Clear Channel Clearly Cills Competition

I know, I know. Kills.

When I interviewed Cal Rifkin, CEO of Breakthru Radio, a couple of months ago, I was primarily concerned with how his internet station had made money. I assumed that it had something to do with ads on their website, but that was exactly the problem: they couldn’t have only stayed afloat from the ads on their website. I must admit, the sponsors were big names like Apple and Continental who were paying for banner space, but that couldn’t have been it for them. They were quite successful, and weren’t broadcasting from the basement of someone’s parents’ house. What was the reason? Well, it turned out that they had been getting those companies to additionally sponsor their shows. For example, a company like Apple would pay to have the DJ say “This show is sponsored by Apple,” etc, etc. And it worked, then, considering who knows what will happen with these danged laws that are set to destroy internet radio.

But the (sometimes) soulless Clear Channel is going to try to do the same thing as a test on 92.5, otherwise known as KZPS, in Dallas, Texas. Instead of having commercials for 16 minutes for every hour of programming (sheesh, it’s really sad that that’s the norm), they’re going to have certain companies sponsor the shows, in the same way that Breakthru had companies sponsor theirs. Their lucky advertisers, Southwest Airlines, Coors, AT&T and Guitar Center, will each be weaved into the show for about two minutes, giving them all the plugs they need to get their money’s worth. This decision comes as a response to the fact that internet radio is growing exponentially (for now), iPod use is rampant, and XM and Sirius are finding a niche in the marketplace. They don’t actually have any commercials on their shows, or at least not in the same way that terrestrial radio does, and Clear Channel is trying to compete with the changing landscape of the industry.

So what does this say about the industry? Listeners are clearly not interested in sitting through advertisements anymore (as if they used to love them). People don’t necessarily have to, either, as they can change the dial as soon as an annoying jingle comes on. Or, as Clear Channel is reacting to it, the radio industry is changing so that they don’t have to have advertisers anymore. Some people figured out that the masses would pay for radio, and that’s all the revenue they’ve needed. Although, considering the lackluster success of satellite radio providers, it hasn’t really been that beneficial yet. But if terrestrial radio doesn’t see a need for change and stays the way that it is, then more and more people will flock to the satellite providers.

But this is a clear indicator that terrestrial radio is taking notes. Clear Channel owns an enormous slice of the terrestrial radio pie, and if this business model succeeds, then terrestrial radio will have more of a benefit over their competitors; they may even be able to completely X ‘em out (little satellite radio joke, please try to bear with me). And this is exactly the type of formatting that listeners want, right? People don’t like having to switch their radio every four or five songs just because it’s time for a commercial break. In fact, I don’t think I know anyone that actually listens to them. If I were forced to sit through them and analyze them, I would pull out my hair after ten minutes. It’s simply too pointless to listen to ads when all you want to hear is music.

The unfortunate aspect of this whole ordeal is the fact that advertisers are going to have to dish out some serious dough to make this all happen. Sure, they get to sponsor an hour of radio time – a dream for any company who wants publicity – but it’s going to come at a much higher cost. Radio stations would be able to jack up the prices as they see fit, and if this all goes according to plan, it may become the norm for companies that don’t hop on this type of bandwagon to be committing advertising suicide. Radio stations would surely take advantage of this, especially ones who are all about the profit (i.e. Clear Channel), and the whole initial purpose – which, I take it, is to compete with other radio formats – would be pointless as advertisers jump ship. They could easily run to internet radio stations and advertise for much cheaper, and as audiences for satellite and internet radio stations are ever-so-rapidly increasing, this may be more lucrative for investors in the long run.

But there may not even be a long run. This type of advertising comes at a time when internet radio is posed to die a slow and painful death. With most internet radio stations stamped out, the remaining net stations would most likely increase their advertising costs as a result of the heavy increase in fines. Advertisers would probably refrain from running to internet stations as they will be seen as risky investments, and the only other options would be satellite and terrestrial radio. So for Clear Channel, this would be a blessing. Advertisers may be forced to advertise on their stations in this way, and may have to cough up a lot of money to do so. Satellite radio may even crumble as a result of this (even though they’re already crumbling now), and terrestrial radio may be the last man standing.

Then again, there’s the option that advertisers will look at overall investment in radio technology as a risky investment. With all sorts of media hoopla about how radio is dying out and how other formats are suffering as well, advertisers may just stick to basic forms of advertising like on television and in magazines and completely ignore radio. This would have to happen after contracts run out, of course, but companies may not be so inclined to renew those legal bindings. I can’t blame them, either. Radio is a dying format altogether, and with this type of move that Clear Channel is making, it is becoming more and more clear that stations are starting to cash in on what they should have done years ago.

Call me pessimistic or call me a realist. This is a clear example of how the radio industry is suffering. This being my last post for this blog and all, I figure I would use this news story as a jump-off point to talk about the industry as a whole. Radio has recently taken some serious hits and people are just getting tired of the industry’s games. The public is still hesitant to pay for radio, internet radio is going to be killed, and terrestrial radio – well, it plainly sucks. I don’t even find myself listening to the radio anymore. I know that there are millions of people who listen to the radio on their way to work, but even they will figure out alternate forms of entertaining themselves along their boring drives to work everyday. iPods are all the rage, and people are going to be gravitating towards them as time goes by. Surely one could argue that people still look to mainstream formats to get the scoop on what’s popular in music, but even that is wearing thin. People don’t have the same trust that they used to in regards to radio, and the industry is suffering because of it.

Where do I see the industry going? I can’t imagine that a format as troubled as this will be able to succeed in the future. No one even pays attention to the radio industry (except for the Imus statements, but that had nothing really to do with radio itself) and the news that is written up about it. Do people really care about it anymore? I don’t think I know one person that listens to it. Then again, I’m in college and we’re a whole different type of music consumer. But really, it’s sad to have written about the radio industry for the past couple of months and seen it only get reported on when something bad happens. And that’s pretty often. Everything is met with skepticism, and nothing ever looks promising. Does that mean that I’m right in my assertions? Who knows. But all I can say, good luck to the radio industry, and thanks for reading. I’m out.

Imusgate Pt. 4: Some Final Thoughts

I swear that this is the last of the Imusgate posts. Maybe. But in all honesty, I believe that it is somewhat ridiculous that there has been nothing else reported on since this whole Imusgate thing began. I have my ways of scouring the ‘net to find stories on radio stations, copyright infractions, etc., but I believe that with this news story, everything has officially come to a standstill. And that’s very sad. No one seems to be giving much thought to the fact that the entire internet radio industry is about to be crushed by legislation that was denied appeal. I already reported about this, and it’s pointless to keep posting about it, since it’s going to inevitably come and no one can stop it. Imus, however, has the media in a frenzy. They have been reporting on him from every single angle that they can, dragging in issues with hip-hop, racism, sexism in society, and a plethora of other issues and entities. This new development has to be the last one, right? I sure hope so. But let’s just see what I’m ranting all about.

Ever since Imus was pulled from the radio, listeners were unable to hear the show because of two facts: Imus wasn’t broadcasting any new ones, and stations weren’t playing old ones. Sounds simple enough. But then I was proved wrong on the latter. KCAA-AM, a small broadcaster in Riverside, California, had been broadcasting the show to their listeners for years. When Imus was taken off of the air, they decided that instead of following in suit like the rest of those corporate sucklings, they were going to play old archived shows and throw in some call-ins and letters about the current situation that Imus is in. CBS caught wind of this and decided to sue the pants off of the station, alleging that the station is violating copyright protection laws. The suit involves a temporary restraining order (?) and $150,000 fines for every violation that occurred. KCAA insisted that they were only trying to “educate the public,” as their attorney put it. But as a result of this, KCAA agreed to air the tapes until April 27, when they would destroy all of the previous recordings.

So what does this exactly mean in the scope of Imusgate? I have to say that the part about wanting to “educate the public” is far from what they initially intended to do. Clearly, the radio station attempted to capitalize on the controversy and get more listeners, which, as a result, would allow them to boost the amount of money that they can charge advertisers. While I was aware from the start that the media would exploit this story in every possible way, I must admit that I’m truly saddened by the fact that radio stations would attempt to profit from the situation. Hiding behind the excuse of wanting to “educate the public” is a legal tactic, and is obviously not what the station intended to do at all. As a result, they have to deal with fines galore, which they undoubtedly should as a result of their immorality.

