Archive for the ‘media’ Category

Learning from a HOPA

August 12th, 2010

You might have seen the latest hoax by TheChive that’s spreading over the Web. TechCrunch’s put up an interview with its creators. Most important quote: “We didn’t need mainstream media to make this happen. We just needed the people.” There you go.

(Sidebar: TheChive’s successfully pulled off two more hoaxes in the past that got picked up by the media, and after the second one journalists said “You’re not gonna fool us again.” They were wrong. Huffington Post, Leno, you name it. When you’re hot, you’re hot.)

Cover or Art

August 12th, 2010

This is the headline of a regional newspaper’s article today. Its diplomatic conclusion is that a cover band makes art in its own right by picking a song and making it theirs. And it might not surprise you that I don’t agree.

Here’s why: By design, a cover band exists to play songs that have been made and performed by others. It’s quite arguable if the songs themselves are to be considered art, but that’s a different (yet related) topic. The purpose of a cover band is to resemble the feeling of a song when they play it, only that it’s on stage and not at home, so you can have a good time with your friends. Musicians who play in cover bands do so because they love playing their instrument (sometimes to perfection), not because they feel the urge to create art. Because if they did, they’d spend their time creating and not mimicking.

That said, there is a huge difference between a Mariachi band covering Heavy Metal songs and a Rock/Pop ensemble (2 guitars, bass, drums, keys, brass trio, vocalists) covering songs arranged for this kind of ensemble. It’s remarkable versus predictable.

Funny enough, the article quoted the singer of the band that “it is one side of the coin to make it in today’s music market, but even harder to be accepted by endorsers and sponsors”. That’s quite obvious when you try to be everything to everyone. The marketer’s dilemma. And because there are marketers on the other side of the table too, it’s no safe bet for anyone. It makes sense for an instrument manufacturer to endorse an extreme performer because that gets them noticed, but maybe by fewer people. A middle of the road performer may find a larger audience, but they won’t give a lot about music gear. An artist doesn’t worry about this, because he has embraced that art does not depend on endorsements or sponsorships and she would never sacrifice this art for a little more comfort (only for a lot, that’s just how the lizard brain works).

A little aside: There’s an internet radio called NewcomerRadio, that says its mission is to promote newcomer bands to broadcast radio and other internet stream radio stations. Yet their stream sounds like any other radio station, because their rotation is the same. And so they pick their newcomers to fit into this rotation, and -presto!- nothing happens, because nothing stands out. Different artists that sound all the same. Wasted.

Doing the opposite would have a totally different effect. There’s thousands of bands out there, and I’d rather go to the edges instead of what used to be the centre. Brazilian Polka bands and Indian Viking Folk singers are just way cooler than yet another High School Punk band. It’s all there — if you dare. Yes, chances are you will lose your old listeners. The ones you will find instead will not only listen but also do the promotion themselves. Now that’d be helping your mission, wouldn’t it?

Industry indeed

July 29th, 2010

A friend responded to my post yesterday that he couldn’t imagine a star being made without an industry. I agree. Today, they need each other more than ever.

In the pre-industrial age, fame used to be directly related to merit. Think Michelangelo. Sometimes fame would follow merit with years of delay. Think Mozart, Rembrandt, van Gogh, Robert Johnson. But some people actually used fame to promote. Benjamin Franklin, in his role as ambassador to France, and his fellow Founding Fathers believed that the fact of Franklin’s image appearing on fashion items, fans and perfume bottles would help to attract interest in and spread the ideas of the new born nation. The first man who combined people’s fame with industrial goods was Josiah Wedgwood, who came up with the idea of making collectible portrait medaillons of “Illustrious Moderns” like Voltaire and Rousseau. (Interesting read: Star Crazy, section 2)

What all the people have in common is that they were only known to a comparably small circle of people. Entertainment was only for those who could afford it.

Then came the invention of free time. This might sound a little crazy, but before the industrialization, there was no free time as such. And it made perfect sense, because people needed time to spend the money they earned in the factory. Which allowed more industries to spawn. And so forth.

Next step: cinema. And this changed everything. Within a few years, film producers figured that people were not only into films, but also into actors starring the movies. Hence a perfect cycle could be set up: People go to the movies, papers print news about the stars, people notice and tell their friends, more people go to the movies. Easy as pie. All you needed to do was printed your actor’s name on the poster promoting the next movie. And the second best thing was that everybody could afford it.

