Sun may never set on British Empire's pint The Register
In 1970, when I was a teenager in a Midwest town, they taught me the metric system, saying "we'll be switching over from the English system in a few years..."
Enough already. Join the rest of the world. Think with ten fingers, not pecks and quarts.
Start an American revolution. Work and live in the metric system from now on, and let other people figure out what the hell you are talking about. They'll adapt.
This stuff just makes Americans and English look stupid, reactionary, and hostile.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Gas Prices Reach New Historical High
California Gasoline Prices Adjusted for Inflation
According to California's figures, we've leaped over 1980 and '81 to have the highest gasoline prices in history adjusted for inflation. The cost then, in current $ averaged about $2.60 per gallon, and so-far this year we're spending an average of $2.80 per gallon, and it's only May.
I just spent $3.41 per gallon, and that's at the cheap station in Alhambra. Pricier westside locations are nearing - maybe topping - $4.00 per gallon.
Some days, I think we should all drive gas guzzling behemoths, so we actually reach a crisis point with supply and the guys in Detroit pull those 200 MPG carburetor plans out from deep storage...but I still gaze with wonder whenever I see a sparking Suburban or H2 with dealer plates and a fat 'n happy four-foot woman driving it (or a size-challenged over-compensating trust fund kid). What kind of freak would buy such a vehicle in this day and age, just as an FU in the face of the rest of us?
We will inevitably reach the end of affordable oil. In the meantime, stinking slobbering showoff vehicles kill us with more crap in our air, their drivers all oblivious to the self-hate they must have. Are SUVs the new suicide-by-cigarette?
We each have to make a choice to consume less by buying reasonable cars - yay for me, I drive a gas-sipping Toyota Yaris - and to drive less, drive when and where others aren't etc. Higher gas prices are unfortunately a regressive tax, since most of us don't have the choice to cut our driving in half (shame on employers who aren't telecommuting-tolerant). We have to choose to drive better - pick a lane and stay in it, don't swerve around trying to gain a car length or two (and for god's sake use your turn signal if you do, and respect others' turn signals...), don't speed up and slow down to fill gaps when we will all get there faster if you choose a steady pace, plan your exits in-advance, use onramps to get up to the speed of the traffic (you will use a little more gas, but many cars will be able to retain their current speed), pick a speed and stay with it...the list goes on. It's just common sense.
What steams me is that the historical high in no way reflects a historical high in crude oil prices. The only thing that tracks reasonably with gas prices is oil company profits. Can I go ahead and conclude that when the C-level execs, board members, and shareholders want a raise, they concoct one out of thick air, and thick goo? The rest of us suffer while they have record profits, salaries and bonuses, and dividends.
The oil companies have too-long acted monopolistically and our health, economy, and security are suffering. As we increase our lifespans, the things that we die from are more and more from our environment. When historical-price wages and income are stagnant or shrinking for most of us and gas prices continue to skyrocket, we will spend less and less on the consumer goods and which have fueled the economy recently. And when we choose to go to war for oil and profit - monetary and political - our nation is in danger.
It's time to consider dropping all tax breaks to oil companies. They always will find a way to be profitable, whether crude oil prices are $20 per barrel or $80 per barrel. The hidden costs of war to protect the interest of the oil companies are horribly huge, both monetarily and morally. We have to here the minutes of Cheney's energy task force meeting at the White House before 9/11, and most likely this will put the light of day on high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to treat gas as a utility, since it is needed at every level of commerce and since the price can be gamed at will.
According to California's figures, we've leaped over 1980 and '81 to have the highest gasoline prices in history adjusted for inflation. The cost then, in current $ averaged about $2.60 per gallon, and so-far this year we're spending an average of $2.80 per gallon, and it's only May.
I just spent $3.41 per gallon, and that's at the cheap station in Alhambra. Pricier westside locations are nearing - maybe topping - $4.00 per gallon.
Some days, I think we should all drive gas guzzling behemoths, so we actually reach a crisis point with supply and the guys in Detroit pull those 200 MPG carburetor plans out from deep storage...but I still gaze with wonder whenever I see a sparking Suburban or H2 with dealer plates and a fat 'n happy four-foot woman driving it (or a size-challenged over-compensating trust fund kid). What kind of freak would buy such a vehicle in this day and age, just as an FU in the face of the rest of us?
We will inevitably reach the end of affordable oil. In the meantime, stinking slobbering showoff vehicles kill us with more crap in our air, their drivers all oblivious to the self-hate they must have. Are SUVs the new suicide-by-cigarette?
We each have to make a choice to consume less by buying reasonable cars - yay for me, I drive a gas-sipping Toyota Yaris - and to drive less, drive when and where others aren't etc. Higher gas prices are unfortunately a regressive tax, since most of us don't have the choice to cut our driving in half (shame on employers who aren't telecommuting-tolerant). We have to choose to drive better - pick a lane and stay in it, don't swerve around trying to gain a car length or two (and for god's sake use your turn signal if you do, and respect others' turn signals...), don't speed up and slow down to fill gaps when we will all get there faster if you choose a steady pace, plan your exits in-advance, use onramps to get up to the speed of the traffic (you will use a little more gas, but many cars will be able to retain their current speed), pick a speed and stay with it...the list goes on. It's just common sense.
What steams me is that the historical high in no way reflects a historical high in crude oil prices. The only thing that tracks reasonably with gas prices is oil company profits. Can I go ahead and conclude that when the C-level execs, board members, and shareholders want a raise, they concoct one out of thick air, and thick goo? The rest of us suffer while they have record profits, salaries and bonuses, and dividends.
The oil companies have too-long acted monopolistically and our health, economy, and security are suffering. As we increase our lifespans, the things that we die from are more and more from our environment. When historical-price wages and income are stagnant or shrinking for most of us and gas prices continue to skyrocket, we will spend less and less on the consumer goods and which have fueled the economy recently. And when we choose to go to war for oil and profit - monetary and political - our nation is in danger.
It's time to consider dropping all tax breaks to oil companies. They always will find a way to be profitable, whether crude oil prices are $20 per barrel or $80 per barrel. The hidden costs of war to protect the interest of the oil companies are horribly huge, both monetarily and morally. We have to here the minutes of Cheney's energy task force meeting at the White House before 9/11, and most likely this will put the light of day on high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to treat gas as a utility, since it is needed at every level of commerce and since the price can be gamed at will.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Grocery Giants' War on the Middle Class!
In sunny SoCal, grocery behemoths Ralphs (Kroger Corp.), Albertsons, and Vons/Pavilions (Safeway Corp) are preparing to do battle with their biggest enemies: their customers.
These public companies must perform for their C-Level executives, board members, and shareholders with growth. As a line-item in a profit-and-loss statement, labor costs are the number one item, and their greatest expense keeping them from further profit growth - energy, real estate, and other costs can't compare. While the exes and board members receive lavish salaries and benefits, regardless of growth or success in many cases, their employees are asked to happily accept their role as runners to the bottom while the companies are mis-managed to mediocrity.
These companies can act as one to direct a huge pool of employees in SoCal, and they have opposition, the UFCW. I worked for a long-gone store in the '80s and I had to join the UFCW - they took my dues and provided no support the few times I asked, so I have to union-love here. But the union can act as one for its members as these members can't against the unified front of the major grocery store owners.
Four years ago things came to a head in a debilitating strike. The three store chains were having profitable years. In this growth-at-any-cost struggle, the companies decided to unilaterally increase their profit at the expense of their lowest-paid. Living costs, especially health care, had greatly increased for these workers over the previous few years - growth in the SoCal economy had largely been restricted to real estate, and many grocery workers weren't in a position to benefit from this, and tax breaks given were only for the wealthy, including corporate cheifs David Dillon, Steven Burd, and Lawrence Johnston.
Yet, these workers were asked to bear the brunt of this growth madness by paying more for less medical care, accepting more part time work (excluding them from corporate healthcare altogether), and agreeing to a longer, sometimes impossible, climb to more stable full-time positions with appropriate benefits. Creating a huge straw man out of Wal-Mart , the employers bred fear by saying that their workers could either accept these demands or be swept into the fiery blue furnace with the happy smiling face.
With no good faith on the part of the employers in negotiations (in violation of federal law) and collusion to split profits during the strike (again, in violation of federal law), the unions voted to strike. Ralphs, Vons, and Albertons hired scabs to replace their longtime employees. Customers stayed away. Union members picketed, lost homes, and went to the emergency room for medical care.
The UFCW found no heart, soul, or brains to come up with a way to support their dues-paying members, and folded. Instead of a stream back to their previous positions, long-term employees flooded away from the stores, many landing worse or no job for a good amount of time. What we see now in 2007 in these stores is a much-smaller-than-before fresh crop of faces, responsibility-without-authority for those in customer-contact positions, and a sameness from store to store that makes us feel like these grocery stores are one big chain.
I now give all of these stores about 30% of what business I gave before the strike, just on principle, and I bet I'm not the only customer they have essentially lost. Their reliance on affinity programs, unstaffed customer service counters, etc., make grocery shopping a chore. Non-union Trader Joes, Farmers Markets, Costco, and even the internet, make my grocery consuming a better experience than it was, and I for one am not going back.