But while this is basically an isolated incident, this says a lot about the overall state of terrestrial radio and their inability to get listeners to stay tuned in. Do stations really have to revert to exploiting the biggest thing to hit radio in years in order to keep people listening? Can’t they find ways to boost profit by any other means? Apparently not. Stations are finding that the less edgy and controversial their programming is, the fewer listeners are going to tune in to hear what’s playing. As a result, people are caring less and less about terrestrial radio and depending more on other mediums for entertainment. Does this specific incident point to the fact that radio stations are becoming sleazier for more profit and listeners? Not exactly, considering the fact that payola has been a constant in the industry for years. This signifies the lengths that radio stations will go to inflate their profits, which should definitely be faced with the type of fines that are currently pending.

So in conclusion to this (relatively) shorter post than others, I must say that things have really been drawn out in this whole Imusgate affair. The man apologized and recognized that he was wrong. Everyone’s dropped their opinion on the matter. Hip-hop has suffered some serious blows for this man’s behavior. Isn’t it enough that peoples’ careers were destroyed? The debates about racism and sexism shouldn’t end, obviously, but it’s time to stop dragging Imus’ name into them. Radio stations should be focusing on improving their content rather than exploiting controversies. All of these are just a few suggestions to make the world a better place and some observations about how out-of-hand this has all become. So for the next post, which will be the last of this blog, don’t expect me to talk about Imus. I’m sick of him. Gosh.

Imusgate Part 3: Hip-Hop As A Scapegoat

Thanks, Marsh. Someone Agrees.

This has all gone too far and gotten way out of hand. Imus made his over-hyped “nappy-headed ho’s” comment, and the media proceeded with a snowstorm of coverage. Imus was kicked off of the air after advertisers pulled out funding, met with the Rutgers basketball team who forgave him, and went into hiding to avoid all of this negative media coverage. He knows what he did was wrong and has apologized already, yet the media keeps milking the story until there will be nothing left to cover. But despite the media making him look like he was the first person on the radio to make a racist comment, the main aspect of the situation that angered me was not the fact that he made the comment to begin with. I already knew Imus was a moron, and I did not listen to his show because of my previous experiences of listening to him with disgust. I knew something would come along and knock him out, and it came in the form of a racist comment. I think racism is disgusting, but aside from that, this situation has been used to target one of my true and innocent loves: hip-hop.

The latest development in Imusgate is that program director Helen Little of WWPR-FM, otherwise known as Power 105.1 FM (one of two hip-hop stations in New York City), talked to the NY Daily News about their station’s reaction to this behavior. She announced that her station is going to be removing any songs from their programming that have misogynistic and degrading lyrics in them. I will allow her quotes to do the work: “The station won’t sound that different, because we weren’t playing a lot of that anyway”; “What we are doing is holding labels and artists accountable”; “Let’s not get it twisted… What Imus said has nothing to do with hip-hop”; “We are not saying you can’t make the music. [We just] won’t play it.” Why should rappers have to change their lyrics just because Imus is an idiot? Why should they be punished? That’s just reallocating the blame, and it’s completely unfair.

Now take a deep breath. If this angers you as much as it does to me, then we’re on the same page. For something like Imus’ racist remark to cause this type of response is absolutely ludicrous. Hip-hop culture has come under intense scrutiny in the wake of this fiasco, with Rev. Al Sharpton lambasting rappers for talking about “ho’s” and degrading females in their songs. Sharpton is accusing rappers of making this type of talk repeatable by people like Imus, and blames them for simply talking about what they know and incorporating aspects of their culture into their music. Rappers aren’t specifically targeting women and degrading them in their music; it’s just part of the culture. That’s no excuse for them saying it, but when a rapper like Jay-Z says the word “ho” or “bitch” in his rhymes, he’s not intentionally putting down women. These words are merely the tools of a culture with which to make music. Since that is how hip-hop culture evolved, and if millions of people love it and live for it regardless, then hip-hop is just like any other culture: it will negatively affect a minority of those involved, and the rest will take it as it is. Hip-hop culture has always been under fire for its existence, but it only gets this type of attention when a white radio host makes a joke in poor taste.

I’ll get back to the issue of hip-hop in the crosshairs another time, but let’s first look at what would happen if Power 105 practiced what it preached. Now, I’m merely guessing that half of its programming would disappear. Basing this projection on the top-10 most played songs and combing their site, I am absolutely correct in that assertion. This is because almost half of the songs are by men, and the other half are by women. Now, if a woman says something like “ho” or “bitch,” then clearly it’s ok. But as for the men? Well, the only ones that will still make the cut will be wussy R&B singers like Robin Thicke and Ne-Yo. So say goodbye to Diddy, Mims, R. Kelly, and Chris Brown. All of them are treating women like objects in their songs and videos, and Power 105 will simply not have any of it (only unless the artists go back into the studio and record the songs so that they praise women).

Am I being unrealistic in my projections, or is Power 105 being ridiculously P.C. about this whole event? They do not need to change their programming because of a bad comment made by a bad radio personality. Power is one of the two radio stations in the New York area that plays hip-hop, and for one of them to scale back their programming on account of a totally tangential incident is way too political and selfish. Are they purposely attempting to isolate their listeners by abstaining from playing the top hits? How do they plan on accomplishing this censorship? To base your station around hip-hop and cut out some of its most prominent artists is hypocritical. You cannot call yourself a hip-hop radio station unless you play what artists should be played, even if there is payola involved. By chopping out some of their most successful artists, their station is basically doing something that will further isolate listeners from terrestrial radio stations. After all, no one wants to just hear Mary J. Blige and Robin Thicke all the time. Sometimes, yes, but always, no. Radio needs musical personalities, and those shining stars usually take the form of the Mims’s and R. Kelly’s. It’s their edginess that rakes us in. But if the station wants to be run by hypocrites, then let them dig their own graves.

But I’m not going to just let that end there… What do you take me for? Next comes the discussion of what to do about the old school rap hits. What about those old school artists? Say goodbye to any record by the Notorious B.I.G. Don’t get your hopes up that an old Jay-Z track will ever make it on the radio. Remember “Big Pimpin’?” Jay will be pimpin’ no more. And au revoir Tupac, while we’re at it. Do you see what I’m getting at here? This type of action is whitewashing over hip-hop’s history for the sake of a watered-down and boring future. And this is all because Imus said “nappy-headed ho’s,” right? Wow. The media has a very, very, very powerful effect on today’s society, and it’s terribly unfortunate that hip-hop had to be the one to take the brunt.

The overall lesson in this situation is that Imus should not have been such a racist. We all know that. But hip-hop is not what caused Imus to make that remark. The term “ho” has been around since the 1960’s, according to my roommate’s slang dictionary. The New York Times even used the word back then. And just to connect the dots for all of you, hip-hop wasn’t around during that time. It wasn’t even in its baby stages. So if you’re going to blame hip-hop for inspiring Imus to use the term “nappy-headed ho’s,” then you really should be blaming the people that invented the word in the first place. After all, it was those people who made the word available for hip-hop artists to use it in their songs. So cheers, blame-game. Hip-hop has yet again taken the heat for a comment that had nothing to do with hip-hop. Now, New York City has to be subjected to “So Sick” by Ne-Yo for eternity. Thanks a lot, Imus.

Google-icious

Google Knows That I Go To School Somehwere Near There.

I remember the good ol’ days when search engines were all the rage, just getting their feet off of the ground. I used to use Altavista (that was my favorite, for some unexplainable reason), Yahoo, even Ask Jeeves (I know, I know, I was young and naïve) every once in a while. But something happened in my adolescence in regards to my internet searches, something that crept up on me without my conscious recognition: I started to use Google for all of my internet searches. It was a gradual transition, and I left all of my internet-scouring friends, specifically Jeeves, behind. Google offered something that was much more than an Internet search engine; it was a lifestyle. I could just hop on to Google, type in something like my brother’s band’s name, and would know that all of the returned searches would be wonderful and diverse. The links were plentiful and spot-on. Google gave it all to me and accordingly won my heart, as well as gained the knowledge of what I searched for (but we’ll just keep that between Google and me).

