded onto the user’s computer. Hyundai wants the people who watch the commercial to know that the car company is bringing them something that makes them feel good.
I think this model is revolutionary. Giving away digital media in conjunction with advertising might become the standard for all Internet as well as brick-and-mortar retailers. Free giveaways have always attracted new customers, similar to the way department stores offer their customers 10% off their purchase if they open up a store credit account. People will commit to “relationships” with retailers if they are given an immediate, tangible benefit. Mp3s and other music downloads are very on-demand products and could be used by almost any company as an advertising incentive. This "give, then receive" model is also being tested in the live music realm with the new Ozzfest tour, where tickets will be free with the hope that the concert-goers will spend money on records and merchandise. Why haven’t the record companies and radio groups figured this out? Even Hyundai, an arguably second-rate auto maker, is thinking more outside the box than the music industry.
Ultimately I think this marriage of free music with advertising will not bring Hyundai itself any major additional revenue. To be perfectly honest, I do not like The Ataris and I doubt that the majority of the targeted 18- through 49-year old audience do. For this to benefit auto makers or any retailer in general, the scope must be much greater. Users need options. Users need variety. Users need further incentive to form a relationship with the retailer. Offering songs by one band and failing to follow-up on the commercial will leave Hyundai in the same place they stand today, except with a limited relationship with online music retailers. However, according to this article on Adweek.com, Hyundai ran an earlier campaign with Music Interactive and had their users fill out a registration form. 35% of those who clicked on the banner filled out the form. That is not a high figure but higher than one would expect.
In the end, people do not like commercials but will watch them if they get something in return. Music was, is, and will always be a commodity for any retailer to use as an incentive. Hyundai has the right idea; now we are just waiting for the company that will perfect the model.
That is exactly what Hyundai is hoping with a new Internet advertising campaign where they place banners on websites like Pandora.com, ComedyCentral.com and Billboard.com. When a user clicks on the banner, a 20-second Elantra commercial is screened in a pop-up while a song from the band plays and is simultaneously downloaded onto the user’s computer. Hyundai wants the people who watch the commercial to know that the car company is bringing them something that makes them feel good.
I think this model is revolutionary. Giving away digital media in conjunction with advertising might become the standard for all Internet as well as brick-and-mortar retailers. Free giveaways have always attracted new customers, similar to the way department stores offer their customers 10% off their purchase if they open up a store credit account. People will commit to “relationships” with retailers if they are given an immediate, tangible benefit. Mp3s and other music downloads are very on-demand products and could be used by almost any company as an advertising incentive. This "give, then receive" model is also being tested in the live music realm with the new Ozzfest tour, where tickets will be free with the hope that the concert-goers will spend money on records and merchandise. Why haven’t the record companies and radio groups figured this out? Even Hyundai, an arguably second-rate auto maker, is thinking more outside the box than the music industry.
Ultimately I think this marriage of free music with advertising will not bring Hyundai itself any major additional revenue. To be perfectly honest, I do not like The Ataris and I doubt that the majority of the targeted 18- through 49-year old audience do. For this to benefit auto makers or any retailer in general, the scope must be much greater. Users need options. Users need variety. Users need further incentive to form a relationship with the retailer. Offering songs by one band and failing to follow-up on the commercial will leave Hyundai in the same place they stand today, except with a limited relationship with online music retailers. However, according to this article on Adweek.com, Hyundai ran an earlier campaign with Music Interactive and had their users fill out a registration form. 35% of those who clicked on the banner filled out the form. That is not a high figure but higher than one would expect.
In the end, people do not like commercials but will watch them if they get something in return. Music was, is, and will always be a commodity for any retailer to use as an incentive. Hyundai has the right idea; now we are just waiting for the company that will perfect the model.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Payola Pact Helps Independent Music...Yeah Right
When consolidated radio groups like Clear Channel Communications Inc., CBS Radio Inc., Entercom Communications Corp. and Citadel Broadcasting agree to pay $12.5 million in fines and give a collective 8,400 half-hour radio segments to independent music during the next three years in order to stop a payola investigation, does that not indicate that they are guilty?
While I do not believe that payola will ever end because there will always be that one disc jockey or programming director that will play a song a few hundred times for a free weekend in Las Vegas, I think this pact has two possible outcomes:
The first outcome is the glass half full. Independent and local music’s presence on radio has historically been restricted to Sunday nights between 9pm and 11pm. The radio groups have agreed to play independent music in half-hour segments between 6am and midnight. This could not only give independent artists and labels the commercial exposure they have been denied for decades, it could also give radio the youthful and on-demand audience it has lacked in the last five years. It also gives the people who still subject themselves to commercial radio and those who would love to return to the medium they used to use to discover new music the opportunity to listen to something other than Justin Timberlake five times an hour.
The second outcome, and the most likely, is half empty. Yes, commercial radio will include a half-hour segment of independent music during the daylight hours and that is more than we can say about independent music on the radio in the past. However, one half-hour is not going to bring radio’s listenership back in droves or clean up the wasteland that commercial radio has become. Independent music’s place is in the “now” and the “future,” which involves new media like the Internet and social networks. One half-hour segment on radio will not bring as much exposure to independent music as a feature on MySpace. Especially if these segments are only guaranteed for the next three years.