Now, the giants want their employees to pay a larger percentage of their healthcare costs. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed, mostly due to public-company middlemen that didn't exist a generation ago, drug costs, longer lives that require more healthcare and drugs, etc. There's no law that says that companies have to provide medical care for their employees - this practice started when postwar tax breaks were granted to companies that did, and at that time is was considered cheaper than actually paying employees more - but corporate executives and board members get state-of-the-art healthcare benefits while they could pay for these services, all the while expecting their lowest-paid employees to pay a significant portion of their income for the meagerest of healthcare.
This imbalance must end. We have to find some way to pay even our lowest-paid so they can afford great healthcare (with affordable catastrophic-event coverage available), require employers and governments to insure all employees equally (wouldn't the free-market bring down costs for all if this was required?), or provide a single-payer plan at the federal level (to make us competitive on a global level again). Anything less, and the greatest country in the world with the best available medical care should be considered a human rights criminal of the highest order.
Speak out!
Contact the princes who rule these companies and demand some equity, with no strikes necessary. Vote with your $$$ and don't shop where the economic divide is wide enough to swallow you whole.
Grocery Store CEOs with public political contribution info ;-)
David B Dillon
CEO/Chairman of the Board/Director
Kroger Co
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100
http://www.kroger.com
david.dillon@kroger.com
$7,950
Republican
$200
Democrat
$4,750
special interest
total: $12,900
Lawrence Johnston
Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer, Pres and Chairman of Exec. Committee
Albertsons Llc
250 Parkcenter Boulevard
Boise, ID 83726-0020
http://www.amstr.com/
larry.johnston@albertsons.com
$10,000
Republican
$45,750
special interest
total: $55,750
Steven Burd
Chairman
Safeway Inc
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3229
http://www.safeway.com
steven.burd@safeway.com
$20,000
Republican
$5,200
Democrat
$13,750
special interest
total: $38,950
These public companies must perform for their C-Level executives, board members, and shareholders with growth. As a line-item in a profit-and-loss statement, labor costs are the number one item, and their greatest expense keeping them from further profit growth - energy, real estate, and other costs can't compare. While the exes and board members receive lavish salaries and benefits, regardless of growth or success in many cases, their employees are asked to happily accept their role as runners to the bottom while the companies are mis-managed to mediocrity.
These companies can act as one to direct a huge pool of employees in SoCal, and they have opposition, the UFCW. I worked for a long-gone store in the '80s and I had to join the UFCW - they took my dues and provided no support the few times I asked, so I have to union-love here. But the union can act as one for its members as these members can't against the unified front of the major grocery store owners.
Four years ago things came to a head in a debilitating strike. The three store chains were having profitable years. In this growth-at-any-cost struggle, the companies decided to unilaterally increase their profit at the expense of their lowest-paid. Living costs, especially health care, had greatly increased for these workers over the previous few years - growth in the SoCal economy had largely been restricted to real estate, and many grocery workers weren't in a position to benefit from this, and tax breaks given were only for the wealthy, including corporate cheifs David Dillon, Steven Burd, and Lawrence Johnston.
Yet, these workers were asked to bear the brunt of this growth madness by paying more for less medical care, accepting more part time work (excluding them from corporate healthcare altogether), and agreeing to a longer, sometimes impossible, climb to more stable full-time positions with appropriate benefits. Creating a huge straw man out of Wal-Mart , the employers bred fear by saying that their workers could either accept these demands or be swept into the fiery blue furnace with the happy smiling face.
With no good faith on the part of the employers in negotiations (in violation of federal law) and collusion to split profits during the strike (again, in violation of federal law), the unions voted to strike. Ralphs, Vons, and Albertons hired scabs to replace their longtime employees. Customers stayed away. Union members picketed, lost homes, and went to the emergency room for medical care.
The UFCW found no heart, soul, or brains to come up with a way to support their dues-paying members, and folded. Instead of a stream back to their previous positions, long-term employees flooded away from the stores, many landing worse or no job for a good amount of time. What we see now in 2007 in these stores is a much-smaller-than-before fresh crop of faces, responsibility-without-authority for those in customer-contact positions, and a sameness from store to store that makes us feel like these grocery stores are one big chain.
I now give all of these stores about 30% of what business I gave before the strike, just on principle, and I bet I'm not the only customer they have essentially lost. Their reliance on affinity programs, unstaffed customer service counters, etc., make grocery shopping a chore. Non-union Trader Joes, Farmers Markets, Costco, and even the internet, make my grocery consuming a better experience than it was, and I for one am not going back.
Now, the giants want their employees to pay a larger percentage of their healthcare costs. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed, mostly due to public-company middlemen that didn't exist a generation ago, drug costs, longer lives that require more healthcare and drugs, etc. There's no law that says that companies have to provide medical care for their employees - this practice started when postwar tax breaks were granted to companies that did, and at that time is was considered cheaper than actually paying employees more - but corporate executives and board members get state-of-the-art healthcare benefits while they could pay for these services, all the while expecting their lowest-paid employees to pay a significant portion of their income for the meagerest of healthcare.
This imbalance must end. We have to find some way to pay even our lowest-paid so they can afford great healthcare (with affordable catastrophic-event coverage available), require employers and governments to insure all employees equally (wouldn't the free-market bring down costs for all if this was required?), or provide a single-payer plan at the federal level (to make us competitive on a global level again). Anything less, and the greatest country in the world with the best available medical care should be considered a human rights criminal of the highest order.
Speak out!
Contact the princes who rule these companies and demand some equity, with no strikes necessary. Vote with your $$$ and don't shop where the economic divide is wide enough to swallow you whole.
Grocery Store CEOs with public political contribution info ;-)
David B Dillon
CEO/Chairman of the Board/Director
Kroger Co
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100
http://www.kroger.com
david.dillon@kroger.com
$7,950
Republican
$200
Democrat
$4,750
special interest
total: $12,900
Lawrence Johnston
Chairman, Chief Exec. Officer, Pres and Chairman of Exec. Committee
Albertsons Llc
250 Parkcenter Boulevard
Boise, ID 83726-0020
http://www.amstr.com/
larry.johnston@albertsons.com
$10,000
Republican
$45,750
special interest
total: $55,750
Steven Burd
Chairman
Safeway Inc
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3229
http://www.safeway.com
steven.burd@safeway.com
$20,000
Republican
$5,200
Democrat
$13,750
special interest
total: $38,950
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
On the Web, oldies are golden again - Los Angeles Times
On the Web, oldies are golden again - Los Angeles Times
Sales of albums by contemporary musicians have been falling for years, but
what the industry calls deep catalog albums (more than 3 years old) have
been
making a comeback, with their sales soaring 104.2% from 2005 to 2006.
That has
been a boon for Avalon and other older artists.---
As more music becomes available digitally, semi-obscure artists are finding
they have devoted fans. On Rhapsody, for instance, Top 100 artists produce only
25% of the songs played, said Tim Quirk, Rhapsody's vice president for music
content and programming.In contrast, nearly half of retail store sales are
generated by that elite group. Less popular artists get playtime too — 90% of
the 195,200 artists on Rhapsody are played at least once a month.
This is not a story about Frankie Avalon and Fabian.
This is a story of the survial of the music industry, and issues that the industry should have addressed a decade ago.
Every work of recorded music should be available without DRM from a variety of competitive retailers on the web for 50 cents each, with higher-resolution, surround, etc., versions for more. And these should be available for playing on subscription-streaming services.
The income from lapsed-artists like Frankie Avalon and Fabian, and from works that have fallen into the public domain, can help fund the development of new music, so music, and it's industry, can have a future.
Every work recorded over the last century+ has value.
Monday, February 12, 2007
5.1 Sound is not 3D
Surround sound, for movies or for music, is wonderful.
5.1 was developed as a minimum configuration that could deliver 360 degree full-range sound, and it works well. Tony Grimani and Tomlinson Holman, then at Lucasfilm's THX division, coined the phrase and researched the concept.
Every sound we hear arrives from a sphere around us. Unless we are in an anechoic chamber - a room with no reflections - we can tell where a sound source is from just about anywhere in the room. Our ear/brain mechanism evolved so this system could help us survive.
Dimensionality of Sound Systems:
Mono - one-speaker sound comes from a point, and a point has no dimension.
Stereo (two or more reproduction channels can be called Stereo) - Two-channel Stereo is single-dimension: Width. Instead of a point, the sound source is a line, which again mathematically has no dimension, but two-speaker Stereo provides a sonic image of a certain width and can provide an image of a center source.
Surround - 3.x Stereo (adding at least one channel of reproduction behind the listener) can provide a dimension in addition to Width: Depth. This makes 5.1 Surround two-dimensional.
A height channel, as used in Tomlinson Holman's TMH 10.2 system and some IMAX presentations, would be the next dimension to add to Stereo sound reproduction. Eight channels or more are available in surround distribution platforms such as Blu Ray disc, HD-DVD disc, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TruHD, Windows Media, Quicktime... Perhaps a mono Height channel could be commonly used with these platforms. The Center Surround should probably be implemented with the last of the eight channels - this is already commonly mixed for distribution with Dolby EX and DTS-ES, and can overcome our lack of ability to hear a phantom image well from behind us. The Right Wide and Left Wide channels should probably be next on the list, to compensate for our difficulty in hearing a phantom image from directly to the right or left of us.