But then everyone began to trust Google, and the California-based company started to make some money as advertisers flocked to them. Google became a multi-billion dollar corporation in just a few years, all because people like me were having the search engine look all over the internet for any topic. Then, Google began to spread into areas other than its remarkable search engine, snatching up popular blog site Blogger, mapping out the world with Google Maps, and staving out a whole lot of other internet go-to sites, making almost all of its money on advertising. So it’s with my pleasure to bring to you a discussion (rant?) on their latest joint venture into the world of radio, and my thoughts on it. Ready? Let’s do it.

Just for a little background information, last Friday, Google acquired Double-Click in a $3.1 billion deal. That’s a lot of dough for a company you’ve probably never heard of, but it’s a big deal, considering that companies like Microsoft and AT&T were vying for it. I hadn’t heard of it either, but apparently, the deal was meant to “combine DoubleClick's expertise in ad management technology for media buyers and sellers with Google's advertising platform and publisher monetization services” (thanks, LeClaire). In other words, Google wanted the best help in managing online advertisements, so they purchased a company that would help them do it. But as of today, Google will be venturing into offline ads in its freshly-announced agreement with Clear Channel. In the agreement, Google will basically act as a mediator in getting companies’ advertisements onto one of Clear Channel’s 675 radio stations (they have 1,200, just for the record). Google plans to specifically focus on companies that only advertise on the internet, and get those ads on one of CC’s stations in a 30-second slot.

The deal was struck as a “multiyear” agreement, whatever that means, and was settled for an undisclosed amount of money. Google will account for 5% of all of the ads on Clear Channel stations, and will even get the coveted morning time slots for which some companies would cut off limbs. This will all be done through Google Audio Ads, which will be an easy-to-use online interface where typically online advertisers will get these special slots. Google Audio Ads is based on the technology that the company purchased last year from dMarc Broadcasting for $1 billion. Basically, Google will get a cut of the deals that are made between advertisers and Clear Channel. From my understanding, they will act as radio real estate brokers, selling time slots that are “put on the market” by Clear Channel. The ads will be placed on stations that fit into their target demographic and location, making everyone in the situation a winner.

Maybe I’m just biased for Google to succeed, and am completely blind to the fact that Google is an evil corporation (I know those of you who believe that are putting on your “rant” hats). But I’m team Google in this regard, for the fact that Clear Channel needed this type of deal to save their company from dying. If you didn’t know, Clear Channel was feared to be losing a ton of money, and was trying to get rid of its stations by individually selling them off. With this deal in place, they can have more advertising come from new companies that had not been previously able to advertise on their stations. Clear Channel may be an evil corporation, for the fact that it has such a high stake in the radio industry, but it’s a business that provides free entertainment to the masses, and you can’t argue with that. Sure, the radio industry may be different without Clear Channel, but if they weren’t around, then another company would be in its place, doing much more evil deeds.

Also, Google could make way for less ad time on the radio. Since the ads will be 30-seconds long, there may be less time taken to play the same amount of ads. Sure, they could easily pull a fast one and fill up the same amount of commercial time with more short ads, but that may seem unlikely. That’s one of the reasons that Clear Channel was failing in the first place: people were getting tired of having to listen to tons and tons of commercials, flipping the channels whenever they came on. As a result, advertisers were pulling their ads from the stations, as they were a waste of money, and Clear Channel was suffering on the profit front. By reaching a previously unreachable demographic in terms of companies on the internet who did not advertise on terrestrial radio, Clear Channel may get more money and manage to keep themselves afloat.

The only people that may be against this deal are the people who believe that there is enough advertising on the radio already, and are P.O.’d that stations that seem to play more ads than music will have even more ads. I am definitely against this factor, but if it’s going to help terrestrial radio stay afloat in a changing industry, then I’m all for it. I’m not one who likes to see dramatic changes, and I surely don’t want to be forced into purchasing an internet radio receiver or a satellite radio subscription (I pray that day never comes), so if having terrestrial available whenever I feel like listening to it, I don’t mind putting up with more advertisements. That’s what the tuning dial is meant for, right? Once they start popping up on your favorite station, it’s time to go channel surfing.

So will this deal have a negative effect on the industry? Probably not. In fact, it will help it. Terrestrial radio has significantly gone down in terms of excellence over the past 20 years, as the quality of music has gotten worse, payola has increased, independent artists are increasingly ignored, among many other negative factors. But plenty of people still listen to the radio, especially the younger generation that is stuck with a music video-less MTV and the working class that doesn’t have iPods or CD players, simply relying on their free radio for entertainment. If shorter ads are put on the radio by Google, there may be more money coming in for the failing Clear Channel, more profit for Google for being the middleman, more income for the advertiser for putting their ad on a station through Google, and possibly a less significant amount of time where ads are being played on stations. Does everyone win? Most likely not. But at least Google may help breathe life into a dying form of entertainment, and you can’t hate them for that.

Imusgate Pt. 2

*Shudder*

I suppose it is in poor taste to blog about the same issue twice in a row, but the entire world of radio is focused on Imusgate, and I must roll with the punches. So to do some catch-up, Imus was suspended from his show for two weeks, apologized for his remarks on Al Sharpton’s radio show, and shifted into a mode of self-deprecation by saying that his statements went “way too far.” Whether or not you agree that statements like “nappy-headed hos” are offensive, Imus has come under fire in a big way, regardless of his comedic intentions. Unanswerable questions have been brought up: Is Imus a racist? Wasn’t he just acting in jest? Is everyone taking this a bit too seriously? These questions are the foundation for the media blitz that is Imusgate, and where there are racist accusations to be made, the media is sure to follow.

But enough of re-cap and semantics. It’s time to discuss the specifics of the punishment. Imus was suspended for two full weeks, meaning that the station will lose a significant amount of listeners during that time. As a result, sponsors are going to waste money on ads that won’t reach the public’s ear-holes. When I called for FCC punishment in the previous post, I meant to say that Imus should get fined, not suspended. By suspending him and mucking up relations with the show’s sponsors, the station is basically hurting themselves by putting advertisement/station relations on the rocks. And the ads have already been pulled by unnamed companies, causing the station and show to fiscally suffer for the next couple of weeks.

A couple of weeks may not seem like a lot of time in the grand scheme of radio, but it will surely have a heavy impact. What makes advertisers so willing to put their ads back on the morning show? They probably won’t, for the fact that Imus may blurt out another racist comment and put another nail in his career coffin. Advertisers have to be absolutely positive that there is an audience listening that will potentially purchase their product, and if people are switching their stations and abandoning the show like a bunch of lemmings, then no one will want to sponsor the show at all. As this downward spiral occurs, Imus will gradually be fazed out as he becomes the kiss of death for anyone who touches the show. (Update: MSNBC dropped the simulcast of his show. Bonus points for predicting the future?)

Am I just being overly pessimistic? I suppose, considering that morning show hosts like Star and Bucwild on Hot97 were fired for disrespectful segments and were then moved to a competitor station where they were equally successful. The same thing may happen to Imus, for all I know, but what I do know is that he is stooped in hot water. And if that means that the station has to be punished as a side-effect from his suspension, then I hold them equally responsible. This move was clearly meant to maintain some sort of good image in the eyes of America, and while Imus is off meeting with the Rutgers basketball team and chilling with Al Sharpton, the station is at fault for putting him there. They may not have had any other choice, but at the end of the day, they’re only hurting themselves on top of bruising their trash-talking host.

Imusgate

Imus vs. America

When you tune into Don Imus’ “Imus in the Morning,” his morning talk show on WFAN, you basically accept the fact that he’s going to be a horrid P.C. disaster. So when a countless number of commuters flipped their dials to his morning show last Wednesday, they basically knew what they were in for. Imus is prone to controversy, as his history has been rich in it. Booze, cocaine, radio suspensions… you name it, he’s probably been there. He has been often accused of racism, sexism, homophobia and a whole other lot of isms, and there is accuracy in all of those brandings. And people love him because of all of those faults. Imus always has a lot to say, and whatever comes to mind is what comes out of his mouth. That’s what defines a true radio personality: someone who can make a statement that both entertains one person and offends another.

But listeners got an earful last Wednesday when Imus crossed the politically correct boundary. When talking on a conference call about the Rutgers female basketball team and their loss to Tennessee by 13 points, Imus made some disparaging remarks about them, calling them “rough girls” because they had “tattoos,” and continued by calling them “hardcore ho’s” and “nappy-headed ho’s.” The man on the other end of the phone referred to it as relative to the Spike Lee film Do the Right Thing, calling it a game played by the “jigaboos versus the wanabees.” Well, they eased themselves off of the subject, and continued as if nothing had happened (watch and listen here).

