Howard Greenstein's Weblog (Random Thoughts)
The new home of the "Random Thoughts of HowardGr." It even has that "new home page smell..."


Subscribe to "Howard Greenstein's Weblog (Random Thoughts)" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Click on the coffee mug to add Howard Greenstein's Instant Outline to your Radio UserLand buddy list.



  Monday, June 10, 2002

I'm crying for you. Really.

The WSJ reported today (subscription required) that "Music Labels Say it Costs Too Much to Get Songs on Radio." The article discusses the "price to access" program directors and the difference between paying "independent consultants" with "access" to radio stations and the Payola scandals of the 50's and 60's. Curretly, to "compete for the limited number of open slots on pop radio, labels say the typically pay independent promoters from $200,000 to $300,000 per song, and occasionally more than $1 million."  Any wonder why music sounds more and more the same, and comes from fewer and fewer new acts?

The Journal completely missed the irony of this situation. Here the music labels had the largest distribution mechanism ever created - Napster - and sued it out of existence. Now, before you jump to conclusions about music theft, realize that for the cost of just a few pop songs, they could have held an investment in a whole new medium. They could have made some new rules. Worked with some Digital Rights Management technology that made copying hard for most of the world, and written the rest of the copying off to promotion costs.

Additionally, the CARP ruling, when it comes out, may in fact kill Internet Radio, a completely new channel that the record companies should have embraced instead of allowing or encouraging it to die the death of a thousand paper cuts (high pay-per-play fees that give Internet Broadcasters a disincentive to get large audiences.)

So on one hand,

Internet Radio=consumer choice=piracy=low fees for artists=low fees for record companies=bad.

on the other hand

Broadcast Radio=limited choice for consumers=high costs for record companies=high costs for sold music=consumers feel need to pirate songs=bad

I'm skipping some of the logic behind this and I'm sure it bears more discussion, but I'm on a roll...

When I was an evangelist for the Windows Media team, I heard numerous business ideas for distributing music differently than Napster. Often it involved downloading locked tracks to people for distribution in a push model - different than the current PressPlay and MusicNet offerings.  These, I'm sure, are convincing the record companies they've made a mistake in trusting digital distribution - since few people are subscribing. Think about the old "Click Radio" which downloaded locked tracks to your hard drive with ads. The business model (or the amount of spending) wasn't right, but hell, it made for a fun commute with Music in high quality playing off a laptop. There are lots of devices for MP3 and other format playing that could use a similar technical model and still do well, if they made it a business customers wanted. With customer choice in music. Oh, wait, I forgot. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act bars consumer choice. Oh well.

And yet, my CD collection has a diversity it hasn't had since I got a CD player in the late 80's (mostly due to replacing old albums) - because of music I heard online. Yes, I download songs. And I buy music Iike.

And yet, the record companies are stuck bitching and moaning that they have to pay for play on the airwaves, which are by definition a limited resource. Whereas the Internet is a wide open space still ripe (Venture drought aside) for innovation, new business models, and new ways of reaching an audience that is frankly tired of the music being played by radio stations. My wife is a typical consumer in this regard. For mother's day she asked for a car CD player because there's nothing good on the radio anymore. Hello? Opportunity knocking.


10:01:56 AM  comment []    

Because that's what I want to associate my company name with...

The Times reported PwC Consulting announced yesterday that it was renaming itself "Monday" to try to distance itself from its parent, PricewaterhouseCoopers, as it prepared for an initial public offering. It's doing this, according to it's site, to "start fresh." I guess no one told them Sunday was the first day of the week in the Western Calendar, and Saturday night starts the Jewish week. They also want to "Do Good work be courageous get to the core of what really matters don't use punctuation"

In other news, the day Monday announced through a spokesperson that it was considering hiring a branding and identity firm to help prop up it's image. It's considering a nonsense word that doesn't associate it with a real world firm, like "Accenture."

9:39:05 AM  comment []    

Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2002 Howard Greenstein.
Last update: 7/2/2002; 10:31:36 AM.

June 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
May   Jul