Category Archives: Media & Culture

Illegal to rip songs from CD’s to computer. Yeah, right.

Posted on by

“Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.” [Washington Post]

PROFANITY ALERT: Let me see if I have this right. I buy the CD. I copy the songs to my laptop or iPod so I can listen to them. I don’t share them with anyone. And that’s illegal. As they say on Keith and the Girl, “Fuuuuuuccckkkk you!” Steve Martin used to say, “Excuuuusseee me!”

Update: Turns out this story was wrong. Never mind.

Study on “State of the Media”

Posted on by

From survey (of 2,000+ Americans) commissioned by Deloitte & Touche (as reported at WebProNews):

“Close to 40 percent (38%) of Americans are watching TV shows online, 36 percent use their cell phones for entertainment and 45 percent are creating Web sites, music, videos and blogs.”

Boy, those numbers seem high to me. But then, most of the people I hang with are creating content of some sort so, maybe.

And this from Ken August, vice chairman and national sector leader for Deloitte & Touche’s media and entertainment practice:

“I think for advertisers one of the conclusions is you don’t make decisions to advertise either on television or the Internet when you want to hit all the demographics, but rather you need to have a multiplatform strategy. It shouldn’t be an either or proposition.”

And maybe a dash of radio?

Merging radio and the web

Posted on by

One of our affiliate relations reps shared this story with me a few days ago and I’m posting it so I can find it later. And I might have some of the particulars wrong but they don’t change the point of the story.

Small market radio station manager gets a call from a program syndicator, trying to clear a three hour Christmas special. The station manager doesn’t want to commit that much time but likes the program and suggests they put the program on the station’s website, clear the syndicator’s commercials on the radio station and promote the special (online) on the air.

Hmmm.

Now, every program provider will tell you how important it is that the spots air inside the programming. They might have even sold that aspect to the advertisers. But when all is said and done (note that I did not say, "At the end of the day"), it’s really about getting the spots on the air.

Is there some obvious synergy here? Could web-savvy radio stations take this approach to enrich their online offering and pull more local listeners (and advertisers) to their websites?

And while there are only 24 hours in the on-air programming clock, there are no limits online. A station could have a sports "channel," an ag channel, a home fix-up channel and on and on.

Yes, I see the limitation. For now, it’s those 30 second radios spots that have value to the advertiser. The radio station still has to program a radio station the people want to listen to.

And all my "what if’s" and "how about’s" are predicated on the idea that radio stations must be more than "radio" stations. They’ve got to find a way to survive online. We all do.

If I had a little AM Daytimer (insert joke here), I might fill my air time with excerpts from a wide variety of programming (as local as I could afford to make it) on my website(s).

As for networks and syndicators that rely on getting their programs (commercials) on all those radio stations… their fortunes are tied to the radio stations. To paraphrase the old saw about land, God isn’t making any more 30’s and 60’s. But He/She has an endless supply of web pages.

1,000 $100 advertisers

Posted on by

“Newspapers are losing their own core market because they didn’t understand the scale of the internet. They still thought mass when they should have realized that small is the new big. That is, online, newspapers still threw their lot in with the big advertisers who had been the only ones who could afford their mass products. They didn’t see the mass of potential spending in a new population of small, local advertisers who never could afford to advertise in newspapers but who now could afford to buy targeted, efficient, inexpensive ads online.”

“Even the online sales teams at newspaper companies didn’t how now to sell small; they were — as I once put it in a meeting — putting all their effort into saving the old $100,000 advertiser and saw getting 1,000 $100 advertisers as a distraction. The new-media divisions had already become big and old.” — Buzz Machine

Jeff Jarvis goes on to offer suggestions on how newspapers can generate new, local dollars online:

“Start a new company that makes small, local advertising its sole focus. That means they need to set up automated systems to accept and place highly targeted local ads and directories. That means they need to come up with new means of selling without on-the-street sales staffs: outbound phone sales, direct response, even local sales network (instead of citizen journalists, citizen sales people), making aggressive use of the promotional power of the newspaper while you still have it. That means they need to have lots of targeted local content without large editorial staffs.”

Most sales organizations with which I am familiar are just not wired for this. The math just doesn’t work. It will be interesting to see which traditional media companies are able to make their sales machine work in a New Online World.

Doc: “The only real social networks are personal ones”

Posted on by

So says Doc Searls. I’ve been waiting for someone smarter than I to put into words my “issues” with social networks (Facebook, My Space, etc). The focus of this post is the effort by companies to use social networks for marketing.

“…today’s “social networks” look to me like yesterday’s online services. Remember AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve and the rest? Facebook to me is just AOL done right. Or done over, better. But it’s still a walled garden. It’s still somebody’s private space. Me, I’d rather take it outside, where the conversation is free and open to anybody.”

“…the thing companies need to do most is stop being all “strategic” about how their people communicate. Stop running all speech through official orifices. Some businesses have highly regulated speech, to be sure. Pharmaceuticals come to mind. But most companies would benefit from having their employees talk about what they do. Yet there are still too many companies where employees can’t say a damn thing without clearing it somehow. And in too many companies employees give up because the company’s communications policy is modeled on a fort, complete with firewalls that would put the average dictatorship to shame. If a company wants to get social, they should let their employees talk. And trust them.”

What he said. Truth be told, the company I work for has “highly regulated speech.” And no shortage of good reasons for it, but I agree (with Doc) that we would be stronger if our employees could “talk about what they do.” There’s more to the post than the graphs I pulled. Read it if you’re interested in social networks.