The media and listeners were not so unforgiving. A plethora of letters was sent to the station requesting his dismissal from radio, and dozens of articles were published about his racist remarks. The head coach of the Rutgers team, C. Vivian Stringer, issued the following statement: “To serve as a joke of Mr. Imus in such an insensitive manner creates a wedge and makes light of the efforts of these classy individuals, both as women and as women of color. It is unfortunate Mr. Imus sought to tarnish Rutgers' spirit and success.” The NCAA president, Myles Brand, and the Rutgers University president, Richard L. McCormick, issued the following joint statement: “The NCAA and Rutgers University are offended by the insults on MSNBC's Don Imus program toward the 10 young women on the Rutgers basketball team. It is unconscionable that anyone would use the airways to utter such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished much and deserve great credit.”

Imus decided to blanket the fire by issuing an apology, which stated that he regrets his choice of words and apologized to the ladies for his disrespectful remarks. MSNBC, his parent organization, also issued an apology on his behalf. But people still are not having it. Al Sharpton is all over media outlets, condemning Imus for his statements and demanding his dismissal. Letters are still flooding the inbox of the station demanding Imus’ removal as a disc jockey. People are really upset over this whole debacle, all because of a thirty second segment on the show where Imus made some ridiculous comments in true on-air personality form: shocking some and entertaining others. That’s what he was supposed to do, right? Isn’t that what makes a great disc jockey?

In this case, no one seemed entertained. Or, at least, some were entertained but don’t want to stick up for Imus because they don’t want to get pulled into the situation. I’m not one to condone racist remarks, because it signifies ignorance and overall stupidity, but this brings in the matter of both the FCC and their legitimacy. Like all of my other posts, I tend to criticize the FCC for laying low when it comes to serious matters and going after stations when not-so-serious issues occur. But this is a prime example, and they must be recognized as they happen.

The FCC is meant to control content on radio for the sake of America. By censoring stations and issuing fines, the FCC maintains a certain level of morality that is meant to be the set example for America and its citizens. After all, censorship is meant for the good of everyone. By setting a moral standard, society can have governed ethical rules to follow, thereby protecting the integrity of everyone and making our society a better entity. When someone makes racist remarks on the radio that are glaringly offensive, something should be done about it. Why bother censoring curses and letting racism slide when racism is equally as bad, possibly worse?

Of course, it all boils down to politics. Like detailed in the film Private Parts, which is an adaptation of Howard Stern’s autobiography, people tune in to Imus for the same reasons that they tune in to Stern: they want to hear what he is going to say next. When listeners tune in to Imus, they want to be offended, surprised or entertained, most likely a combination of all three. And he has an enormous listening audience. Why would the FCC want to crush a personality that has such a large audience that help keep terrestrial radio afloat? They wouldn’t, and they don’t. This is a clear-cut example of when action should be taken. Imus is great and all, and he would not have gotten so far if it were not for his shock value, but even big stars are vulnerable. Imus should be vulnerable as well.

But he isn’t. The FCC is going to let the situation slide for the benefit of terrestrial radio. Should they let it slide? You could argue that the statements were not so offensive and that people should care about much worse things in the world, but that would not be with the majority. Most people agree that this was completely inappropriate, and it was, and action should be taken. But like how the FCC will fine a college radio station for letting a curse word slip on the air, they would surely refrain from fining a station when the situation is not so blatantly offensive. Does this system of governance work well for America? Judging by how the FCC lets racism like this slide without punishment, it’s no wonder that Americans are still filled with hate. Without the proper regulation, some might think that hatred is acceptable, and will never learn otherwise. It all boils down to whether we should blame Imus or blame the FCC for promoting intolerance. And if I presented the facts correctly enough, then you should all know who’s really at fault right now.

God Shed His Grace On Thee

Forcing Censored Content.

It’s appropriate to do some follow-up in the case of specific radio news. Remember a while back, when Jennifer Strange died from water intoxication, after she participated in a contest on the radio station KDND-FM? The story is described in this post (or you can scroll down), but just to give you a refresher, Strange participated in a contest in which the grand prize was a Nintendo Wii. The contest, appropriately titled “Hold Your Wee for a Wii,” required that contestants drink an 8-ounce bottle of water every 15 minutes, and then switch to a 16-ounce bottle every ten minutes, without vomiting or urinating. Strange held out for a long time, trying to win the Wii for her three children by drinking two gallons, but eventually settled on Justin Timberlake tickets when she realized that she could not continue. When she got home, she died from water intoxication on her bathroom floor, only to be found by her mother several hours later.

So there are developments in the story. The district attorney of Sacremento, California, is not filing any criminal charges in the suit that was filed by her widower and children on January 25, shortly after her death. The Sacremento County DA, Jan Scully, stated that there would be no charges due to the fact that Strange had been aware of the dangers in participating in the contest and that she had shown no apparent signs of danger. This holds up, if you’ve listened to the audio clip of the show. Strange only complained of being lightheaded, which doesn’t really foreshadow what actually happened. But on top of that, the eight employees were informed about a case in a fraternity hazing where a boy died from over-consumption of water, giving them fair warning about the dangers of excessive water binging. They still held the contest, and Strange really wanted that Wii. Can you blame her? She wanted to give the most unattainable piece of technology to her kids, and was willing to put herself through hell to do it. That’s what I call a real mother.

But the after effects are so much worse. Strange died. The entire morning staff were immediately fired. The kids were left without a mother. This was some serious stuff. But where was the FCC in all of this? It’s sad to have to relate this tragedy back to radio, but it’s really an opportune time to address the FCC’s agenda. Why wouldn’t they fine the station? The family sent the FCC a letter that asked them to revoke the station’s license. Yea, that’s really harsh, but that’s what constitutes responsibility. They should be punished. But alas, the FCC refrained from doing anything. Absolutely no fine has been issued, and no action has been taken against the station to make them pay (literally and metaphorically) for what they had done. Why wouldn’t the FCC do something? Let’s probe what they have always and recently done to exercise their power.

The FCC has always been a stickler for swears on the radio. Someone apparently has to do it, and since America is so unnecessarily filled with censorship, the FCC has taken on that role. Reviled for their rigidities, the FCC issues massive (we’re talking hundreds of thousands of dollars) fines for a little swear. An example of their iron-grip control over television came when Janet Jackson was exposed during her Superbowl performance in 2004. I remember watching it and thinking “Meh, not that big a deal,” but then came the bad press. And the FCC. The government organization ended up fining CBS $225,000 for the incident. That’s nothing for CBS, but in the real world, the FCC had fined what some people would not be able to make in two lifetimes. I call it unnecessarily harsh. And more recently, the FCC has been exercising their control over internet radio, raising payments that have to be made in order for the stations to operate with morality for their played artists. Even if that means making most stations go out of business. But as long as everyone is being treated properly, then it doesn’t matter.

So why are they suddenly holding back when it seems that this is the perfect opportunity to exercise their fining capabilities? Strange’s death doesn’t need to be avenged, but action should be taken to make sure that something like this never happens again. And the FCC is the only one who can do it. My speculation on the situation is that they don’t want to put an FM station out of business that gives them tons of money each year (the station is quite popular in its broadcasting range). The more people that listen, the more money they dish to the organization, and since the FCC basically exists to extract fines (ok, and maybe keep social morals and ethics intact), they wouldn’t want to hurt a station that forks over cash each month.

This is all unfair. As I come to the end of this post, you have to wonder: is it moral for the FCC to refrain from fining when it should occur, and fine when it really shouldn’t? This type of backwards business is a cramp in America’s side. The FCC is just a gray government organization, and without giving reasons for their actions, they’re only going to get more people that hate them. No wonder other countries don’t respect us; our government is way too political to make our citizens upstanding. Everything is done behind closed doors, and not enough is done to impose a proper sense of morality to the people of our country. Ugh.

Strange’s family plans on filing civil action lawsuits against the radio station’s parent company, Entercom, who they felt was responsible from the start. Their family deserves to get money over any government organization, even though money doesn’t equal happiness. It supports the idea that people should be treated with respect when they are wronged, especially when an innocent death could have been avoided. If our country was based more on that principle, rather than making our pockets fatter, then a heightened sense of morality would spread to more people and our country might gain some respect. But until an organization like the FCC realizes that they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, we’re basically stuck living in a land where people can dangle steaks on a fishing pole in front of a starving dog and watch them struggle to get it, all for the sake of entertainment.