Like radio historian Christopher H. Sterling stated in this Los Angeles Times article, payola is almost “as hard to stamp out as prostitution.” This agreement is a start but the corrupt nature of the radio and record business really leaves very little hope that payola will stop and that the two businesses will come back to the reason they are in existence: the music.
While I do not believe that payola will ever end because there will always be that one disc jockey or programming director that will play a song a few hundred times for a free weekend in Las Vegas, I think this pact has two possible outcomes:
The first outcome is the glass half full. Independent and local music’s presence on radio has historically been restricted to Sunday nights between 9pm and 11pm. The radio groups have agreed to play independent music in half-hour segments between 6am and midnight. This could not only give independent artists and labels the commercial exposure they have been denied for decades, it could also give radio the youthful and on-demand audience it has lacked in the last five years. It also gives the people who still subject themselves to commercial radio and those who would love to return to the medium they used to use to discover new music the opportunity to listen to something other than Justin Timberlake five times an hour.
The second outcome, and the most likely, is half empty. Yes, commercial radio will include a half-hour segment of independent music during the daylight hours and that is more than we can say about independent music on the radio in the past. However, one half-hour is not going to bring radio’s listenership back in droves or clean up the wasteland that commercial radio has become. Independent music’s place is in the “now” and the “future,” which involves new media like the Internet and social networks. One half-hour segment on radio will not bring as much exposure to independent music as a feature on MySpace. Especially if these segments are only guaranteed for the next three years.
Like radio historian Christopher H. Sterling stated in this Los Angeles Times article, payola is almost “as hard to stamp out as prostitution.” This agreement is a start but the corrupt nature of the radio and record business really leaves very little hope that payola will stop and that the two businesses will come back to the reason they are in existence: the music.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Kazaa Creators Go Legit for Joost
Kazaa creators Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis are no strangers to lawsuits. Since 1999, the two have been embroiled in infringement lawsuits with record companies and movie studios. Neither men set foot in America until recently, when all their legal battles came to an end in November after they agreed to pay $125 million to their opponents.
Zennstrom and Friis sold their other "free-service" company, Skype, to eBay in 2005 but still work closely with them as executive chief and executive vice president for innovation, respectively. But in the meantime, they have developed their new endeavor, a Web video venture called Joost.
Analysts and the creators themselves do not see the popular YouTube as competition. Joost, which streams full length programs in a full screen format, is predicted to be competition for cable companies. Frii's explains that Joost is "not Web video; it's TV."
Last month, Viacom ordered Google's YouTube to remove over 100,000 of its videos from the video-sharing site while inking a deal with Joost. While the agreement is undisclosed, Joost and Viacom will share advertising revenue from the programs the former will stream on the Internet.
Will the Kazaa guys find success in a legitimate Internet venture after so much success in "free service?" It looks like they will. Having full length content from former YouTube powerhouse The Daily Show with Jon Stewart along with all the other content provided by Viacom will give Joost a large fan base. This could change the way people watch television on the Internet. As long as the quality is high and the advertising does not become as burdensome as cable television, network television and radio advertising is to us now, Joost may fill the void that YouTube has left since it was bought by Google and "legitimized."
Don't worry, I believe YouTube will still be our #1 source for watching a college student dumping his cheating girlfriend in front of 3,000 spectators. Thank goodness we can always count on that.
Peters, Jeremy W. "Kazaa's Creators Do Latest Venture by the Book." New York Times. 27 Feb 2007.
Zennstrom and Friis sold their other "free-service" company, Skype, to eBay in 2005 but still work closely with them as executive chief and executive vice president for innovation, respectively. But in the meantime, they have developed their new endeavor, a Web video venture called Joost.
Analysts and the creators themselves do not see the popular YouTube as competition. Joost, which streams full length programs in a full screen format, is predicted to be competition for cable companies. Frii's explains that Joost is "not Web video; it's TV."
Last month, Viacom ordered Google's YouTube to remove over 100,000 of its videos from the video-sharing site while inking a deal with Joost. While the agreement is undisclosed, Joost and Viacom will share advertising revenue from the programs the former will stream on the Internet.
Will the Kazaa guys find success in a legitimate Internet venture after so much success in "free service?" It looks like they will. Having full length content from former YouTube powerhouse The Daily Show with Jon Stewart along with all the other content provided by Viacom will give Joost a large fan base. This could change the way people watch television on the Internet. As long as the quality is high and the advertising does not become as burdensome as cable television, network television and radio advertising is to us now, Joost may fill the void that YouTube has left since it was bought by Google and "legitimized."
Don't worry, I believe YouTube will still be our #1 source for watching a college student dumping his cheating girlfriend in front of 3,000 spectators. Thank goodness we can always count on that.
Peters, Jeremy W. "Kazaa's Creators Do Latest Venture by the Book." New York Times. 27 Feb 2007.
Friday, March 2, 2007
I am a radio consolidator...
The following is an extremely loose and embellished transcription of the speech I delivered in my Music, Broadcasting and the Internet class at USC on Wednesday, February 28, 2007.