The addition of a Height channel would be the minimum necessary change to be able to make any audio system three-dimensional.
5.1 was developed as a minimum configuration that could deliver 360 degree full-range sound, and it works well. Tony Grimani and Tomlinson Holman, then at Lucasfilm's THX division, coined the phrase and researched the concept.
Every sound we hear arrives from a sphere around us. Unless we are in an anechoic chamber - a room with no reflections - we can tell where a sound source is from just about anywhere in the room. Our ear/brain mechanism evolved so this system could help us survive.
Dimensionality of Sound Systems:
Mono - one-speaker sound comes from a point, and a point has no dimension.
Stereo (two or more reproduction channels can be called Stereo) - Two-channel Stereo is single-dimension: Width. Instead of a point, the sound source is a line, which again mathematically has no dimension, but two-speaker Stereo provides a sonic image of a certain width and can provide an image of a center source.
Surround - 3.x Stereo (adding at least one channel of reproduction behind the listener) can provide a dimension in addition to Width: Depth. This makes 5.1 Surround two-dimensional.
A height channel, as used in Tomlinson Holman's TMH 10.2 system and some IMAX presentations, would be the next dimension to add to Stereo sound reproduction. Eight channels or more are available in surround distribution platforms such as Blu Ray disc, HD-DVD disc, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TruHD, Windows Media, Quicktime... Perhaps a mono Height channel could be commonly used with these platforms. The Center Surround should probably be implemented with the last of the eight channels - this is already commonly mixed for distribution with Dolby EX and DTS-ES, and can overcome our lack of ability to hear a phantom image well from behind us. The Right Wide and Left Wide channels should probably be next on the list, to compensate for our difficulty in hearing a phantom image from directly to the right or left of us.
The addition of a Height channel would be the minimum necessary change to be able to make any audio system three-dimensional.
Friday, January 26, 2007
CMT.com : News : Nashville Skyline : That Gurgling Sound? CD Sales Down the Drain
CMT.com : News : Nashville Skyline : That Gurgling Sound? CD Sales Down the Drain
More people are listening to more music than ever before.
Contrast 2007 in the music biz to 1983. In 1983, the music industry was introducing the CD - "Perfect Sound Forever." The CD was released to replace the LP, then the high-quality music distribution format (cassettes would remain for convenience and low-price). Within a few years, most titles weren't being released on LP, lower royalties were negotiated for artists to support the emerging format, returns were still paid-for by the artist yet retailer returns were ended or curtailed and defective CDs were far less common than defective LPs. The music industry profited from a boom (as did the home electronics industry), from the novelty of CDs, replacing of old LPs with catalog CD reissues, etc.
Now, the consumer has spoken - they want to access music via computers (and cell phones, gaming devices, etc.). They want a broad selection, available now. The music industry didn't invent this, sue their best customers for doing this, and didn't fashion a way to derive revenue from it, so guess what? Music sales are down!
As Flippo points out in the CMT.com article, there is much great music out there that few of us will hear. We have lost the great filter provided by people passionate about music who ran record companies, replaced by a perpetual motion machine of new music provided by millions of artists, and we have to construct our own filters, or adopt hodge podge structures like MySpace.
This is all good, but we are at the beginning of a rough ride. We need to find a way to appropriately compensate people for creating art, and to pay them or others for distributing it (licence the ISPs!). The changes needed to compensate artists for their music will involve large conflicts that strick at the core of our Culture, our Commerce, and our Constitution.
More people are listening to more music than ever before.
Contrast 2007 in the music biz to 1983. In 1983, the music industry was introducing the CD - "Perfect Sound Forever." The CD was released to replace the LP, then the high-quality music distribution format (cassettes would remain for convenience and low-price). Within a few years, most titles weren't being released on LP, lower royalties were negotiated for artists to support the emerging format, returns were still paid-for by the artist yet retailer returns were ended or curtailed and defective CDs were far less common than defective LPs. The music industry profited from a boom (as did the home electronics industry), from the novelty of CDs, replacing of old LPs with catalog CD reissues, etc.
Now, the consumer has spoken - they want to access music via computers (and cell phones, gaming devices, etc.). They want a broad selection, available now. The music industry didn't invent this, sue their best customers for doing this, and didn't fashion a way to derive revenue from it, so guess what? Music sales are down!
As Flippo points out in the CMT.com article, there is much great music out there that few of us will hear. We have lost the great filter provided by people passionate about music who ran record companies, replaced by a perpetual motion machine of new music provided by millions of artists, and we have to construct our own filters, or adopt hodge podge structures like MySpace.
This is all good, but we are at the beginning of a rough ride. We need to find a way to appropriately compensate people for creating art, and to pay them or others for distributing it (licence the ISPs!). The changes needed to compensate artists for their music will involve large conflicts that strick at the core of our Culture, our Commerce, and our Constitution.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Music industry divided over digital future | CNET News.com
Music industry divided over digital future CNET News.com
---
"Many people around the world tell me that we've handled our problems in an incorrect manner but no one tells me what we should have done," John Kennedy, the head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, told Reuters.
"Free is just impossible to compete with."
---
Bullshit.
Any music industry spokesperson who states this is a brilliant example of why the music industry is suffering. Also, journalists who support this argument should go back to writing classified ad copy for the local dog trainer.
(We've been through this...) Licence the music through the ISPs - they are the new radio (with extra added value for music marketers). A buck or two a month for each subscriber will bring untold riches to the music industry, in amounts far exceeding the wildest estimations of any supposed losses due to file trading. ASCAP and BMI have it fairly right with broadcasters, venues, etc., and we can get this right.
Also, you have to be an absolute moron to say that we can't compete with free. When was the last time you bought water? dirt? air? a bible? The list of things that we pay for that we could get for free is staggering - someone just figured out how to market it properly.
I didn't know JFK, but John Kennedy, you are no JFK...
---
"Many people around the world tell me that we've handled our problems in an incorrect manner but no one tells me what we should have done," John Kennedy, the head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, told Reuters.
"Free is just impossible to compete with."
---
Bullshit.
Any music industry spokesperson who states this is a brilliant example of why the music industry is suffering. Also, journalists who support this argument should go back to writing classified ad copy for the local dog trainer.
(We've been through this...) Licence the music through the ISPs - they are the new radio (with extra added value for music marketers). A buck or two a month for each subscriber will bring untold riches to the music industry, in amounts far exceeding the wildest estimations of any supposed losses due to file trading. ASCAP and BMI have it fairly right with broadcasters, venues, etc., and we can get this right.
Also, you have to be an absolute moron to say that we can't compete with free. When was the last time you bought water? dirt? air? a bible? The list of things that we pay for that we could get for free is staggering - someone just figured out how to market it properly.
I didn't know JFK, but John Kennedy, you are no JFK...
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
RIAA Terrorists!
A terrorist doesn't exist to kill people or destroy property. They may not be concerned with the death and destruction they cause, but these, to a terrorist, are merely collateral. If they target specific people or properties, we can easily call them assasins or arsonists.
A terrorist lives to keep others in fear.
The 9/11 terrorists didn't care one way or another about the lives they took, families they ruined, or buildings and planes they destroyed. They cared that they believed that they had been wronged. And they cared that Americans would live from then on with the fear that death and destruction could happen to them at any time.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't killing anybody. But they are making a significant percentage of the population live in fear, simply because these people are listening to songs or watching movies.
These lobbying organizations have gamed the system. They have, through acts like the DMCA, distorted the intent of the framers of the US Constitution regarding Copyright. Copyright infringment is a federal offense, but the RIAA has not been able to show cause for the federal government to take a single person to task for trading a file on the internet.
Those of us who derive revenue from intellectual property want to continue to derive revenue - show us the money. The recent history of the music and movie industries has been to deprive the creative sources that provide the actual work of proper compensation, all the while directing revenue up up up the food chain, making these industries more and more dependent on blockbuster hits and less able to support the broad creative impluse that feeds this commerce.
The consumer has grown up seeing that music and movies are seemingly free - radio and TV, for example, have provided entertainment at only the cost of the hardware to receive and display it and at the cost of increased consumer-good prices. Most people don't understand this any more than they understand the fine points of intellectual property law or performance rights society royalty distribution, they just know the stuff keeps flowing toward them.
The entertainment industry, instead of understanding and embracing the opportunites presented by new technology, has run from the internet like their ancestors ran from the giant beast that was eating the sun, which we now calmly understand is simply an eclipse.
The entertainment industry, much like our current administration in Washington, has forgotten, rejected or ignored the simple use of law enforcement to stop crimes against their industry. Instead, they rely on civil suits and a massive PR machine (lawyers and marketers paid-for by you and me by ever-increasing entertainment-product costs) to terrorize people into supporting the current regime, a culture of greed that is a top-heavy and failed business model. A certain percentage of the population will be cowed into obeying. A few executives will be able to afford a nicer car for their spoiled kid or a longer fall vacation on a warm sea, but our culture will suffer.
These industries are releasing fewer and fewer works, yet more and more works are being created. As they release fewer works, they complain that they are not selling as much as they used to! Incredible on their part, but probably not incredible that some people will fall for it.