With My Mind On My Money, and My Money On This Receiver

Together At Last

Wow, the future is here. First we got terrestrial radio, even though that was ages and ages ago. So we were spoiled from the start. But then came a flurry of additional options in no specific order: satellite radio, internet radio, FM/AM delivered to our cell phones and Walkmans, among a plethora of other options. I suppose that society has been too fortunate with all of these technological innovations, but that’s how society runs. We deserve it, after all, to get all of the benefits of cutting edge media that is developed. We worked hard for it. No thank you’s needed, right? Leave it up to the big dogs (scientists) to figure things out for us.

Well, let me be the first to say, thank you. There, I feel like I’ve finally earned my Sirius stripes. Now, I can begin to discuss the newest technological innovation to come our way in the world of radio. We all knew it was coming, and it’s finally going to arrive come April: internet in a car. AutoNet, a company that is teaming up with Avis rental cars, plans to put a Wi-Fi receiver in every rental car that Avis has. The receiver plugs conveniently into your cigarette lighter (sorry to all you smokers out there) and is about the size of a book. It broadcasts a signal throughout your car, in addition to a little beyond it, allowing you to check your e-mail, download that hot MP3 you just heard on your favorite FM station, and even watch a streaming music video, all while driving your car (safety isn’t the issue here, folks). But while this will do wonders for all, it is going to significantly affect how people listen to the radio. Let’s investigate.

AutoNet prides itself on the fact that it can swing from high-speed internet streams to low-speed ones without having to buffer or stutter. And that does wonders for the average internet radio listener; I can’t tell you how many times I’ve shouted at my computer screen for buffering right when whatever I’m watching/listening to is about to get good. The whole point of the product is to make the internet available to you on-the-go, and it could forever change the world of radio for the fact that internet radio can only be listened to on the computer. This will cut out the stationary computer and allow internet radio to be received almost anywhere. And since the company prides its product on its ability to broadcast outside of the car to a certain range, that means you’ll be able to pull over to the grassy meadow on your road trip across the American terrain and stream the latest Fergie album, all while taking in the beauty of the wheat fields. Basically, technology and nature will finally (and peacefully) coexist.

But I’m not planning on buying it anytime soon. Sure, it’s a great deal for people who are renting their cars from Avis, but that’s only for businessmen and people visiting other states or cities for a short period of time. To activate the service in the Avis rental, you have to pay $10.95 a day to make your car a Wi-Fi hotspot. Doesn’t sound like too much if you’re going to be driving all day and would like to be able to check your e-mail at all times. But I’ve never even rented a car. Granted, I’m not old enough (25 years old is a ways away) to rent one, but if I were 25, I would probably never do it. I don’t have a reason. And like me, many people don’t rent cars unless they have to, which is seldom to rare on the frequency scale.

If you want this in your car permanently, though, you have to fork over a smidgen more. $399 just to buy the receiver, then $49.95 per month for unlimited data (shaving off a dollar and five cents makes it seem cheaper, but don’t let it fool you; it’s $400 and $50). That’s a lot. The internet in my apartment didn’t even cost that much. And our monthly plan is $20 cheaper. So what’s the benefit? Well, you get the internet in your car. Ok, that is kind of cool. But as it relates to the blog, I have to talk about internet radio. This will make internet radio so much easier to get, and will make it much more of a commodity. Internet radio stations will have a reason to charge listeners, rather than give it away for free. This equals $$ for them, which is great, considering some don’t even make a dime. But there are downsides, as there always are.

The receiver claims to be able to swing from high- to low-speed internet without breaking the stream. But you have to consider the fact that not everywhere is a hot-spot for Wi-Fi. In fact, there are very few places that have streaming Wi-Fi. And even in those places, they don’t have every single piece of land covered; the stream goes in and out, and you have to be in the right place. So if I’m listening to Breakthru Radio in my car while driving through a town that has Wi-Fi capabilities everywhere, I’ll most likely enjoy it for the span of time it takes to cross the city. But once I’m out, so is the signal. Get my drift? You wouldn’t be able to get it all. So there’s flaw #1.

#2 is a bit on the speculative side. Since internet radio stations are currently under fire from Congress (see post below), the stations may not even be able to stick around much longer. Congress will be able to prove that it’s unfair for them to give music away for free when their artists should be getting royalty payments. Just another reason to put the stations under. Plus, everyone will soon want to put out a station. Competition will ensue, people will give up, and internet radio will probably be dominated by a select few (who will most likely end up getting purchased by Google… they own it all). With these obstacles in place, internet radio will become a sure target. And these receivers will only stand in the way of their freedom.

If this does succeed, though, and internet radio becomes a hit in the car, it could significantly impact the radio industry. Terrestrial radio listeners are mostly endemic to cars, since drivers have nothing else to listen to while they drive. Now they can have so many more options, and won’t have to succumb to satellite radio’s pressuring. And it’s a fair deal. Just like society deserves more choices in technology, people deserve more choices in what they listen to. And if AutoNet manages to grab, say, a million customers who want internet in their cars, then they might be onto something, and if internet radio benefits, then I say let’s make it popular. After all, I could be blogging from my car by the end of this month. So keep checking in… I’ll let you know how it’s going on my trip from New York to California, and I’ll be sure to sign each blog entry with the addition of the station I’m tuned into. Sounds good? See you on the highway, both information super and other kind.

The Death of Internet Radio

Where All The Evil Happens

There’s a new bad-boy in town, and it’s the Library of Congress. In the recent onslaught of suits and laws that target radio, the LOC’s Copyright Royalty Board is attacking internet radio for not paying enough royalties for the music that they play. Their reason (excuse)? The new rates will “better align the per stream compensation performing artists and record labels received from the digital play of their music with the fair market value of their work.” In other words, the legislation wants to equate the quality of the music with its monetary counterpart. Because we all know that when we listen to a song on our iPods or CD players that we think of it in terms of money. After all, music is money for some people. But those people have no soul or emotion.

So does that mean that the Library of Congress has no soul? It seems so, according to an example of what would happen to a station if this bill was enacted. National Public Radio (NPR), who has taken the strongest stance against this issue (and, surprisingly, Clear Channel has taken a firm opposition as well) by filing a rehearing report, says that an internet radio station typically pays 12% of their annual earnings to this board. The example that they gives involves AccuRadio, who made a total of $400,000 in revenues last year. Now, since the CRB requires the stations to cough up 12%, the station forked over $48,000 last year. That’s a lot, considering they need money to get DJs to fill their 320 channels with music. With the new laws, the station would have to pay $600,000 in royalty rates. Now let’s do the math… They make $400,000 and pay $600,000. Sounds like bankruptcy to me.

And it also sounds like bankruptcy to all of the internet stations that have caught wind of this. To put it in perspective, every station already has. With this new law in place, internet radio would surely shrivel up and die, with no other way to make money. What’s further ludicrous about this change in laws is that internet stations would be paying 400% more than FM and AM broadcasters dish out in royalty fees. And the SoundExchange, a royalty collection agency formerly under the umbrella of the RIAA (if you say its name in front of the mirror 10 times in the dark, I hear you get fined), is supporting this legislation wholeheartedly. Granted, they should be protecting the interests of their artists, but come on… Destroy internet radio to do it? There has to be a better way.

Some artists don’t think there is. There have been a couple of musicians that have already spoken out about this, not surprisingly in support of this bill. No, Lars from Metallica isn’t involved this time. Big Star’s (and Smog’s, but we’ll forget that) Jody Stephens is popping up in a couple of articles, saying “If music adds commercial value to someone's site, then there is a monetary value due the writers and recording artists, and that “[t]he decision by the Copyright Royalty Board helps us afford to continue to add this value of music.” Another supporter is Jay Jay French of Twisted Sister (starting to see a trend in what type of artists are in support of the bill?). He said, “With the shrinking royalties from the usual sources, the ever expanding digital universe is apparently becoming the future and, before our very eyes, it is here now. I wholeheartedly support all organizations that endeavor to collect and account to all the hard working artists whose material is exploited. I applaud these new royalty increases as they scratch the surface of the new world order."