I am a radio consolidator and I would like to talk to you briefly about the future of radio as I see it and how we are going to get the "new generation" back to terrestrial radio. As you all know, we have lost a significant amount of listeners in the last five years and this is how I think we are going to get them back.
Let's talk about the new generation briefly. According to Christine Makris in a 2005 Boston Globe marketing report called "On Demand Killed the Radio Star," the age segment that owns the most MP3 players and iPods are from 12 to 17 years old. And that was two years ago, so I can bet those numbers have grown. The "new generation" has never lived without on-demand media, like TiVo, on-demand Pay-Per-View and broadband Internet, so radio just does not fulfill that on-demand need. To get the new generation to come to us, we need to go to them. We need to go to the Internet. With the prospect of a universal WiFi network for everyone to tap into in the next few years, everyone will be connected constantly and the radio industry needs to catch up with the times.
Simulcasting, while already in existence, is projected to take over 40% of all Internet radio listening in the United States by 2020, according to a Bridge Ratings Digital Media Growth Projections report from February 19, 2007. I think this is a pretty modest number because it does not take into consideration population growth, which is at an unprecedented rate, and the rapid improvement of technology. I think the future of terrestrial radio is a compromise with the Internet: consolidated companies like my own need to bite the bullet, pay the licensing fees and simulcast their content in order to reach the new generation and possibly capture the older ones when they are in their cars, or at work, or when the universal WiFi network goes down.
The other major element to attracting the listenership of the new generation and the listenership that we have lost in the past years is content. There are has been an enormous breakdown in the relationship between the record companies and the radio groups. Radio is no longer a "hitmaker" because of the availability of music to the consumer via the Internet and the straightening of the "long tail." Radio needs to be a service to the consumer for local and national information and for the discovery and acquisition of music. I do not believe people should have to search MySpace and other social networks for new music; that is our job.
Localization and diversification is the name of the game for the future of radio content. We need to bring back disc jockeys and local personalities who create playlists not dictated by the record companies but by their personal taste. We need new formats like the Pandora model of create-you-own-radio-station based on songs, artists and genres the listener already likes. Also using the digital technology, there can be formats where the playlists are completely determined by the listeners' votes. Created geographic and genre formats featuring unsigned and local music along with the majors will appeal to so many more of the new generation and the population in general.
Radio can also get in the retail business via simulcasting. If someone is listening on terrestrial or Internet radio and hears something they like, they should be able to get on the computer and purchase that song or album as they hear it. They should have a choice between the digital copy (MP3, AAC, etc.) or the physical copy sent to them in the mail, or both! My company could make a deal with Amazon or iTunes, or start our own retailer. This would be a great means of revenue for radio as a replacement for the overabundance of advertising that also drove our listeners away.
To summarize, simulcasting and diverse content models are the future for terrestrial radio and will bring our listenership back as well as help us acquire the listenership of the new, on-demand generation.
In the same report by Bridge Ratings, it said that there will 150 million average weekly Internet radio listeners by 2010. In just three years, half of the American population will be listening online. That's where we need to go and I believe we will gain back what we have lost and then some.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Del Colliano, Jerry. “Satellite vs. Radio vs. WiFi.” Inside Music Media. 26 Feb 2007.
Kusek, David and Gerd Leonhard. The Future of Music. Boston: Berklee Press, 2005. pp 148-152.
Makris, Christine. “On Demand Killed the Radio Star.” The Boston Globe. Nov 2005.
Spar, Debora L. Ruling the Waves. New York: Harcourt Inc., 2001. pp 362.
Van Dyke, Dave. “Digital Media Growth Projections.” Bridge Ratings LLC. 19 Feb 2007.
I am a radio consolidator and I would like to talk to you briefly about the future of radio as I see it and how we are going to get the "new generation" back to terrestrial radio. As you all know, we have lost a significant amount of listeners in the last five years and this is how I think we are going to get them back.
Let's talk about the new generation briefly. According to Christine Makris in a 2005 Boston Globe marketing report called "On Demand Killed the Radio Star," the age segment that owns the most MP3 players and iPods are from 12 to 17 years old. And that was two years ago, so I can bet those numbers have grown. The "new generation" has never lived without on-demand media, like TiVo, on-demand Pay-Per-View and broadband Internet, so radio just does not fulfill that on-demand need. To get the new generation to come to us, we need to go to them. We need to go to the Internet. With the prospect of a universal WiFi network for everyone to tap into in the next few years, everyone will be connected constantly and the radio industry needs to catch up with the times.
Simulcasting, while already in existence, is projected to take over 40% of all Internet radio listening in the United States by 2020, according to a Bridge Ratings Digital Media Growth Projections report from February 19, 2007. I think this is a pretty modest number because it does not take into consideration population growth, which is at an unprecedented rate, and the rapid improvement of technology. I think the future of terrestrial radio is a compromise with the Internet: consolidated companies like my own need to bite the bullet, pay the licensing fees and simulcast their content in order to reach the new generation and possibly capture the older ones when they are in their cars, or at work, or when the universal WiFi network goes down.