Instead of fear, RIAA, why not let your member companies sell music?
A terrorist lives to keep others in fear.
The 9/11 terrorists didn't care one way or another about the lives they took, families they ruined, or buildings and planes they destroyed. They cared that they believed that they had been wronged. And they cared that Americans would live from then on with the fear that death and destruction could happen to them at any time.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't killing anybody. But they are making a significant percentage of the population live in fear, simply because these people are listening to songs or watching movies.
These lobbying organizations have gamed the system. They have, through acts like the DMCA, distorted the intent of the framers of the US Constitution regarding Copyright. Copyright infringment is a federal offense, but the RIAA has not been able to show cause for the federal government to take a single person to task for trading a file on the internet.
Those of us who derive revenue from intellectual property want to continue to derive revenue - show us the money. The recent history of the music and movie industries has been to deprive the creative sources that provide the actual work of proper compensation, all the while directing revenue up up up the food chain, making these industries more and more dependent on blockbuster hits and less able to support the broad creative impluse that feeds this commerce.
The consumer has grown up seeing that music and movies are seemingly free - radio and TV, for example, have provided entertainment at only the cost of the hardware to receive and display it and at the cost of increased consumer-good prices. Most people don't understand this any more than they understand the fine points of intellectual property law or performance rights society royalty distribution, they just know the stuff keeps flowing toward them.
The entertainment industry, instead of understanding and embracing the opportunites presented by new technology, has run from the internet like their ancestors ran from the giant beast that was eating the sun, which we now calmly understand is simply an eclipse.
The entertainment industry, much like our current administration in Washington, has forgotten, rejected or ignored the simple use of law enforcement to stop crimes against their industry. Instead, they rely on civil suits and a massive PR machine (lawyers and marketers paid-for by you and me by ever-increasing entertainment-product costs) to terrorize people into supporting the current regime, a culture of greed that is a top-heavy and failed business model. A certain percentage of the population will be cowed into obeying. A few executives will be able to afford a nicer car for their spoiled kid or a longer fall vacation on a warm sea, but our culture will suffer.
These industries are releasing fewer and fewer works, yet more and more works are being created. As they release fewer works, they complain that they are not selling as much as they used to! Incredible on their part, but probably not incredible that some people will fall for it.
Instead of fear, RIAA, why not let your member companies sell music?
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Bush Signs Military Trial Law As 'Vital Tool' Against Terrorism - Preview
Bush Signs Military Trial Law As 'Vital Tool' Against Terrorism - Preview
Way to go!
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we make ten more terrorists dedicated to destroying America.
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we will have ten of our own soldiers treated in this fashion.
This bill is just plain evil, handing down terror to our children and their children.
Way to go!
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we make ten more terrorists dedicated to destroying America.
For every detainee treated in this fashion, we will have ten of our own soldiers treated in this fashion.
This bill is just plain evil, handing down terror to our children and their children.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
If Illegal Downloading Ended Today, Would the Record Biz Still Be In Trouble?
Yes, the biz would still be in trouble.
(As Bob Lefsetz says every other day) When Napster was at its peak, so was the music industry.
After this peak, the music industry cut their artist rosters by 20% or more and release 20% fewer titles per year than during their peak. More indie titles are being released, but the good filter that used to exist in the music industry is gone, and the indie titles don't have appropriate marketing muscle to be brought to the next level of sales.
They seemingly target those within their organization with any knowledge of music. I agree that the quality of releases has rapidly deteriorated. The live concert business shows what music can sell, and the record industry hasn't responded.
The music industry sues its best customers! Their own intelligence tells them that (and this has been true since the days of cassette taping) the people who buy the most blank media and download the most (traded or paid-for) buy the most music. You may use apocryphal stories of your nephew in college to deny this, but the record companies know this.
Yes, people do buy what they can get for free! Air, water, dirt, bibles...arguments that a marketer can not compete against free are wrong, and self-hating.
Slowly, the technology, availability, and pricing structure for music downloads is righting itself. With the introduction of the CD, we basically killed the singles market that generated the album market, but downloads are the cornerstone of a new singles market. Terrestrial radio has gone back to limited playlists of the golden era of '60s Top 40 radio (tight playlists didn't spontaneously germinate in the '00s), but with the Internet, satellite radio, etc., we have more opportunity than ever to hear new music - it's just a media and a market in transition.
(As Bob Lefsetz says every other day) When Napster was at its peak, so was the music industry.
After this peak, the music industry cut their artist rosters by 20% or more and release 20% fewer titles per year than during their peak. More indie titles are being released, but the good filter that used to exist in the music industry is gone, and the indie titles don't have appropriate marketing muscle to be brought to the next level of sales.
They seemingly target those within their organization with any knowledge of music. I agree that the quality of releases has rapidly deteriorated. The live concert business shows what music can sell, and the record industry hasn't responded.
The music industry sues its best customers! Their own intelligence tells them that (and this has been true since the days of cassette taping) the people who buy the most blank media and download the most (traded or paid-for) buy the most music. You may use apocryphal stories of your nephew in college to deny this, but the record companies know this.
Yes, people do buy what they can get for free! Air, water, dirt, bibles...arguments that a marketer can not compete against free are wrong, and self-hating.
Slowly, the technology, availability, and pricing structure for music downloads is righting itself. With the introduction of the CD, we basically killed the singles market that generated the album market, but downloads are the cornerstone of a new singles market. Terrestrial radio has gone back to limited playlists of the golden era of '60s Top 40 radio (tight playlists didn't spontaneously germinate in the '00s), but with the Internet, satellite radio, etc., we have more opportunity than ever to hear new music - it's just a media and a market in transition.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Labor Day, a Day Late, Still Relevant
This is for my dad.
He grew up in the midwest during the Great Depression, to factory-worker parents. He joined the US Navy at the tail-end of WWII, training in the Pacific Northwest and being shipped-out to Guam to support the training for the invasion of Tokyo (as mindful as we all need to be about the use of nuclear weapons, I'm glad that invasion never happened). After the war, he trained in Electronics at the Great Lakes school under the GI Bill, got a job near his parents, met my mom and got married, and worked for Ma Bell for forty years until his retirement.
All the while, he was a member of the Communications Workers of America. He was able to afford a small house in a decent neighborhood in a small Indiana city. We never wanted for food or shelter. We took occasional driving vacations. We saw our dad home for dinner most every night. We had free phone service! The local family doctor took care of our needs - we could afford him, and medical insurance covered the big things.
Now, at 78, he has had a stroke. He has lost some mobility because his hearing and sight have been impaired, but he is still all there. He is past his time for vacations, but he is home for evey meal. He has a $30 copay for medical care, but the big things are still taken care of by the same medical insurance he has always had. He still gets a discount on phone service! He retired with a modest lump-sum pension, which is largely intact after 20 years (after appreciating greatly during the '90s).
My mom survives by taking care of him and putting up with him - I'm not sure of the ratio here. She worked out of the home when I and my brother got to high school, not because she had to but because she liked the work and the extra money, and she continued to work until a few years ago.
This is a world I don't really know. Despite my dedication and perseverence, I haven't known stability from my employers. My medical insurance gets stinkier and stinkier with each year, and (I don't blame them) my current employer may drop this. I haven't received a Cost of Living raise since I started this job, despite successful performance. I can't afford to buy the cheapest home in the city where I live (granted, it's a pretty expensive city). With two teenage boys, I can see that I won't be able to afford to pay directly for their college educations.
We are in the midst of a vast social experiment. Most families need two working parents to have the income, adjusted for inflation, that our parents had, yet the currently politically correct view is that current political policy is family friendly. Unions, like liberals, have been demonized, and a gullible minority of Americans have bought into this enough to move an Electoral College majority, plainly against the self-interest of these voters. My father is alive today and enjoying his life as best he can largely because the union was there to support him while he worked. Can you remember a time when your phone service was a better value and more reliable than the '50s and '60s? Of course not. You can say the same thing about American-made cars, appliances, etc.
Toyota is opening a factory soon in San Antonio, TX; as the US Big Three are closing plants and destroying workers' lives (while fattening shareholders, board members, and C-level execs), Toyota has apparently figured-out which cars Americans want to buy and how to make them here without a unionized labor force. If we stop demonizing unions and just fix what's wrong with management and investment, the high cost of US labor will lessen as a factor in our global economy.
We just want to be able to afford to pay our doctor, our dentist, and our college. We want to be able to afford an appropriate house in a relatively safe, clean, quiet neighborhood, close to our work. We don't need a fancy single-payer medical care system, as we do not need luxury medical care 100% paid by our employer. We just want some security, so that we can afford our piece of the pie and don't lose the chance because our boss or the board of directors needs a second European vacation or German car this year.
No matter how we spin the current economy, for most of us it is a weak recovery from a recession. Two things stand out: real estate, where indeed some people have been lifted from rent-to-own but most growth has been in second and third homes, and consumer spending, which will certainly end as more people slip off the unemployment edge or get Wal-Marted into a part time job with no benefits. When this is gone, this weak recovery combined with welfare for the wealty and this hideous war in Iraq might combine to give us the Bush Depression.