The best thing about all this was that it educated people into a reverse logic: Publicity equals merit. You don’t get in the paper for nothing, do you? And so whatever you wanted to promote, all you needed to do was to make it appear it on billboards, in newspapers and magazines, radio and finally TV. And entire industries could sell their products riding on the back of the celebrities.

Now, what happens if you want to sell more products? You need more stars. This is the race we’re still running today. There are ever more celebrities because there is ever more stuff to be sold, and the diversion of interests and markets produced space that needed to be filled with more faces to put ads next to.

What’s critical now is to estimate whether this will go on, because people are so much int the reactive mode of consuming that they won’t take the time to ask themselves what they care about, what matters to them, and start following their passion. I don’t believe that people are passionate about consuming. They just keep telling themselves they don’t know what to do other than that. What gives me hope that this can change is the fact that it took almost a century to educate people to behave that way, so obviously it’s not part of our nature. The cavemen didn’t have to keep up with the Joneses, neither did a pre-industrial person.

What I wanted to point out 2 days ago was that you don’t need an industry to make a living by making your art. If you want fame as in “as seen on TV”, you still need the industry, as of today. And you need to sacrifice your art, round off the edges in favour of being more average. Not totally average, but to a certain degree. The reason why Cannibal Corpse were not featured as being outrageous on German TV, but Berlin rapper Sido was, is simply because he’s more average in terms of language: my grandmother can understand his swearing, but not Chris Barnes’s or George Fisher’s. That’s media business. An industry indeed.

Will & Value

July 28th, 2010

Fast Company reports that Internet users obviously are not willing to pay for content. In this case, it’s a newspaper, that, very much like Rupert Murdoch’s London Times, has moved it’s content behind a paywall, and what happened? After 3 months, they only had 35 subscribers. For an acquisition of 650 million dollars, this is obviously a failed investment at the moment.

But it’s not a surprise. It’s not that users are not willing to pay, they only pay when they see a point (or better, a personal advantage) in doing so. In this context, relying on people paying for stuff they can have for free on another channel is no business model.

How to make a dent in the universe

July 23rd, 2010

If you belong to the people who believe that this is why we’re here (and I hope you do), you might have wondered how to accomplish this noble quest. And when you look at the man who coined this term, or rather his company, you might get the impression the way to make a dent is to pull together all you got for one do-or-die impact. It’s not. Chances are you’ll fail, miserably — because you don’t have the leverage.

Here’s an alternative: Make it little by little, piece by piece. The vast majority of successes happened that way, we only forget because it’s not such an impressive story to tell.

Engagement (and what is not)

July 15th, 2010

The liner notes to Hugh’s drawing have it. Now it’s engagement. Just having finished Clay Shirky’s “Cognitive Surplus” , I wondered why it is that, despite the fact it being easier than ever before, people do not engage in meaningful conversation, supporting a cause or starting their own movement. And the answer is quite simple (again): fear.

In a world where people are connected 24/7, it is technically easy to find something you care about. What hinders the engagement is the inconvenience of the process, and more important, the risk you’re putting yourself at. Risk in terms of reputation. As Chris Anderson points out in “Free!”, reputation is something that people are very keen on especially in online social networks. In this context, for some people virtualization has not brought more freedom but more restraints, because they submit themselves to peer pressure not only in the workplace or in private, but since they usually have the same peers online they are now feeling (and sometimes being) watched continuously.

The other important issue is (in)convenience. Most people who have grown up without the Internet are still in a consumer mindset today. They still have the notion of the web being an extension of traditional media, a circumstance which traditional media is still enforcing on their web sites. With their online content being just a repetition of the broadcast or the print, they keep pushing back their visitors to the traditional channels, be it the TV screen or the newspaper stand. They don’t want people to engage online, because everone who does is one consumer lost. But they don’t have to worry, because people act the way they’ve been trained to, they consume web pages. Clicking a “Like” button is not engagement. Re-posting privacy warnings on Facebook isn’t either.