The other major element to attracting the listenership of the new generation and the listenership that we have lost in the past years is content. There are has been an enormous breakdown in the relationship between the record companies and the radio groups. Radio is no longer a "hitmaker" because of the availability of music to the consumer via the Internet and the straightening of the "long tail." Radio needs to be a service to the consumer for local and national information and for the discovery and acquisition of music. I do not believe people should have to search MySpace and other social networks for new music; that is our job.
Localization and diversification is the name of the game for the future of radio content. We need to bring back disc jockeys and local personalities who create playlists not dictated by the record companies but by their personal taste. We need new formats like the Pandora model of create-you-own-radio-station based on songs, artists and genres the listener already likes. Also using the digital technology, there can be formats where the playlists are completely determined by the listeners' votes. Created geographic and genre formats featuring unsigned and local music along with the majors will appeal to so many more of the new generation and the population in general.
Radio can also get in the retail business via simulcasting. If someone is listening on terrestrial or Internet radio and hears something they like, they should be able to get on the computer and purchase that song or album as they hear it. They should have a choice between the digital copy (MP3, AAC, etc.) or the physical copy sent to them in the mail, or both! My company could make a deal with Amazon or iTunes, or start our own retailer. This would be a great means of revenue for radio as a replacement for the overabundance of advertising that also drove our listeners away.
To summarize, simulcasting and diverse content models are the future for terrestrial radio and will bring our listenership back as well as help us acquire the listenership of the new, on-demand generation.
In the same report by Bridge Ratings, it said that there will 150 million average weekly Internet radio listeners by 2010. In just three years, half of the American population will be listening online. That's where we need to go and I believe we will gain back what we have lost and then some.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Del Colliano, Jerry. “Satellite vs. Radio vs. WiFi.” Inside Music Media. 26 Feb 2007.
Kusek, David and Gerd Leonhard. The Future of Music. Boston: Berklee Press, 2005. pp 148-152.
Makris, Christine. “On Demand Killed the Radio Star.” The Boston Globe. Nov 2005.
Spar, Debora L. Ruling the Waves. New York: Harcourt Inc., 2001. pp 362.
Van Dyke, Dave. “Digital Media Growth Projections.” Bridge Ratings LLC. 19 Feb 2007.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Audible Magic Casts a Spell on YouTube
Google, the proud new owner of YouTube, reportedly has employed Los Gatos-based company Audible Magic to filter their video content for copyrighted material as complaints about piracy on the video-sharing site have grown exponentially simultaneous to its popularity.
Audible Magic technology was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court's Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster ruling as a service to keep pirates off their networks. Neither Google nor Audible Magic have officially announced the filtering of YouTube content but the joint venture is inevitable. Audible Magic creates an audio "fingerprint" on videos. Since 1999, their database has primarily consisted of radio broadcasts but they are working to expand it with television shows and movies.
Last month, Viacom demanded that Google remove over 100,000 videos from the website, including the rampantly popular Comedy Central clips from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, as well as children's show Spongebob Squarepants. NBC Universal and NewsCorp have also recently requested the removal of their copyrighted video clips from YouTube. While there is no hard data on the effect of the removal of Viacom video clips from YouTube, it is almost certain that the video-sharing site will lose a significant amount of its audience. Sites like Dailymotion.com in France and Peekvids.com in Denmark are just two examples of video-sharing sites that screen full-length films and television episodes that the fed-up Googled YouTube audience will flock to if all this great content is filtered out.
MySpace, what I considered to be the only true democratic networking and content site on the internet and the site with the greatest life-expectancy, has also announced a plan to use Audible Magic to prevent copyrighted videos from being uploaded onto the site.
Have we learned nothing from the effects of peer-to-peer music file sharing? Have we learned nothing from the demise of the record industry? This is what will happen to YouTube and ultimately to Viacom, NewsCorp and NBC Universal if this filtering occurs:
-YouTube will lose its audience to unfiltered sites like Dailymotion.com and Peekvids.com
-Google will never earn back the $1.6 billion it paid for YouTube.
-Television will continue to lose its viewers as they are not able to view clips without being subjected to obtrusive commercials.
File sharing is not the perpetrator in this scenario; it is an innocent bystander. The broadcasting corporations need to learn what the record companies never learned. They must adapt to and embrace technology and their new audience (the new generation), not circumvent and treat them like criminals.
Ackerman, Elise. "Google to start filtering YouTube videos." MercuryNews.com. 22 Feb 2007.
Audible Magic technology was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court's Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster ruling as a service to keep pirates off their networks. Neither Google nor Audible Magic have officially announced the filtering of YouTube content but the joint venture is inevitable. Audible Magic creates an audio "fingerprint" on videos. Since 1999, their database has primarily consisted of radio broadcasts but they are working to expand it with television shows and movies.
Last month, Viacom demanded that Google remove over 100,000 videos from the website, including the rampantly popular Comedy Central clips from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, as well as children's show Spongebob Squarepants. NBC Universal and NewsCorp have also recently requested the removal of their copyrighted video clips from YouTube. While there is no hard data on the effect of the removal of Viacom video clips from YouTube, it is almost certain that the video-sharing site will lose a significant amount of its audience. Sites like Dailymotion.com in France and Peekvids.com in Denmark are just two examples of video-sharing sites that screen full-length films and television episodes that the fed-up Googled YouTube audience will flock to if all this great content is filtered out.