We can fix this by ending this war on the middle class. Make taxes fair - close all loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, and then everyone can get a break. Remove the middlemen from business! HMOs suck money from consumers and doctors with no added benefit to us - removing this blight alone could right the course of the staggering increases in healthcare costs.
My Day-after-Labor-Day toast is to unions, and what they have done to make our country strong, prosperous, and safe.
He grew up in the midwest during the Great Depression, to factory-worker parents. He joined the US Navy at the tail-end of WWII, training in the Pacific Northwest and being shipped-out to Guam to support the training for the invasion of Tokyo (as mindful as we all need to be about the use of nuclear weapons, I'm glad that invasion never happened). After the war, he trained in Electronics at the Great Lakes school under the GI Bill, got a job near his parents, met my mom and got married, and worked for Ma Bell for forty years until his retirement.
All the while, he was a member of the Communications Workers of America. He was able to afford a small house in a decent neighborhood in a small Indiana city. We never wanted for food or shelter. We took occasional driving vacations. We saw our dad home for dinner most every night. We had free phone service! The local family doctor took care of our needs - we could afford him, and medical insurance covered the big things.
Now, at 78, he has had a stroke. He has lost some mobility because his hearing and sight have been impaired, but he is still all there. He is past his time for vacations, but he is home for evey meal. He has a $30 copay for medical care, but the big things are still taken care of by the same medical insurance he has always had. He still gets a discount on phone service! He retired with a modest lump-sum pension, which is largely intact after 20 years (after appreciating greatly during the '90s).
My mom survives by taking care of him and putting up with him - I'm not sure of the ratio here. She worked out of the home when I and my brother got to high school, not because she had to but because she liked the work and the extra money, and she continued to work until a few years ago.
This is a world I don't really know. Despite my dedication and perseverence, I haven't known stability from my employers. My medical insurance gets stinkier and stinkier with each year, and (I don't blame them) my current employer may drop this. I haven't received a Cost of Living raise since I started this job, despite successful performance. I can't afford to buy the cheapest home in the city where I live (granted, it's a pretty expensive city). With two teenage boys, I can see that I won't be able to afford to pay directly for their college educations.
We are in the midst of a vast social experiment. Most families need two working parents to have the income, adjusted for inflation, that our parents had, yet the currently politically correct view is that current political policy is family friendly. Unions, like liberals, have been demonized, and a gullible minority of Americans have bought into this enough to move an Electoral College majority, plainly against the self-interest of these voters. My father is alive today and enjoying his life as best he can largely because the union was there to support him while he worked. Can you remember a time when your phone service was a better value and more reliable than the '50s and '60s? Of course not. You can say the same thing about American-made cars, appliances, etc.
Toyota is opening a factory soon in San Antonio, TX; as the US Big Three are closing plants and destroying workers' lives (while fattening shareholders, board members, and C-level execs), Toyota has apparently figured-out which cars Americans want to buy and how to make them here without a unionized labor force. If we stop demonizing unions and just fix what's wrong with management and investment, the high cost of US labor will lessen as a factor in our global economy.
We just want to be able to afford to pay our doctor, our dentist, and our college. We want to be able to afford an appropriate house in a relatively safe, clean, quiet neighborhood, close to our work. We don't need a fancy single-payer medical care system, as we do not need luxury medical care 100% paid by our employer. We just want some security, so that we can afford our piece of the pie and don't lose the chance because our boss or the board of directors needs a second European vacation or German car this year.
No matter how we spin the current economy, for most of us it is a weak recovery from a recession. Two things stand out: real estate, where indeed some people have been lifted from rent-to-own but most growth has been in second and third homes, and consumer spending, which will certainly end as more people slip off the unemployment edge or get Wal-Marted into a part time job with no benefits. When this is gone, this weak recovery combined with welfare for the wealty and this hideous war in Iraq might combine to give us the Bush Depression.
We can fix this by ending this war on the middle class. Make taxes fair - close all loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, and then everyone can get a break. Remove the middlemen from business! HMOs suck money from consumers and doctors with no added benefit to us - removing this blight alone could right the course of the staggering increases in healthcare costs.
My Day-after-Labor-Day toast is to unions, and what they have done to make our country strong, prosperous, and safe.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Film piracy: Is it theft?
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | Film piracy: Is it theft?
A wonderful two-headed interview (not a debate, since the interviewees are in different places) about art, technology and business today. The video feed can be watched at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm.
Dan Glickman of the MPAA sticks to the ignorant caveman definitions and uses of the words "theft" and "piracy" as commonly applied to intellectual property rights and technology today. He seems to be ignorant of the entertainment industry's own successful processes that compete with "free."
John Perry Barlow smartly and soberly (hmmm, he wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead) provides clear examples of how he has prospered from "free" (his example of the Dead's blanket permission for their fans to tape and distribute concerts). His scathing point that the entertainment industry is peopled by men who are older, less flexible, and less smart that the average young consumer today, and the industry must adapt.
The industry should have adapted ten years ago, yet they collectively cry like babies and misdirect attention to make up for the fact that their share of the entertainment pie does not continue to grow exponentially, all while consumers and artists are not being served.
The music industry, from the rise of Rock 'n Roll and the LP record, and the movie industry, from the birth of the summer blockbuster and the home video market, have prospered and found brilliant ways to provide less value to consumers and less compensation to artists. The entertainment industry, and perhaps more importantly our artistic culture, will never truly prosper until this gets turned around, with consumers receiving far greater quality and value and artists (in both broad and deep ways) receiving far more support and compensation for their work.
A wonderful two-headed interview (not a debate, since the interviewees are in different places) about art, technology and business today. The video feed can be watched at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm.
Dan Glickman of the MPAA sticks to the ignorant caveman definitions and uses of the words "theft" and "piracy" as commonly applied to intellectual property rights and technology today. He seems to be ignorant of the entertainment industry's own successful processes that compete with "free."
John Perry Barlow smartly and soberly (hmmm, he wrote lyrics for the Grateful Dead) provides clear examples of how he has prospered from "free" (his example of the Dead's blanket permission for their fans to tape and distribute concerts). His scathing point that the entertainment industry is peopled by men who are older, less flexible, and less smart that the average young consumer today, and the industry must adapt.
The industry should have adapted ten years ago, yet they collectively cry like babies and misdirect attention to make up for the fact that their share of the entertainment pie does not continue to grow exponentially, all while consumers and artists are not being served.
The music industry, from the rise of Rock 'n Roll and the LP record, and the movie industry, from the birth of the summer blockbuster and the home video market, have prospered and found brilliant ways to provide less value to consumers and less compensation to artists. The entertainment industry, and perhaps more importantly our artistic culture, will never truly prosper until this gets turned around, with consumers receiving far greater quality and value and artists (in both broad and deep ways) receiving far more support and compensation for their work.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Tower files Chapter 11, seeks buyer
Tower files Chapter 11, seeks buyer
Simply no surprise. Simply an example of a top-heavy public company that hasn't managed to figure out how to turn a growing-profit in a changing market. Not necessarily a sign of impending doom for the music industry.
I don't think that a packaged music format, something that people can pick up, feel, and pay-for at a cash 'n wrap, will at some point cease to exist. I do believe that we have seen the last successful disc-based format (at least I hope so). SA-CD and DVD-A (including its cousin DualDisc) were tremendous improvements over CD, sounding better, providing high-resolution and surround music capabilities, having limited video capability (for DVD-A), containing backwards compatibility, etc., yet in a non-rush to market these properly, the music industry let them become a failed experiment. New formats Blue Ray and HD-DVD can be described with the same advantages over CD, yet unless the music and video industries can quickly come to their senses, both formats will go down in flames.
There are other ways to distribute content. I hope that the physical medium will have no moving parts. Flash memory is getting denser, more robust, and cheaper every day, but it probably has limitations that will prevent it from getting as cheap per storage-unit as current magneto-optical systems. Spinning discs were from day-one an anachronism, designed from hearts raised with the romantic notion of spinning vinyl, and even in the late-'70s not the only choice for dense data storage. The Sony/Philips hegemony of patent rights, replication facilities, and constant hardware upgrade and replacement cycles has been very effective to them but it has held-back media technology by decades. Whatever way the planet spins toward for physical content distribution, I hope that we see the light before a spinning disc or (hard drive) platter is chosen.
The People have spoken (and have been speaking for a decade) - they download and trade files of audio and video content. It's just plain natural for us to have a (currently) open communications system like the internet and share what we can. Certainly a one-to-many hobbled system like iTunes is one way to generate revenue for copyright holders (hopefully to creative artists), albeit a limited hierarchical one. The browsing process at the iTunes store can be replicated in a retail brick 'n mortar environment, possibly with technology that lets us listen to anything in the store beyond the primitive listening stations, relatively unchanged since the 1950s; browsing through a stack of CDs at Tower, we see something we like (the visual will continue to be very important) and pick it up. What if the music on this music-carrier immediately started playing in our earpiece tethered to our cellphone, and we could add this to a playlist for download, add the physical album to our shopping cart at the cash 'n wrap (perhaps to be replicated, printed, and shrink-wrapped on-the-spot!), or to a save-for-later list? This could satisfy both our urges for immediate-download-gratification and hunter-gatherer instinct directing us to take home a trophy (the shopping gene, common to men and women!).