Wow. Eloquently put. But let’s think of it this way. Jay Jay French’s royalties are “shrinking,” as he put it, but when was the last time his group came out with an album? According to my sources, 2006 was the year that they released the horrible, horrible Twisted Christmas, and before that, the only original release was in 1987. So yeah, obviously he’d be wanting more cash flow, since his band hasn’t come out with a selling record in 20 years. He does deserve money for when his music gets played, but he shouldn’t be attacking radio to get it. He should be pestering his record label and his publishers, not promoting the death of internet radio. The same goes for Jody Stephens. Big Star’s last studio release was in 2005, and before that was 1978. So that’s what, two albums in the past 39 years? Of course these artists are going to complain. They don’t have enough to ride on, and want to suck the money out of current technological institutions.

What the artists don’t understand is that these station are bringing their tunes to the current generation of tech-savvy youth that depends on internet radio. The youthful generations are the ones tuned in, and without those stations playing artists like Big Star and Twisted Sister, they may never even know that the bands exist. Internet radio is so fresh in the world of technology that it’s opening doors to younger generations that understand the technology – some may even depend on it to find new music or be entertained. With this law set into place, there would be no more of it. Internet stations wouldn’t be able to keep up, and would immediately and simultaneously all go under. But it’s all for the sake of Big Star’s Jody Stephens getting a fat check, right?

This is a wholly unjust law. Internet radio isn’t hurting anybody (unless you consider the few people who figured out how to rip MP3s from the broadcasts), and the Library of Congress is going to hurt it as punishment for doing nothing. And since there’s a dramatic unfairness to this all, since FM and AM stations would be paying 400% less than internet stations would in royalty fees, it’s clear that the government is trying to squash internet radio. What are their intentions, you ask? I’m not quite sure. But what I do know is that on Capital Hill sits handfuls of old men who only know about money and nothing else. If they see a company making money and giving more than 1/10 of its earnings, they’re going to want more. And even though organizations have heatedly spoken out against this, Congress could care less.

So here’s what you can do about it. If you love internet radio and don’t want to see it squashed after starting up in just the past 10 years, then you can go here (SaveNetRadio.org) for more information, or sign a petition here (34,000+ signatures at the moment). Sure, it may not be doing much, but I know you all don’t want to whip out your stationary and write to your Congressman (even though you could, but I know you won’t, you’re lazy like I am). I guess all we can do for now is just hope that Congress will have a change of heart (if they even have one), and keep internet radio alive. But if not, then prepare to see a whole ‘lotta webspace open up.

Strap On Your Legal Boots, XM

Psh, Lame Logo, NMPA.

The National Music Publishers Association. Definitely not as scary-sounding as the RIAA or FCC, and at least it doesn’t cause bouts of physical pain when mentioned. But for XM, the NMPA may soon be added to that list of acronyms that incite such terror. In the midst of attempting to merge with Sirius, XM is now being sued for their service called XM + MP3, which the NMPA sees as a big no-no in the world of music publishing. The service is made exclusive to XM subscribers, and allows its users to download songs that are being streamed to a certain portable music player (of the devices mentioned, Pioneer was the only one that appeared to be capable of holding this music). The motto of the XM service is “Hear It, Click It, Save It!” (yes, the exclamation point is in their catchy tagline… *shudder*), and users can do just that. But there’s a catch: the music is protected with DRM that prevents the music from being removed from the device, and once the user stops paying XM for their subscription, the music is automatically deleted.

So what’s got the NMPA all hot and bothered? The Association claims that XM is offering this service without paying any royalty fees, and that they are taking advantage of technology to offer a service that detracts from record sales and artist revenue. True, but this seems like an attempt to capitalize on the success of their business and to stick their foot in the door when XM is trying to manage a $13 billion merge. XM claims that they already pay millions of dollars in royalty payments, which is true, but it does seem a bit unfair that they would offer such a service without having worked out a previous deal with music publishers. Let’s investigate.

Publishing is where the money’s at in the record industry. If you write a song, you get the biggest cut of the royalty check. If you produce a song, you get less money, but you get more than the artist gets. So in protecting their members, NMPA is only trying to do their clients right. On the other hand, one could argue that they’re just money-hungry infidels. They’re asking for $150,000 for every song that is offered, and they list 175 songs – just a fraction of the total number of songs that are part of the service. If XM was forced to pay up for just the 175 songs alone, they would be coughing up $26,250,000, not to mention legal fees. But the NMPA is going for much more than 175 songs… They want it all.

To see it from the other side, XM is only trying to offer a service that is an add-on to the main attraction of streaming radio. Sure, it’s a pretty good feature, but it has drawbacks that work in XM’s favor: the music is only endemic to a special MP3 player and is deleted after the subscription ends. It’s almost like listening to radio on demand; and, to boot, it’s just like music downloading services that allow infinite downloads for a monthly subscription. So where’s the foul? The NMPA claims that XM isn’t paying any money to do what they’re doing. Let’s take the analogous Netflix service to compare. Netflix offers customers 3 movies at a time for a set price each month, and the service ends when the customers stop paying. Netflix pays the rights to be able to rent those movies out and make a profit. Now let’s consider how XM is doing the same thing, yet is not paying the rights to dole out the music. Doesn’t sound fair in that regard, huh? That’s because it isn’t, depending on how you look at it.

So there’s two sides to every tale. NMPA wants XM to cough up, but are they right in claiming that they should get money, or are they just gold diggers? XM claims that it’s fair, considering no music is being legitimately pirated, but shouldn’t they be paying the company whose clients provide XM with the music that their service is based on? Depending on how you look at it, the NMPA is right and XM is wrong, or vice versa. And that’s why this is a tricky situation. In my opinion, I would say that XM should have arranged a deal in the first place with NMPA so that they could do whatever they wanted with the music, and prematurely avoided confrontations like this. XM isn’t necessarily doing anything wrong, considering they already pay huge (we’re talking millions) sums to the NMPA for royalty fees of what is played on their stations. But that doesn’t make it right. XM should have sorted this out long ago, and now they’re in a sticky legal bind, deservedly so.

But to further my opinion, NMPA is sticking its hands into a pot that it shouldn’t be digging around in. XM already dishes out tons of money to them, and the NMPA does not need to exploit them to get more of it. And it’s not like there’s a deficit in the NMPA’s fiscal foundation. Like I previously said, all the money’s in publishing, and that’s the truth. The NMPA is based on a huge mountain of dollars, and they don’t really need to get another mountain... or do they? They seem to think so. Plus, they’re only thinking of themselves, as XM is made out to look poorly in the eyes of the committee who will eventually rule yay or nay on the merger with Sirius. The NMPA is throwing a stick into the gears and jamming it all up, all to get monetary (or moral, as they’re putting it) satisfaction. Not to mention the gratification of knowing that they sucked all of the money out of an industry that hasn’t even made a profit yet.

What will inevitably happen? It seems that XM has found some legislation from 1997 to hide behind, known as the Audio Home Recording Act, but things aren’t looking to good for them. They were just sued by a slew of record labels and were ruled against during the RIAA case for trying to hide behind the same cited act. The NMPA is probably going to ink an out-of-court settlement with XM, and is doing this lawsuit as a knee-jerk reaction to incite fear into the station. But XM is bound to lose lots of money, just at the moment that they need it most. XM needs to get rid of the service ASAP, and funnel some money into a service that is based on contracts, not on legal manipulations. So here’s my message for all of the services, for your enjoyment: NMPA, we know you want to scare XM and get a share of the profits, but cool it until (if?) the merger goes through; XM, get rid of that service and do something else for your users that they would like more, such as personal programming of your stations or something (I’m not your parent, you can figure out what you should be doing); and as for the courts: keep doing what you do. No one can mess with you guys.

RIAA Is The Monster Under Your Bed

Sorry, It Was Too Irresistable

That evil RIAA. First they throw lawsuits at us for simply downloading some songs from free services – seems harmless enough, considering that surveys have proved that more of people who download music illegally will inevitably go out to buy the CD of the artist than those who just “steal,” as they like to put it. Then they continue to come after us in meaner, less rationalistic ways, by suing little girls and the music industry’s mainstay: college students. Then comes the DRM, which led me to be convinced that anything abbreviated in relation to the RIAA is a mark of the devil. So the RIAA wants to protect their artists and bands, who I must say do deserve protection, but instead of pointing a finger at us (the consumers), they refused to turn the finger around. CD prices have become absurd (sure, $9.99 for a new CD is reasonable, but as high as $19.99 for ones from a couple years ago? C’mon), and the RIAA plays dumb as to why CD sales have gone done. Additionally, the quality of music has declined SIGNIFICANTLY. I think that all caps truly express my disgruntled sentiment.