MySpace, what I considered to be the only true democratic networking and content site on the internet and the site with the greatest life-expectancy, has also announced a plan to use Audible Magic to prevent copyrighted videos from being uploaded onto the site.
Have we learned nothing from the effects of peer-to-peer music file sharing? Have we learned nothing from the demise of the record industry? This is what will happen to YouTube and ultimately to Viacom, NewsCorp and NBC Universal if this filtering occurs:
-YouTube will lose its audience to unfiltered sites like Dailymotion.com and Peekvids.com
-Google will never earn back the $1.6 billion it paid for YouTube.
-Television will continue to lose its viewers as they are not able to view clips without being subjected to obtrusive commercials.
File sharing is not the perpetrator in this scenario; it is an innocent bystander. The broadcasting corporations need to learn what the record companies never learned. They must adapt to and embrace technology and their new audience (the new generation), not circumvent and treat them like criminals.
Ackerman, Elise. "Google to start filtering YouTube videos." MercuryNews.com. 22 Feb 2007.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Merger, Siriusly!
Yesterday XM and Sirius, the only satellite radio providers in the market, announced their "merger of equals." Under the leadership of Sirius CEO Mel Karmazian, the $4.9 billion merger should close by the end of the year if approved by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
Satellite radio was supposed provide us with a better alternative to terrestrial radio, which has suffered from decreased listener ship since the 1996 Telecommunications Act allowed for the consolidation of radio stations. The result is less diversity and less quality content. Satellite radio promised quality content, no commercials and the ability to TiVo our favorite radio programs. But just as Internet radio, file-sharing and even the archaic practice of cassette recording music off terrestrial radio supposedly ruined the music business, these satellite recording devices are the catalyst for yet another infringement suit filed by the record companies and, our favorite, the RIAA.
It is very difficult to believe that two merging satellite radio providers will be able to "defeat" terrestrial radio with more ease than if they stayed separate. XM and Sirius together do not make a stronger unit, they just make more of the same thing. Yes, they are bringing Oprah and Howard Stern together under one roof but really, who listens to both of them? I have never subscribed to satellite radio but according to blogger Frank Ahrens, he is not very willing to pay for programs to which he does not intend to listen.
I am always very wary of mergers and potential monopolies. I believe, as most people in the music industry do, that media consolidation has led to the downfall of radio, television and the record companies. Competition is the key to progress; this includes competition in content, format, advertising and monetary value. Competition equals innovation. Consolidation equals the same old thing, just with a shiny new exterior.
If Sirius and XM remain the only satellite radio companies, or the singular satellite company, I doubt they will become what we all hope they will be; the radio we are all waiting for to save us from our iPod playlists. Sirius and XM have been in the market too long. A new satellite radio company will have to come along to change the market and meet the demands of this generation. But who will it be if everyone else is working for the single super-sized Sirius, seriously?
Thomasch, Paul and Kenneth Li. "Sirius, XM see deal closing in 2007." ABCNews.com. 20 Feb 2007.
Satellite radio was supposed provide us with a better alternative to terrestrial radio, which has suffered from decreased listener ship since the 1996 Telecommunications Act allowed for the consolidation of radio stations. The result is less diversity and less quality content. Satellite radio promised quality content, no commercials and the ability to TiVo our favorite radio programs. But just as Internet radio, file-sharing and even the archaic practice of cassette recording music off terrestrial radio supposedly ruined the music business, these satellite recording devices are the catalyst for yet another infringement suit filed by the record companies and, our favorite, the RIAA.
It is very difficult to believe that two merging satellite radio providers will be able to "defeat" terrestrial radio with more ease than if they stayed separate. XM and Sirius together do not make a stronger unit, they just make more of the same thing. Yes, they are bringing Oprah and Howard Stern together under one roof but really, who listens to both of them? I have never subscribed to satellite radio but according to blogger Frank Ahrens, he is not very willing to pay for programs to which he does not intend to listen.
I am always very wary of mergers and potential monopolies. I believe, as most people in the music industry do, that media consolidation has led to the downfall of radio, television and the record companies. Competition is the key to progress; this includes competition in content, format, advertising and monetary value. Competition equals innovation. Consolidation equals the same old thing, just with a shiny new exterior.
If Sirius and XM remain the only satellite radio companies, or the singular satellite company, I doubt they will become what we all hope they will be; the radio we are all waiting for to save us from our iPod playlists. Sirius and XM have been in the market too long. A new satellite radio company will have to come along to change the market and meet the demands of this generation. But who will it be if everyone else is working for the single super-sized Sirius, seriously?
Thomasch, Paul and Kenneth Li. "Sirius, XM see deal closing in 2007." ABCNews.com. 20 Feb 2007.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
And I Digress...
While this topic does not fall within the scope of this blog, this must be addressed due to its pure absurdity. Societal labels have gone too far.
Professor Jerry Del Colliano mentioned this music industry trend in his Music, Broadcasting and the Mobile Future lecture last week and the entire class was dumbfounded. Not only had none of us heard of this term but none of us knew for the love of God how or why this term came about in our culture.