Why isn't Tower at every live performance? Set up a small shop selling the artist's (and related artists') CDs, offering on-the-spot downloads to phones and iPods, selling instant CD-Rs of tonight's shows, sharing profits 50/50 with the artist? This works at every level of the music industry, from opening acts at local clubs to sold-out U2 arena shows.
Some say iTunes etc. is pushing us toward a singles-market instead of an album market, but in the century of music distribution, we have seen this cycle a few times - after the height of the 78 RPM album in the '30s, and again in the album-oriented '70s and '80s. These cycles should be looked-upon as a refresher for the industry, not as a coffin-nail in an industry.
Some say Tower's biggest challenge comes from Wal-Mart, Target and Circuit City. This may be so currently, but again people forget recent history. Most people, through Rock 'n Roll era, the Hi Fi boom, and the rise of the LP record and CD, bought most of their discs at Sears or J. C. Penney, at rackjobbed sections of the store. These sections carried only the hits, but they replaced what was sold, and could be depended-upon to have popular stuff at a reasonable price, close-to-home whether you lived in Manhattan KS or Manhattan, New York, NY. A specialty retailer like Tower will always sell the hits, but what differentiates them from the mass-marketers would be depth of catalog. Unfortunately since mass-marketers (including internet-based retailers) often look at music and video products as loss-leaders, drawing people to their stores to ultimately purchase more-profitable items, Tower has had to increasingly charge higher prices than mass-marketers and is looked-on as a high-priced alternative. The record labels should have recognized Tower's worth and found a way for them and other specialty retailers to prosper in the face of mass-market competition.
And don't get me started on independent record stores. The major labels had essentially booted the indies by the early '80s by refusing to sell direct to them. A linear decline in independent store success continues to this day. Successful indies, I guess Amoeba would be the poster child, could concentrate on depth, scale, and vibe, while using tools like live performances, trade in used product (at-best a wash for the music industry, trading actual sales for marketing value), etc. And Starbucks would have to qualify as a successful indie record store chain, exploiting their captive, homogeneous audience with very focused custom product.
Tower has a lot going for it if it wants to survive as an independent entertainment retailer - a known name, refined distribution mechanism (if they haven't fatally poisoned this stream by not paying their suppliers), physical locations probably still with good locations and affordable leases, etc. If they can show that they can adapt, and in-fact lead, they can choose to prosper.
Simply no surprise. Simply an example of a top-heavy public company that hasn't managed to figure out how to turn a growing-profit in a changing market. Not necessarily a sign of impending doom for the music industry.
I don't think that a packaged music format, something that people can pick up, feel, and pay-for at a cash 'n wrap, will at some point cease to exist. I do believe that we have seen the last successful disc-based format (at least I hope so). SA-CD and DVD-A (including its cousin DualDisc) were tremendous improvements over CD, sounding better, providing high-resolution and surround music capabilities, having limited video capability (for DVD-A), containing backwards compatibility, etc., yet in a non-rush to market these properly, the music industry let them become a failed experiment. New formats Blue Ray and HD-DVD can be described with the same advantages over CD, yet unless the music and video industries can quickly come to their senses, both formats will go down in flames.
There are other ways to distribute content. I hope that the physical medium will have no moving parts. Flash memory is getting denser, more robust, and cheaper every day, but it probably has limitations that will prevent it from getting as cheap per storage-unit as current magneto-optical systems. Spinning discs were from day-one an anachronism, designed from hearts raised with the romantic notion of spinning vinyl, and even in the late-'70s not the only choice for dense data storage. The Sony/Philips hegemony of patent rights, replication facilities, and constant hardware upgrade and replacement cycles has been very effective to them but it has held-back media technology by decades. Whatever way the planet spins toward for physical content distribution, I hope that we see the light before a spinning disc or (hard drive) platter is chosen.
The People have spoken (and have been speaking for a decade) - they download and trade files of audio and video content. It's just plain natural for us to have a (currently) open communications system like the internet and share what we can. Certainly a one-to-many hobbled system like iTunes is one way to generate revenue for copyright holders (hopefully to creative artists), albeit a limited hierarchical one. The browsing process at the iTunes store can be replicated in a retail brick 'n mortar environment, possibly with technology that lets us listen to anything in the store beyond the primitive listening stations, relatively unchanged since the 1950s; browsing through a stack of CDs at Tower, we see something we like (the visual will continue to be very important) and pick it up. What if the music on this music-carrier immediately started playing in our earpiece tethered to our cellphone, and we could add this to a playlist for download, add the physical album to our shopping cart at the cash 'n wrap (perhaps to be replicated, printed, and shrink-wrapped on-the-spot!), or to a save-for-later list? This could satisfy both our urges for immediate-download-gratification and hunter-gatherer instinct directing us to take home a trophy (the shopping gene, common to men and women!).
Why isn't Tower at every live performance? Set up a small shop selling the artist's (and related artists') CDs, offering on-the-spot downloads to phones and iPods, selling instant CD-Rs of tonight's shows, sharing profits 50/50 with the artist? This works at every level of the music industry, from opening acts at local clubs to sold-out U2 arena shows.
Some say iTunes etc. is pushing us toward a singles-market instead of an album market, but in the century of music distribution, we have seen this cycle a few times - after the height of the 78 RPM album in the '30s, and again in the album-oriented '70s and '80s. These cycles should be looked-upon as a refresher for the industry, not as a coffin-nail in an industry.
Some say Tower's biggest challenge comes from Wal-Mart, Target and Circuit City. This may be so currently, but again people forget recent history. Most people, through Rock 'n Roll era, the Hi Fi boom, and the rise of the LP record and CD, bought most of their discs at Sears or J. C. Penney, at rackjobbed sections of the store. These sections carried only the hits, but they replaced what was sold, and could be depended-upon to have popular stuff at a reasonable price, close-to-home whether you lived in Manhattan KS or Manhattan, New York, NY. A specialty retailer like Tower will always sell the hits, but what differentiates them from the mass-marketers would be depth of catalog. Unfortunately since mass-marketers (including internet-based retailers) often look at music and video products as loss-leaders, drawing people to their stores to ultimately purchase more-profitable items, Tower has had to increasingly charge higher prices than mass-marketers and is looked-on as a high-priced alternative. The record labels should have recognized Tower's worth and found a way for them and other specialty retailers to prosper in the face of mass-market competition.
And don't get me started on independent record stores. The major labels had essentially booted the indies by the early '80s by refusing to sell direct to them. A linear decline in independent store success continues to this day. Successful indies, I guess Amoeba would be the poster child, could concentrate on depth, scale, and vibe, while using tools like live performances, trade in used product (at-best a wash for the music industry, trading actual sales for marketing value), etc. And Starbucks would have to qualify as a successful indie record store chain, exploiting their captive, homogeneous audience with very focused custom product.
Tower has a lot going for it if it wants to survive as an independent entertainment retailer - a known name, refined distribution mechanism (if they haven't fatally poisoned this stream by not paying their suppliers), physical locations probably still with good locations and affordable leases, etc. If they can show that they can adapt, and in-fact lead, they can choose to prosper.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
US Democrats compress presidential calendar | US News | Reuters.com
US Democrats compress presidential calendar | US News | Reuters.com
I'm not a member of a political party.
I have never been a member of a political party, I probably never will be, but I kind a wish that there was a party to which I would like to be invited. Am I missing out of some fun?
Belonging to the Republican or Democratic party these days is sort of like being a fan of a Major League Baseball team. You might get interested by one or two players or strategies, but these things by their nature will change every few years. You then stick through the winnings and losings because you're comfortable, because you know where the cleanest restrooms are, because, well, they're still in the game, aren't they?
It's particularly present in the Republican party these days - a Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or even a Goldwater Republican wouldn't recognize the party today. The majority of the tiny minority that keeps the barely-conservative current administration in power hardly understands what the elite plans for these what's-the-matter-with-Kansas crowd. The current Rove-army is very smart at getting their people elected largely against the self-interest of many of the people who vote for them.
If the Democrats wantopinioninon, they should not take subtle strategic moves like these movements of primaries. They should require a primary, with common rules, in each of the fifty states, on the same day. Let's pick May 15.
That gives six months for their nominees to campaign - well enough. It gives the national party less influence on any one state, but I'm sure they will allocate engery, time, money, money, money, to the states where their efforts will produce candidates that will influence the national election, (did I say money?).
Let's say the Republicans do this too. In 2008. A six month presidential election. Let's say they agree that the six months will be spent with at least one joint appearance in each of the 50 states, in a large public facility, with full media coverage (every radio and TV outlet will carry this in the local area). Two presidential candidates talking to each other - discussing, debating, maybe estrategiczing, in front of a non-cherry-picked audience that would be seeing the same show, without filters.
I must say that a candidate with the obvious lack of appropriate knowledge communicationsions skills as our current president would never have made it through this process. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm not a member of a political party.
I have never been a member of a political party, I probably never will be, but I kind a wish that there was a party to which I would like to be invited. Am I missing out of some fun?
Belonging to the Republican or Democratic party these days is sort of like being a fan of a Major League Baseball team. You might get interested by one or two players or strategies, but these things by their nature will change every few years. You then stick through the winnings and losings because you're comfortable, because you know where the cleanest restrooms are, because, well, they're still in the game, aren't they?