Now the RIAA is coming with a new legislation that specifically targets internet radio stations for a type of music piracy. The proposed bill, aptly titled S.2644 (it has a ring to it, right?), is requesting that any internet station that cannot outfit their streaming devices on their websites with a certain technology will be “saddled with huge mandatory penalties.” Ha, saddled. (Read the proposed bill here). The technology must somehow prevent the user from capturing the MP3 being played to their computer, allowing the music to be a standalone entity and an impossible source for illegally acquiring music. The RIAA claims that this technology is available and must be implemented for the fact that they cannot just “turn a blind eye” to the piracy. While the internet services that they speak of – Pandora, Live365, Slacker (you know, the stations that I blog about/obsess over) – are not the ones who provide the services that can rip the music from their broadcasts, the RIAA states that they are holding them responsible anyways for the fact that they cannot just target the offender; they have to target the innocent source.

You have to wonder, is this fair? The RIAA is claiming that internet radio is providing the ability for users to steal MP3s, which are the basis for the internet radio stations, since they depend on MP3s for versatile programming. Sure, it is a bit unfair that the internet stations are becoming a source for illegal downloading, but they are the innocent bystander in this situation. Hackers and programmers who have devised downloadable programs to rip music from the live streams have made their products widely available, making them the offenders and the internet stations the innocents in the situation. Instead of targeting the offenders, the RIAA has gone right to the source. Because let’s face it: without the stations, there would be no programs to steal the stations’ music. I guess the RIAA learned their lesson after initially going after Kazaa and Limewire downloaders instead of the programs (cough, cough).

So then if the RIAA has merit, then why am I really pissed off about this whole thing? First, this is just a misguided attempt to hurt internet stations. The RIAA is once again playing the bad guy, and it’s doing all the right moves that a bad guy would do. Instead of holding a forum on the subject with people who actually listen to internet radio, or even conducting a survey of how many people illegally download music in this way, the RIAA is immediately assuming that everyone who uses the stations are getting free music from it. As a seldom listener of internet radio, I must say that I have never, ever used one of these services that allow me to rip music from the internet stations. I didn’t even know that they existed until now. Now the RIAA is making listeners like me aware of these programs, sparking incentive to actually want to use the programs. I never will, for the fact that my computer is already threaded with enough viruses to kill a small animal farm, but by making this public, some might get the idea to flock to these services. So thanks, RIAA, for doing that.

It will also provide a devastating blow the growing internet radio industry. Internet radio is so fresh and new that it has not really been accepted by music listeners yet. Sure, there are millions of people who use them, but that primarily consists of people from my generation and the MySpace one after us. The older folks really haven’t heard of this stuff, and by crushing internet radio now, the RIAA will make sure that our generation is devoid of such an outlet for music. But how will this happen, you ask? The technology to outfit a media player on an internet radio site is extremely expensive, and since internet radio (mostly) does not charge listeners a fee for the music that they stream, the sites depend mainly on advertising. In having to funnel those profits into this new form of technology, the internet radio stations will fold and will not be able to keep afloat. But this is all for the sake of preventing piracy, right? Instead of providing the stations with the technology for free (which they should do, since all they do is attack media outlets instead of helping them), they are going to force many stations into bankruptcy. That’s all to protect the artist, isn’t that right, RIAA? Kill the media outlet that gives people the entertainment that your entire existence is based on? There’s that good ol’ logic again.

Third and not lastly (but for the sake of your tired eyes it will be my last point), it will create more incentive to illegally download, for we want what we can’t have. In a class of mine, we just read St. Augustine’s Confessions¸ in which Augustine retells the story of stealing pears from a tree because he loved the fact that he could sin. He relished is free will and backlash against God’s power. Now I’m not sure how much internet radio has to do with going against God’s will, but users will be more inclined to commit piracy when more red tape is lain, just like how Augustine stole the pears even though he knew it was forbidden. That’s part of human nature. The RIAA hasn’t learned yet that people will only want to get their music illegally when more restrictions are placed on them. Why would someone want to pay to get music when their every move is being watched by the big bad RIAA?

The RIAA needs to lighten up. As long as there is music, there will always be a way for people to get it for free. And since the music industry isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, the RIAA had better learn to either start chasing the right bad guys or lighten up their legislation. No one has said anything about the ripping services that are available to download videos from YouTube and convert them so you can plop them onto your iPod. No one has talked about the fact that you can stick a tape into a radio receiver and tape your favorite songs off of the live broadcast. No one has mentioned that you can reroute the headphone jack on your computer and plug it into your microphone jack, so that anything being played through your speakers can be recorded through microphone recording programs. There are so many ways to get around DRM, and there’s nothing they can do about it. But if that means that they have to take down an entire burgeoning industry with their popularity, so be it, but they'll have to deal with millions of complaints. At least I’ll have my iPod to fall back on. Or are they going to sue me for owning one of those, too?

Slacker: Not Slacking Just Yet.

My Inspiration For This Blogpost.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you personalized radio. Or not exactly me presenting it, per se, but by the handfuls of online radio stations that are inking contracts and chumming it up with record labels. Online radio has really taken off in the past couple of years, with customized programming as a glorious alternative to purchasing tunes on iTunes or, if you’re daring, illegally getting your hands on tracks. Then there’s terrestrial radio: if you’re really old school, you could listen to it, but then you have to put your faith in what they’re playing without being given a choice. And let’s face it; these days, it’s all about getting what you want when you want it. So why shouldn’t you be listening to customized internet radio that has people who figure out your tastes for you, and save you all the trouble of flipping through the stations to get to that hot Black Eyed Peas jam you’ve been itching for?

Slacker, an online radio station that has over 10,000 channels that are tailored to a specific genre or an artist (playing that artist and those that sound like him/her/them), is trying to bust into the industry in the same way that Pandora, Last.FM and Breakthru Radio have already done. But while those music services are formatted mainly for the internet, Slacker is attempting to make the next step: to get internet radio off of the computer. When I interviewed Cal Rifkin, CEO of Breakthru Radio, he discussed how internet radio was going to be in cars as early as this summer, for the fact that there are internet radio receivers that are being developed for automobiles to be sold for as low as $100. Sounds optimistic, but he was just planning on riding the technology, rather than being the one to create it. That’s where Slacker comes in.

The company has satellites orbiting our precious planet, as outlined in their FAQ, and plan on broadcasting their signals to portable receivers that they plan to put on the market in the second half of ’07. This device, in contention with future rival Apple and their iPod, allows purchasers to have the same customizable abilities that they can have on their website, only while they skip down the street or ride through their neighborhood. The company plans to issue a custom car kit for users to have these abilities on the road, as future rivals XMus have already done, and plan to propel themselves into the mainstay of technological society.

So one of the main issues comes to the forefront: while Pandora is great and all at figuring out my tastes (see blog below), is Slacker as good as Pandora – or, dare I say, better? Let’s give it a whirl. I’m really into Amy Winehouse right now… I just saw her last week and have listened to her new one around the thirty spins mark, so it’s only fitting that we start with someone that I know I like. They begin with “Me and Mr. Jones (F***ery),” my second favorite song on the album. Not a bad choice, but considering I started out with Amy Winehouse, we’ll have to see where they take us. Next up is Lauryn Hill’s “Ex-Factor,” which is one of my all-time favorite songs. It even fits into the genre: last week at Winehouse’s concert, she had a musical breakdown halfway through one of her songs to launch into a souled-up rendition of “Doo Wop (That Thing),” so Slacker is onto something. I like Lauryn Hill, and so does Amy Winehouse. OK. So then why all of a sudden does Janet Jackson’s “Again” come on? I shudder at the thought that all Hill and Winehouse fans are just as big fans of Jackson. We’ll forget this blip and continue.