I know these people. They are my African-American friends who wear aviator sunglasses at night, who wear really tight pants and dance in what I can only describe as the "Velma Dance," from Scooby Doo cartoons. They listen to punk, emo and indie music more often then they listen to "Black" music like rap and hip hop. They are hipsters, just like their Caucasian counterparts. However, a New York Times article decided to segment these indie music lovers by race and call them...wait for it...blipsters.
This is not offensive in and of itself because as a society, we compartmentalize trends and subcultures based on race. I will not digress further into my political beliefs that a colorblind society could be more detrimental to minorities than how it is today, but we have and will always tie music trends with race. However, this term reflects how African-Americans are given the short end of the stick when receiving labels. Just like how every feminine term, like female or woman are derived from the masculine terms male and man, Black culture terms are derivatives of Caucasian culture terms. Blipster is not only indicative of the secondary status of Black culture trends, the term is just flat out lazy. Please New York Times, be a little more creative.
The only positive element of this debacle is that racial boundaries in music are being torn down by the African-American community. The past two decades have seen White America embrace Black music but the opposite cannot be observed. With this movement of African-Americans embracing and creating rock and roll music, the genre they started before the Whites hijacked it and made it their own, maybe everyone who listens to Death Cab for Cutie can just be called a hipster, or someone who needs to stop crying and get over the fact that she just doesn't like you.
Jessica Pressler. "Blipsters Rock On." New York Times. 29 Jan 2007.
Professor Jerry Del Colliano mentioned this music industry trend in his Music, Broadcasting and the Mobile Future lecture last week and the entire class was dumbfounded. Not only had none of us heard of this term but none of us knew for the love of God how or why this term came about in our culture.
I know these people. They are my African-American friends who wear aviator sunglasses at night, who wear really tight pants and dance in what I can only describe as the "Velma Dance," from Scooby Doo cartoons. They listen to punk, emo and indie music more often then they listen to "Black" music like rap and hip hop. They are hipsters, just like their Caucasian counterparts. However, a New York Times article decided to segment these indie music lovers by race and call them...wait for it...blipsters.
This is not offensive in and of itself because as a society, we compartmentalize trends and subcultures based on race. I will not digress further into my political beliefs that a colorblind society could be more detrimental to minorities than how it is today, but we have and will always tie music trends with race. However, this term reflects how African-Americans are given the short end of the stick when receiving labels. Just like how every feminine term, like female or woman are derived from the masculine terms male and man, Black culture terms are derivatives of Caucasian culture terms. Blipster is not only indicative of the secondary status of Black culture trends, the term is just flat out lazy. Please New York Times, be a little more creative.
The only positive element of this debacle is that racial boundaries in music are being torn down by the African-American community. The past two decades have seen White America embrace Black music but the opposite cannot be observed. With this movement of African-Americans embracing and creating rock and roll music, the genre they started before the Whites hijacked it and made it their own, maybe everyone who listens to Death Cab for Cutie can just be called a hipster, or someone who needs to stop crying and get over the fact that she just doesn't like you.
Jessica Pressler. "Blipsters Rock On." New York Times. 29 Jan 2007.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Guerrilla Advertising Gone Wild!
Advertising has been the name of the game in broadcasting since its inception. But when does advertising go beyond what is acceptable? Many media consumers are asking that question now as we face digitization and "internetization" of our media. Will we accept advertising as it is now, lengthy and obtrusive, or will we say "to heck with it" and TiVo everything once that technology becomes available? I think the latter will prevail and that is why broadcasters are using drastic and somehow distasteful means to advertise their shows and their sponsors.
Cartoon Network launched an advertising ploy on the streets of 10 major U.S. cities that featured distorted portrayals of the characters from their hit show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." While this seems innocent enough, the switchboards used to project these images on bridges and in other public places instigated fear of terrorism in Boston on January 31. Bomb squads were called in, bridges were closed, Cartoon Network executive vice president Jim Sample resigned, and Turner Broadcasting and its advertising affiliates are out $2 million.
Now, who is to blame? I was quick to say that Cartoon Network made a stupid marketing decision (the Nielsen ratings for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" stayed almost the same the week after the advertising campaign as the week before) but now I am starting to realize that this type of unwarranted panic is an element of the current American mindset. The United States lives in a constant state of fear of terrorism so much so that a switchboard that projects an image of a cartoon character can be mistaken for an explosive! However, Cartoon Network did not make the best decision in placing these projectors on sensitive structures like bridges. According to an unofficial poll taken on ABCNews.com as of today, 12,499 out of 15,617 blame the local, state and federal authorities for blowing this "prank" out of proportion while only 1,789 pollsters thought Turner Broadcasting was to blame for its negligence to alert the authorities of their campaign.
In the greater sense, I think we are all to blame. The broadcasters are to blame for stuffing their advertising down our throats, or putting suspicious electronic boxes on our bridges. We are to blame for assuming anything out of the ordinary is something to fear. I say advertising needs to shift from guerrilla and repetitive to creative and provocative. It will have to or everyone will own a TiVo before the broadcasters can blink an eye.
