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!

525,600 Minutes

Robotron, not Arbitron.

468,786 diary keepers. My, Arbitron, you keep a lot of people busy. Those diary keepers, though, were the key to figuring out the first patterns in satellite radio listenership, as Arbitron conducted its survey of almost half a million people in the fall of 2006. The survey attempted to discover trends in satellite listenership – the first of its kind – and made some interesting discoveries. But before we get into all of that, let me give you the 411 on Arbitron. They cover the whole spectrum of media analysis, gathering mass amounts of information to sell to companies that could benefit from the knowledge. It’s a nice cycle; Arbitron just has to get people to volunteer (which, at a whopping 500,000 surveyed for the one at hand, doesn’t seem like such a challenge) and probably give them a small form of compensation. In return, they organize the data and make most of it available for the public, with the leftover (or key) figures to be purchased by companies.

Although this satellite radio survey is surely key to their economic well-being, it has much more significance for the subject itself. Let me lay the results down from what I've read: of all radio listening, 3.4% is devoted to satellite radio; satellite listeners tune into all forms of radio much more than non-subscribers, listening for an average of 33 hours a week while the non’s listens for 19 hours; the key figure here, though, is that satellite subscribers listen to terrestrial radio more than they do their satellite programming, tuning into AM/FM frequencies for 14 hours, satellite for almost 11 hours, and internet radio for about 8 hours. In defending themselves, a spokesperson for XM satellite radio said, “Satellite radio is growing. […] However, we still represent a small portion of the overall radio and audio entertainment marketplace.” Oh, good, they knew their size all along.

But this survey says a lot more about the industry than any fact or figure has done before. The actual subscribers – those who pay for the satellite services – don’t even listen to it as much as they do regular terrestrial radio. This comes as a major blow to the industry; the results are really showing that satellite can get a small sliver of people to pay for their services, but those people don’t necessarily care for them as much as they do regular (or, as you will, free) services. Satellite radio cannot manage to keep their listeners interested. Although this is a mega-assertion, it definitely has merit. If those who have subscribed to the services are finding them not as captivating or fulfilling as they thought they were going to be, then how can the satellite services keep their subscribers coming back? Sure, specialized programming is wonderful and all, but listeners can obviously get entertainment and news for free, and they seem to be sticking to what they are used to.

What does this say about the satellite radio industry for the future? XMus will form, which will definitely ring in more listeners (more programming choices = more interest), but if the current state of the industry is that they can’t keep their subscribers tuned in without having their attention drift over to free radio, then the satellite industry will simply not be able to survive. There are adjustments that XMus can make to improve programming, but in the long run, they just can’t compete with what people already know and trust. If people haven’t already jumped at the opportunity to subscribe to a satellite radio provider, then chances are, they’re not going to anytime soon, and if the current subscribers are losing interest, then the future may be looking a bit grim for the conglomerates.