Back to Amy Winehouse, with “You Know I’m No Good,” her single from the new album. Now I love all of Winehouse, but I’m starting to suspect that Slacker does not even recognize that there’s more to her than just this new album. Her last one, Frank, was just as good and possibly more relevant than the new one, so I’m a bit suspicious that we’re already on the fourth song of the series and are already back to the new album. Next song is “Moon Song” by Norah Jones, and although I know plenty of Winehouse fans would appreciate the uber-silky musings of Jones, I don’t. I’ll attribute this “slack” (zing) to the fact that not all people have the same music taste, and that many would like this one. Onto the next: Nikka Costa’s “Like A Feather,” from her album Everybody’s Got Their Something. Nice choice, Slacker. I love Costa, and this song is no exception. In fact, it’s my favorite from her. And I know exactly why Slacker would pick this: Winehouse and Costa are both funky and outspoken female singers with a knack for an old soul sound. Plus one for Slacker.

OK, so we get the point. Slacker is definitely catering to my music tastes. But is it better than Pandora? Let’s find out, using Winehouse as the same starting point. “Help Myself,” my favorite song from her first album, starts the set, and I couldn’t be happier. Both services picked my first and second favorite songs from her albums, making me somewhat creeped out in a way. But regardless, I give it the thumbs up, and we continue. Next is Threshold’s “It Ain’t Me.” Ew. I’ve never heard of them, but they’re just a rehashed type of funk/neo-soul that is the kiss of death for artists trying to break into the mainstream. But I know why they picked it; the singer has spunk, and the song has that same sort of funk that Winehouse has. Let’s continue, shall we? Lari White’s “Loved Right,” which is kind of a country-threaded-soul track. Not good. Next. India.Arie’s “Brown Skin.” Now we’re talking. Most fans of Winehouse would appreciate Arie, since it’s in the vein of neo-soul. Ok, I knew Angie Stone would come up sooner or later, and here she is, with “Pissed Off.” Ugh. Next is another Winehouse number from her first album, “October Song.” Same cycle pretty much as Slacker, except they don't seem to recognize that she has a new album out yet. Oh label woes. But that aside, it's time to analyze.

Slacker definitely catered to my tastes much more than Pandora. Unlike Pandora, Slacker is attempting to play what I already know and like, rather than what I may not know and would like to give a try. I’m not necessarily one who is receptive to what people tell me to try out, and like to find out about artists for myself. This is where Pandora fails for me. As for Slacker, I had songs play that I loved and, with the exception of a few misses, actually wanted to listen to. And I did. So does Slacker deserve to get off of the Internet and into my car or pocket as I mosey along the street? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Radio listeners are still far from comfortable in terms of wanting to invest in satellite radio technology, for several reasons. Some complain that it is too expensive, while others believe that radio should never be paid for. But where internet radio comes in is in a whole different category. Satellite radio’s programming is pinned to a certain genre, and does not allow for any interactivity. In contrast, internet radio lets listeners pick what they want to hear, or an artist that they want to hear at the moment. And it’s free. People want free music, and want it when they want it, and in this regard, Slacker should succeed. But there are several technological issues to be considered before it actually does.

As with satellite radio, Slacker is not going to be able to get reception in all areas. This is a major impediment, considering that the service is going to be dependent on the internet, and not all areas are equipped with Wi-Fi technology. But assuming that this is going to be overcome by the technological nerds on the Slacker team, the product will surely be a success. So is portable internet radio on its way to becoming the next way of getting music delivered to your ears? If Slacker can pull it off, they will surely be anything but what their name suggests. They’ll be innovators in the industry, and change the way that people listen to what music they want to hear, when they want to hear it. Would I invest in the technology? Well, I have my iPod, but since I went with the most popular choice for MP3 players when other brands were cheaper and basically the same thing, then I appear to go where the crowd does. And if they go towards the Slacker, then call me the Follower.

Brown Vs. Hot 99.5

Oh, B-Bro.

OK, let’s take a break from satellite radio merger news for just a post and talk about some gossip. I mean, no blog is fun without the inclusion of gossip, so let’s put on our chat hats and get down to business. The man of the hour is Bobby Brown. If you have not been up on your US Weekly and/or National Enquirer the past ten years, you probably have not heard of the man. But just to give you a quick overview and the play-by-play highlights, Bobby Brown used to be in a group called New Edition, a semi-huge R&B group from the 80’s. He was married to Whitney Houston (he got her hooked on the white stuff, and I ain’t talkin’ the center of an Oreo) who he raised his daughter with, only to get separated last year after 14 happy (?) years of marriage with a pending divorce in order. He went through a plethora of legal woes, involving rape accusations, drunk-driving fiascos, alleged spousal battery, ventures into rehab, etc. The list really does go on, but for the sake of this entry, let’s get to why it says something about radio.

Bobby Brown is a sad man, and he’s about to get sadder (in your eyes… in his eyes, he thinks Bobby Brown is the one). While attending his daughter’s cheerleading competition at her high school, Brown was arrested – that’s right, at a high school cheerleading competition – for failing to pay the child support owed to his baby’s momma, Kim Ward, with whom he had two sons. Adopting the “deadbeat dad” title, Brown was ironically arrested for failing to provide financial support for his kids while giving emotional support to his other daughter. But it’s no laughing matter. Brown was sent to jail for three nights, and was unable to post the $19,150 bond owed to Ward. A little sad for a semi-successful musician. Brown sat and simmered in jail, which was no new locale for the singer, until he was finally bailed out on the third night’s evening.

How does this relate to radio, you might be asking? Well, the aids who posted the bail for Brown take the form of the radio station Hot 99.5 FM, based in Washington, DC. In agreement with Brown, they posted the bail to get him out of the slammer, and in exchange, Brown would act as host for a week on the station’s show, “The Kane Show.” Sounds a little ridiculous, right? In a veiled form of bribery (mainly, scooping someone up when they are down and are fresh out of choices), the station saw an opportunity to boost ratings by exploiting the real-life situation of a downtrodden and troubled man. Brown was left with no choices, since he could not procure the money, and agreed to do the show. Exploitation, exploitation, exploitation.

The story gets thicker. Brown called into the Kane show on one of the subsequent days, and began to chat with Kane, the show’s host. In the first ten minutes of the interview, Kane began to grill Brown on his lack of payments and financial woes, to which Brown took offense and hung up. Brown stated that he did not agree to bail on the condition that he discuss his personal life on the radio, which is quite understandable, and the station was left looking like a bunch of fools as Brown got a way scot-free. But luckily for the station, Brown agreed to pay back the sum in exchange for not having to appear on the show. Whether or not he will pay the station back, Brown made the station look like an inexperienced and naïve institution, giving the Kane show a bad public image and Brown an even worse one.

So what does this say about the radio industry? There is a fine line between the radio stations and the artists that they play. When a station makes a conscious decision to get involved with the lives of their artists, they are exposing their underworkings and undercutting their integrity. Sure, radio stations sponsor concerts all of the time, and obviously get paid to play some (most) artists, but those are all done for harmless profit. The moment that a radio station gets involved with an artist’s life, and tries to get something from that artist in exchange for a favor, they become less of a faceless entity; they grow a soul.

In the case of Hot 99.5, they showed that they had an evil one. Brown was left with no choices, and would have consequently rotted in jail until Whitney Houston let her consciousness eat away at her, eventually gave in and bailed him out. But that might have taken a long time. The station saw this as an opportunity to improve their listenership by getting involved with the controversy in the singer’s life and exploiting it, simply to get exclusive information straight from the horse’s mouth. In the scope of legalities, the radio station did nothing wrong, but this is a matter of morality. How can listeners trust a station that manipulates others for their own benefit? How fair is it for a radio station to step outside of the confines of their roles as a simple radio station?

Maybe it’s just me being a bit naïve and inexperienced in the world of radio, but this is a completely immoral act outside of broadcasting. I would hope that Brown never pays back the station to spite their ignorant behavior, thereby giving the station a financial (can I get a substantial?) loss. Radio stations need to keep the wall up between them and their played artists. But situations have and always will occur between artists and radio stations, since they are quite dependent on one another: artists need radio stations to play them, radio stations need artists for content. Therefore, there is always a relationship at work. But when that relationship becomes more than just about the music, it loses its integrity and starts to become capricious and ingenuine. Stations will look like fools in their blatant attempts to ring in listeners, and make it worse for the rest of the industry by tainting it. So I guess the moral of the story is clear: next time you go to jail, Bobby Brown, try to stick it out until a better alternative comes along. That way, you won’t get into a pickle and the industry won’t be exposed as immoral. And, best of all, I won’t have to blog about you!