Harry R. Webber. "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare." ABC News. 10 Feb 2007.
Cartoon Network launched an advertising ploy on the streets of 10 major U.S. cities that featured distorted portrayals of the characters from their hit show "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." While this seems innocent enough, the switchboards used to project these images on bridges and in other public places instigated fear of terrorism in Boston on January 31. Bomb squads were called in, bridges were closed, Cartoon Network executive vice president Jim Sample resigned, and Turner Broadcasting and its advertising affiliates are out $2 million.
Now, who is to blame? I was quick to say that Cartoon Network made a stupid marketing decision (the Nielsen ratings for "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" stayed almost the same the week after the advertising campaign as the week before) but now I am starting to realize that this type of unwarranted panic is an element of the current American mindset. The United States lives in a constant state of fear of terrorism so much so that a switchboard that projects an image of a cartoon character can be mistaken for an explosive! However, Cartoon Network did not make the best decision in placing these projectors on sensitive structures like bridges. According to an unofficial poll taken on ABCNews.com as of today, 12,499 out of 15,617 blame the local, state and federal authorities for blowing this "prank" out of proportion while only 1,789 pollsters thought Turner Broadcasting was to blame for its negligence to alert the authorities of their campaign.
In the greater sense, I think we are all to blame. The broadcasters are to blame for stuffing their advertising down our throats, or putting suspicious electronic boxes on our bridges. We are to blame for assuming anything out of the ordinary is something to fear. I say advertising needs to shift from guerrilla and repetitive to creative and provocative. It will have to or everyone will own a TiVo before the broadcasters can blink an eye.
Harry R. Webber. "Cartoon Network Head Resigns After Scare." ABC News. 10 Feb 2007.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Get Your YouTube Out of MySpace!
NewsCorp chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch has reported that MySpace is taking in close to $25 million dollars in advertising revenue and continues to grow roughly 30% each quarter. This is unexpectedly rapid growth according to Murdoch, who struck up a deal to purchase another modern Internet phenomenon, YouTube, but lost the company to Google. Murdoch predicts that in five years 10 percent of NewCorp's company revenue will come from digital media, mostly thanks to MySpace.
This idea that MySpace is pulling so much money from ad revenue is shocking in a world where everyone is avoiding commercial advertisements on television by using TiVo and even slightly archaic subscription rental services like Netflix. Nobody enjoys the 60-second Advil commercial you have to watch while catching up on last week's episode of Lost on your laptop.
Murdoch makes a good point. YouTube, a video search engine, will drive away its audience if it uses commercial advertising within the video format, which it ultimately will do in order to become a lucrative media venture in the current, if not uninventive, revenue model. YouTube is an experience while MySpace is a community, as Murdoch puts correctly. MySpace uses much more unobtrusive advertising techniques, ones that do not interrupt the booming occurrences of video media on the website. MySpace is a much more integrated digital media model while YouTube can be like bad television created by the unemployed guy who lives next door.
MySpace and YouTube are undeniable elements of our current cultural, economic and technological framework. However, one has more staying power than the other. I vote for MySpace. While it is ultimately in the hands of an old suit, it is created, fed and consumed by the people. It is not just for the high school and college generation anymore; even my post-Baby Boomer/Pre-Generation X mother has a MySpace Music page. YouTube will eventually go down the tubes if the restrictions posed by Viacom are any indication. MySpace has a stake in my space for years to come, as long as it stays democratized.
Mike Shields. "Murdoch: MySpace Monthly Ad Revenue Nears $25 Mil." Media Week. 8 Feb 2007.
This idea that MySpace is pulling so much money from ad revenue is shocking in a world where everyone is avoiding commercial advertisements on television by using TiVo and even slightly archaic subscription rental services like Netflix. Nobody enjoys the 60-second Advil commercial you have to watch while catching up on last week's episode of Lost on your laptop.
Murdoch makes a good point. YouTube, a video search engine, will drive away its audience if it uses commercial advertising within the video format, which it ultimately will do in order to become a lucrative media venture in the current, if not uninventive, revenue model. YouTube is an experience while MySpace is a community, as Murdoch puts correctly. MySpace uses much more unobtrusive advertising techniques, ones that do not interrupt the booming occurrences of video media on the website. MySpace is a much more integrated digital media model while YouTube can be like bad television created by the unemployed guy who lives next door.
MySpace and YouTube are undeniable elements of our current cultural, economic and technological framework. However, one has more staying power than the other. I vote for MySpace. While it is ultimately in the hands of an old suit, it is created, fed and consumed by the people. It is not just for the high school and college generation anymore; even my post-Baby Boomer/Pre-Generation X mother has a MySpace Music page. YouTube will eventually go down the tubes if the restrictions posed by Viacom are any indication. MySpace has a stake in my space for years to come, as long as it stays democratized.
Mike Shields. "Murdoch: MySpace Monthly Ad Revenue Nears $25 Mil." Media Week. 8 Feb 2007.