It's particularly present in the Republican party these days - a Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, or even a Goldwater Republican wouldn't recognize the party today. The majority of the tiny minority that keeps the barely-conservative current administration in power hardly understands what the elite plans for these what's-the-matter-with-Kansas crowd. The current Rove-army is very smart at getting their people elected largely against the self-interest of many of the people who vote for them.
If the Democrats wantopinioninon, they should not take subtle strategic moves like these movements of primaries. They should require a primary, with common rules, in each of the fifty states, on the same day. Let's pick May 15.
That gives six months for their nominees to campaign - well enough. It gives the national party less influence on any one state, but I'm sure they will allocate engery, time, money, money, money, to the states where their efforts will produce candidates that will influence the national election, (did I say money?).
Let's say the Republicans do this too. In 2008. A six month presidential election. Let's say they agree that the six months will be spent with at least one joint appearance in each of the 50 states, in a large public facility, with full media coverage (every radio and TV outlet will carry this in the local area). Two presidential candidates talking to each other - discussing, debating, maybe estrategiczing, in front of a non-cherry-picked audience that would be seeing the same show, without filters.
I must say that a candidate with the obvious lack of appropriate knowledge communicationsions skills as our current president would never have made it through this process. Wouldn't you agree?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Recall Ahnold? Maybe, but at Least Vote in Your Own Best Interest
Once again, California is a laughing stock because we elected an actor as governor. History isn't kind to our previous experience with this, and look at the squirmy leftovers from the Reagan administration currently working in the GWB administration, how well their policies have treated you, and how popular they are. Many of us may have felt a certain need to get Gray Davis out of office, but what is the price we are paying for the recall frenzy?
If you still are of the belief that Davis deregulated the energy industry in California and caused rolling blackouts, or that he tripled our car tax, do a little more research. These things were put into place by Republican Governor Pete Wilson, a meaner and grayer Gray. Wilson is not a stupid man, but deregulation and tax cuts as an ideological tactic were all the rage, and apparently the majority of us bought into this despite the fact that most of us would never benefit - short term or long - from these ideas as implemented to buy the votes of the wealthy and powerful.
A great source for information might be the book and movie "The Smartest Men in the Room" about the rise and fall of Enron. The traders at Enron and other companies had found ways to game the power distribution system in California to their financial advantage. As long as a resource or utility is being traded, someone will find a way to profit - these guys just used their corporate influence (including a long-standing relationship with the Bush family and those currently in-power in the White House) to take this profitability to a new level, without regard to the effect on the California energy market and Californians in-general.
In 2001 the state suffered rolling blackouts January 17-18, during the time of year when California typically used the least electricity. Davis bought power at highly unfavorable terms on the open market, since the California power companies were technically bankrupt and had no buying power. The "Smartest..." writers report their conclusion that, while he stood his ground for a while, Davis eventually capitulated to the terms set forth by the bankers controlling energy interests so he could secure his financial position for a possible presidential run in 2004; I can't see this, since his political support and popular poll number was at this time very low.
In April of 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger meets with Bush political advisers to discuss whether the actor should run for Governor of California in 2002. Karl Rove says "That would be really nice. That would be really, really nice."
On May 17 2001, Schwarzenegger met with Enron CEO Ken Lay, Michael Milken, and 12 other California Republicans at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. There they share (according to Enron emails) "an insider's conversation of what's going on with the energy situation." Later, during his campaign for governor, Schwarzenegger claims he is unable to remember anything about the meeting, including whether he even met Ken Lay.
In early 2003 an effort to recall the unpopular Davis, funded largely by the black-hearted and covetous Darrell Issa, began. When Schwarzenegger threw his hat in the ring, the Republican party (not yet suffering from record-low poll numbers nationally themselves) knew they had a chance and threw their support behind him. Schwarzenegger blamed Davis for the energy crisis, for the end of the VLF Offset signed - with a sunset clause - by Pete Wilson, and for spending too much time in office raising political funds. Thus, Davis was replaced in this recall, based on this pack of lies.
Davis may not have led effectively in the energy area, but no reasonable person can disagree that the game was rigged against him on international, national, and statewide levels. What's funny is that the pricing that Gov. Davis agreed to with his back in a corner in 2001 actually is saving Californians today, since energy prices have since skyrocketed. One of the largest interests supporting the Schwarzenegger campaign was car dealerships, funding the spread of lies about the VLF Offset, and Schwarzenegger paid them back by holding a political rally at a car dealership in the San Fernando valley at taxpayers' expense, signing bills taking away existing consumer rights in automobile transactions. And since his election, Schwarzenegger has spent a record amount of time raising a record amount of political money, far exceeding Davis' best efforts.
Aren't Arnold's actions in that recall effort enough to convince any California resident that he was the wrong choice? Our constitutional recall provision is not bad in-itself, but shouldn't we save it for truly criminal actors and punish ineffective leaders in elections? Gov. Shwartzenegger's ineffectiveness as governor, his misguided and costly special election effort, and low current popular support should speak for themselves.
Let's vote for our own interest in November, and put this Experiment in Arnold back where it belongs.
If you still are of the belief that Davis deregulated the energy industry in California and caused rolling blackouts, or that he tripled our car tax, do a little more research. These things were put into place by Republican Governor Pete Wilson, a meaner and grayer Gray. Wilson is not a stupid man, but deregulation and tax cuts as an ideological tactic were all the rage, and apparently the majority of us bought into this despite the fact that most of us would never benefit - short term or long - from these ideas as implemented to buy the votes of the wealthy and powerful.
A great source for information might be the book and movie "The Smartest Men in the Room" about the rise and fall of Enron. The traders at Enron and other companies had found ways to game the power distribution system in California to their financial advantage. As long as a resource or utility is being traded, someone will find a way to profit - these guys just used their corporate influence (including a long-standing relationship with the Bush family and those currently in-power in the White House) to take this profitability to a new level, without regard to the effect on the California energy market and Californians in-general.
In 2001 the state suffered rolling blackouts January 17-18, during the time of year when California typically used the least electricity. Davis bought power at highly unfavorable terms on the open market, since the California power companies were technically bankrupt and had no buying power. The "Smartest..." writers report their conclusion that, while he stood his ground for a while, Davis eventually capitulated to the terms set forth by the bankers controlling energy interests so he could secure his financial position for a possible presidential run in 2004; I can't see this, since his political support and popular poll number was at this time very low.
In April of 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger meets with Bush political advisers to discuss whether the actor should run for Governor of California in 2002. Karl Rove says "That would be really nice. That would be really, really nice."
On May 17 2001, Schwarzenegger met with Enron CEO Ken Lay, Michael Milken, and 12 other California Republicans at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. There they share (according to Enron emails) "an insider's conversation of what's going on with the energy situation." Later, during his campaign for governor, Schwarzenegger claims he is unable to remember anything about the meeting, including whether he even met Ken Lay.
In early 2003 an effort to recall the unpopular Davis, funded largely by the black-hearted and covetous Darrell Issa, began. When Schwarzenegger threw his hat in the ring, the Republican party (not yet suffering from record-low poll numbers nationally themselves) knew they had a chance and threw their support behind him. Schwarzenegger blamed Davis for the energy crisis, for the end of the VLF Offset signed - with a sunset clause - by Pete Wilson, and for spending too much time in office raising political funds. Thus, Davis was replaced in this recall, based on this pack of lies.
Davis may not have led effectively in the energy area, but no reasonable person can disagree that the game was rigged against him on international, national, and statewide levels. What's funny is that the pricing that Gov. Davis agreed to with his back in a corner in 2001 actually is saving Californians today, since energy prices have since skyrocketed. One of the largest interests supporting the Schwarzenegger campaign was car dealerships, funding the spread of lies about the VLF Offset, and Schwarzenegger paid them back by holding a political rally at a car dealership in the San Fernando valley at taxpayers' expense, signing bills taking away existing consumer rights in automobile transactions. And since his election, Schwarzenegger has spent a record amount of time raising a record amount of political money, far exceeding Davis' best efforts.
Aren't Arnold's actions in that recall effort enough to convince any California resident that he was the wrong choice? Our constitutional recall provision is not bad in-itself, but shouldn't we save it for truly criminal actors and punish ineffective leaders in elections? Gov. Shwartzenegger's ineffectiveness as governor, his misguided and costly special election effort, and low current popular support should speak for themselves.
Let's vote for our own interest in November, and put this Experiment in Arnold back where it belongs.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Estate Tax on Minimum Wage Bill? It's a tax on the Death of Common Sense!
Other than in some bizarre world of state-supported class warfare, the recent (and recently defeated) bill teaming a Minimum Wage hike with cutting the Estate Tax was politics at its lowest.
We're all suffering because of the disparity between poor and rich. None of us are benefitting from the fact that the lowest paid worker in the US earns less that he or she has, adjusted for inflation, since the introduction of the Federal Minimum Wage. I'm not suggesting a Minimum Wage beyond that as a safety net (although a Living Wage, adjusted for local cost of living, would be a tremendous boon for all), but it is just plain wrong for the best and wealthiest country in the world to ensure that our lowest-paid workers can not sustain a family of four above the poverty line.
In this great country, we do not create royalty. The Estate Tax (go directy to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars if you call it the Death Tax...) is not an either/or proposition - the bulk of this un-earned income should be passed to heirs, but it is reasonable to expect some of this to be redistributed, as our founding fathers would have suported. And please, no hysterical stories of farms or small businesses going under - if the founder of a business is wealthy enough to be affected by the Estate Tax, he or she can afford a lawyer and a financial planner to keep this from happening.
In this great country, we value hard work and families. Minimum Wage earners are actually working for something (unlike trust-fund kids in most cases) and deserve respectful treatment and a place at the table. If employers won't do this, simply because they can, the safety net of the Minimum Wage is a reasonable way to direct these business owners to contribute to their brothers, their neighborhood, and their society.
After all, the GAO's own studies show some interesting things: most new jobs are created by small business owners. Most Minimum Wage-earning employees are employed by small business owners. Small Business owners in the states with the highest Minimum Wage are also the most prosperous, even adjusted for increased cost-of-living in these states. These same small business owners benefit most from more stable employees, safer neighborhoods, increased local spending, etc., that the increased Minimum Wage delivers.
A spending cut (instead of a tax cut/welfare for the wealthy) would be appropriate to balance a Minimum Wage hike. Maybe even a federal tax break to the business owner for each new employee hired at the Minimum Wage or higher after the Minimum Wage is increased.
I can already hear the Republican congressional candidates already practicing their speeches: "We tried to increase the Minimum Wage in congress, but the Democrats voted it down!" When will people stop believing this crap?
We're all suffering because of the disparity between poor and rich. None of us are benefitting from the fact that the lowest paid worker in the US earns less that he or she has, adjusted for inflation, since the introduction of the Federal Minimum Wage. I'm not suggesting a Minimum Wage beyond that as a safety net (although a Living Wage, adjusted for local cost of living, would be a tremendous boon for all), but it is just plain wrong for the best and wealthiest country in the world to ensure that our lowest-paid workers can not sustain a family of four above the poverty line.
In this great country, we do not create royalty. The Estate Tax (go directy to jail, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars if you call it the Death Tax...) is not an either/or proposition - the bulk of this un-earned income should be passed to heirs, but it is reasonable to expect some of this to be redistributed, as our founding fathers would have suported. And please, no hysterical stories of farms or small businesses going under - if the founder of a business is wealthy enough to be affected by the Estate Tax, he or she can afford a lawyer and a financial planner to keep this from happening.
In this great country, we value hard work and families. Minimum Wage earners are actually working for something (unlike trust-fund kids in most cases) and deserve respectful treatment and a place at the table. If employers won't do this, simply because they can, the safety net of the Minimum Wage is a reasonable way to direct these business owners to contribute to their brothers, their neighborhood, and their society.
After all, the GAO's own studies show some interesting things: most new jobs are created by small business owners. Most Minimum Wage-earning employees are employed by small business owners. Small Business owners in the states with the highest Minimum Wage are also the most prosperous, even adjusted for increased cost-of-living in these states. These same small business owners benefit most from more stable employees, safer neighborhoods, increased local spending, etc., that the increased Minimum Wage delivers.
A spending cut (instead of a tax cut/welfare for the wealthy) would be appropriate to balance a Minimum Wage hike. Maybe even a federal tax break to the business owner for each new employee hired at the Minimum Wage or higher after the Minimum Wage is increased.
I can already hear the Republican congressional candidates already practicing their speeches: "We tried to increase the Minimum Wage in congress, but the Democrats voted it down!" When will people stop believing this crap?
Friday, April 21, 2006
Gas Prices High? Gas the Rich!
Oil approaches record high prices - the Saudis game the system to inflate prices
arbitrarily, the Bush administration has strong ties to the Saudi royal family, we were
supposed to pay for this imperialistic war with Iraqi oil...
Multi-national oil companies are making record profits!
US refineries are making record profits!
Oil and refining company C-level executives are receiving record compensation!
What's difficult to understand about this? While not one company, these organizations
operate monopolistically. We all suffer some direct loss of money from higher prices at the
pump; we can choose to drive less to some extent, but commutes are generally
non-discretionary. We will soon start to suffer regressively from higher
consumer-good/service costs, fewer new jobs, layoffs, etc. The already-wealthy will continue
to be wealthy through this, but the middle and lower classes will be increasingly harmed.
The Gods of growth and short-term economic (and political) profits must not be honored! The very essence of the United States depends on a diverse, free, and prosperous middle class. The religious right, in particular, has been gamed by one flavor of politician - the politicians have pampered this minority and pandered to them by convincing them that they are the majority, when in-fact they have more in common with the other political party in terms of self-interest and economic survival. How can a rust belt resident whose hard-won middle class job has been tossed away by a government working only for the interests of big-money, big-medicine, and big-oil?
Oil and gasoline get sold as a commodity, but in fact this market is gamed like a Vegas sports board. No surprise that consumer pricing rises and falls nationally. It's time to regulate this industry as a utility, for the good of us all, not the good of a few.
arbitrarily, the Bush administration has strong ties to the Saudi royal family, we were
supposed to pay for this imperialistic war with Iraqi oil...
Multi-national oil companies are making record profits!
US refineries are making record profits!
Oil and refining company C-level executives are receiving record compensation!
What's difficult to understand about this? While not one company, these organizations
operate monopolistically. We all suffer some direct loss of money from higher prices at the
pump; we can choose to drive less to some extent, but commutes are generally
non-discretionary. We will soon start to suffer regressively from higher
consumer-good/service costs, fewer new jobs, layoffs, etc. The already-wealthy will continue
to be wealthy through this, but the middle and lower classes will be increasingly harmed.
The Gods of growth and short-term economic (and political) profits must not be honored! The very essence of the United States depends on a diverse, free, and prosperous middle class. The religious right, in particular, has been gamed by one flavor of politician - the politicians have pampered this minority and pandered to them by convincing them that they are the majority, when in-fact they have more in common with the other political party in terms of self-interest and economic survival. How can a rust belt resident whose hard-won middle class job has been tossed away by a government working only for the interests of big-money, big-medicine, and big-oil?
Oil and gasoline get sold as a commodity, but in fact this market is gamed like a Vegas sports board. No surprise that consumer pricing rises and falls nationally. It's time to regulate this industry as a utility, for the good of us all, not the good of a few.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Viral Marketing - cure or cause...
Viral marketing - buzz word of the dot-com and genX era. It's still thrown around as fresh, new, hip.
The trouble is that viral marketing is truly the only way any passion gets spread from one person to many people. Anyone in advertising who thinks that their major TV commercial with one showing will persuade one person to buy one product is delusional. Apple couldn't, in 1984 or today, honestly claim that their product would help any one person escape from the shackles of conformity, but their ads certainly did create a centrally accessible and memorable image for those who chose to convert to the cult. This membership mentality led people to use the products in a way that showed others that they, too should use the product.
A biological virus does not get spread if the virus is know to the host (unless the host is pathological). I will willingly "Tell a Friend" about a product or service if they ask, and if I truly believe in that product or service. But, I will not share the love about anything (sorry about the evangelical religious implications, but this is fundamentally true) without a reason. I choose not to wear designer clothes that highlight the designer's name; I might if the designer paid me to do it, but instead, we seem to pathologically love to pay more of our hard earned money to be walking commercials for overpriced sweatshop clothes. You might find me wearing a shirt with a Gibson or Fender guitar, not to sell the shirt but to evoke a feeling and share the image.
To instill this feeling in consumers so they pass along the love and desire for a product of ours, we must follow simple rules. Make better products, make products people want (are you listening, Ford and Chevrolet?), price them accordingly, and create a common, desirable, attractive image that makes people want to join the club. This truly is Viral Marketing in a way a "Tell a Friend" affinity or reward program can never be.
The trouble is that viral marketing is truly the only way any passion gets spread from one person to many people. Anyone in advertising who thinks that their major TV commercial with one showing will persuade one person to buy one product is delusional. Apple couldn't, in 1984 or today, honestly claim that their product would help any one person escape from the shackles of conformity, but their ads certainly did create a centrally accessible and memorable image for those who chose to convert to the cult. This membership mentality led people to use the products in a way that showed others that they, too should use the product.
A biological virus does not get spread if the virus is know to the host (unless the host is pathological). I will willingly "Tell a Friend" about a product or service if they ask, and if I truly believe in that product or service. But, I will not share the love about anything (sorry about the evangelical religious implications, but this is fundamentally true) without a reason. I choose not to wear designer clothes that highlight the designer's name; I might if the designer paid me to do it, but instead, we seem to pathologically love to pay more of our hard earned money to be walking commercials for overpriced sweatshop clothes. You might find me wearing a shirt with a Gibson or Fender guitar, not to sell the shirt but to evoke a feeling and share the image.
To instill this feeling in consumers so they pass along the love and desire for a product of ours, we must follow simple rules. Make better products, make products people want (are you listening, Ford and Chevrolet?), price them accordingly, and create a common, desirable, attractive image that makes people want to join the club. This truly is Viral Marketing in a way a "Tell a Friend" affinity or reward program can never be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)