Monday, February 5, 2007
The End of Radio as Described by the Savior of Radio
I was listening to KPFK Los Angeles's program "Democracy Now" on my way to Culver City when I heard terrifying 911 calls from residents affected by a train derailent in Minot, North Dakota five years ago. Call after call the victims of the disaster were told by the local emergency dispatcher to stay inside and turn on their radios to get more information. Horrified residents cried for help as they realized their children were outside and many panted as they started to lose the ability to breathe. The radio station that they were told to listen to did not broadcast a single piece of information during the disaster about the train derailment and the subsequent two hundred forty thousand gallons of anhydrous ammonia that leaked into the atmosphere.
Many think that radio consolidation only affects the musical content that we consume. However, radio was actually created as a means for communication during war and disasters. Radio is a method of maintaining national security. As a result of radio consolidation and the dominance of Clear Channel and Infinity in radio ownership, hundreds of radio stations are programmed from a centralized location, rendering live disc jockeys unnecessary and thus eliminating the presence of community-based information on local radio stations. That is why there was no information for the victims in Minot. Their local radio station was owned by Clear Channel and nobody was at the station during the time of the disaster.
Radio consolidation has much greater ramifications than a lack of quality content. Eric Kleinenberg, Associate Professor of Sociology at New York University, who was featured on 'Democracy Now," wrote "Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media" which addresses this topic as well as the lack of minority representation on the radio and the success of non-corporate radio stations like Prometheus Radio Project. While this program highlighted the catastrophic consequences of the current state of radio, the program did not only focus on the negative. Professor Kleinenberg announced on the program that the FCC will be opening a full power non-commercial/educational FM radio station licensing window in April or May of 2007. This information is also included on Prometheus' website at www.prometheusradio.org.
Radio which started as an indispensible communication medium has become something corporate America needs to reinvent but choses to ignore. The future of radio relies on music enthusiasts, activists and forward thinkers to take advantage of this opportunity offered by the FCC (shockingly enough). Independent radio, like KPFK, will save radio. It is amazing that they remain so humble.
"Democracy Now": http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207
Many think that radio consolidation only affects the musical content that we consume. However, radio was actually created as a means for communication during war and disasters. Radio is a method of maintaining national security. As a result of radio consolidation and the dominance of Clear Channel and Infinity in radio ownership, hundreds of radio stations are programmed from a centralized location, rendering live disc jockeys unnecessary and thus eliminating the presence of community-based information on local radio stations. That is why there was no information for the victims in Minot. Their local radio station was owned by Clear Channel and nobody was at the station during the time of the disaster.
Radio consolidation has much greater ramifications than a lack of quality content. Eric Kleinenberg, Associate Professor of Sociology at New York University, who was featured on 'Democracy Now," wrote "Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media" which addresses this topic as well as the lack of minority representation on the radio and the success of non-corporate radio stations like Prometheus Radio Project. While this program highlighted the catastrophic consequences of the current state of radio, the program did not only focus on the negative. Professor Kleinenberg announced on the program that the FCC will be opening a full power non-commercial/educational FM radio station licensing window in April or May of 2007. This information is also included on Prometheus' website at www.prometheusradio.org.
Radio which started as an indispensible communication medium has become something corporate America needs to reinvent but choses to ignore. The future of radio relies on music enthusiasts, activists and forward thinkers to take advantage of this opportunity offered by the FCC (shockingly enough). Independent radio, like KPFK, will save radio. It is amazing that they remain so humble.
"Democracy Now": http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207
All You Need is (Apple) Love
After years of heated trademark battles, the Beatles and Apple have finally decided to live in the world together.
The Beatles holding company, whose name is Apple Corp Ltd, accepted Steve Jobs' hardware company Apple Inc., as long as the latter did not put a stake in the music business. The iPod and iTunes violated that agreement and the two companies have been at odds ever since.
Now that this matter has been settled the Beatles, one of the last major acts holding out on the legal downloading market, might finally catch up with the times. The band that recreated rock and roll music has not been present in digital media and internet outlets except on illegal sites like Kazaa and Limewire. The act of preventing an almost non-threatening trademark infringement has left one of the most influential artists in history in the past and suffering from consumer piracy. Their innovation has given way to the stuffy, traditional, unimaginative view of the music industry. What a depressing fact. Hopefully this settlement will pave the way for all artists to put their work in the most successful music distribution model available, and put more money in Steve Jobs' bulging pockets.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/Beatles_Apple_Inc_Settle_Lawsuit#40946
The Beatles holding company, whose name is Apple Corp Ltd, accepted Steve Jobs' hardware company Apple Inc., as long as the latter did not put a stake in the music business. The iPod and iTunes violated that agreement and the two companies have been at odds ever since.
Now that this matter has been settled the Beatles, one of the last major acts holding out on the legal downloading market, might finally catch up with the times. The band that recreated rock and roll music has not been present in digital media and internet outlets except on illegal sites like Kazaa and Limewire. The act of preventing an almost non-threatening trademark infringement has left one of the most influential artists in history in the past and suffering from consumer piracy. Their innovation has given way to the stuffy, traditional, unimaginative view of the music industry. What a depressing fact. Hopefully this settlement will pave the way for all artists to put their work in the most successful music distribution model available, and put more money in Steve Jobs' bulging pockets.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/news/Beatles_Apple_Inc_Settle_Lawsuit#40946
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