Engagement generates long-term value, and long-term value is the enemy of consumption, because it relies on immediate decay of value after purchase, which doesn’t necessarily have to include a monetary transaction (it does, but that’s a hidden one between the provider and a third party, say an advertiser). And once people figure out something has no long-term value, they stop supporting it. You can see this when we revisit the Pretzel vs. Tokio Hotel fad: 5 months later, the Pretzel group now has about 644,000 members (and remember, they got 500,000 within their first 15 days of existence), whereas the Tokio Hotel fan group now has more than 650,000 . Once again, the reason behind this is quite obvious: Being the fan of an artist has a long-term value, what happens here is the prerequisite to engagement: a tribe is growing, so now whoever is inside this tribe has an organized platform to start engagement. On the other hand, being the fan of a pretzel is fun for the moment, and the inevitable media hype rewards ervery member with the satisfaction of having been part of it, but no more. This is not a tribe, because no one seriously cares about the reason the have gathered for — this is consumption.

I’ll do an experiment today: I’ll ask people to post an important question, on Facebook. I’m curious to see what happens if you ask people to do something instead of waiting for something to happen. Results coming soon.

NOW is the new standard

June 12th, 2010

Last time I checked, it was 2010. Doing some basic math, I calculated the financial crisis (the one that came first to the market, not the me-too crisis) happened two years ago. Some economies have recovered, some have not.

Still people are having real trouble to let go off the idea that we are still in the middle of a crisis. Sorry, we are not. Maybe they are. Because it’s easier to believe that the new standard is just a temporary phenomenon. And it’s easier to sell to a media audience — but not to shareholders. Where’s the initiative? Waiting for a saviour to come isn’t.

I might be going out on a limb here, but this could mean compared to other religions,  Christians will have a longer lasting disadvantage regarding this issue…

But seriously, who is the single person or group on this planet who can turn this situation around, if not you? Get a move on.

Tax marketing

June 8th, 2010

Never having really thought about it before, it occured to me that the marketing of a change of a country’s tax policy is quite a tricky issue, because it clearly shows how people are more afraid of losing something they have than eager to get something they don’t have yet — especially when what they get is a non-bankable idea. But let’s start from the beginning.

As long as I can remember, we’ve been sold on the idea that progressive income tax is just and fair. The strong can and therefore should carry more load, they said. That’s why people with smaller income have been paying less tax than people with big income. Then the strong said, “Wait! We’re the ones who give work to the others, and our factories and means of production depreciate, so politics must make sure we can do this in the future — or else!” And politics did just that, complying well-behaved so the system would survive. They created exceptions and loopholes for the strong and said this is just and fair, because otherwise the economy would be put at risk, and we need a healthy economy to survive and thrive.

Over the years the whole tax system got more and more complicated, which in return meant a lot of jobs for tax consultants, and everyone got used to the year in, year out modifications of tax law, closing old loopholes and creating new ones and so forth. But altogether everyone got used to the way it was and no one really made an effort to change the system. What for? It was just and fair. Or was it?

Enter the (German chancellor’s) financial adviser: “A tax rate of 25% for everybody is just and fair. There is no reason why a CEO should pay 45% tax on earned income and the company owner only 25% tax on unearned income. Plus, there will be no future eceptions and loopholes. And everywhere I speak, this clicks with the audience.” The explanation is of course, when you speak in front of privileged people only (most of them being both CEO and owner at the same time), hardly anyone will refuse. Try to do that when the audience consists of 1% board members and 99% workers, who will very unlikely be happier when you tell them that a tax advantage by working night shifts is cut.

The point is once again not what is, but how it feels. Anyone who can do basic math intellectually knows that same tax for everybody and all exceptions cut is an overall balanced equation — but it doesn’t feel like one. And that’s the problem with marketing the new justice and fairness. At the moment, they don’t feel as good as — never mind better than — the old ones. Who can you sell that to?

(Sidebar — Another whack on a journalists head: If you want an answer, just ask one question about one issue at a time. Asking two or more, you give the interviewee cover to answer none of them. Quote: Journalist: “Many citizens are more than upset that compulsory federal saving might take away their tax benefits: tax-priviliged nightwork, tax-deductible commuting expenses or reduced GST with food, for example. At the same time the government provides billions of Euros in financial aids for other coutries. Is this fair?” — Expert: “The question is, is it legitimate?” — Ouch.)

Innovation!

May 12th, 2010

Listening to Guy Kawasaki’s presention on innovation (which is an interesting lesson in and of itself), I got a cool idea which I tried to find an existing solution for on the web, but there’s no easy-to-find result. So I’m sharing it here, for free.

There should be a microphone headset with an incorporated mute switch or noise gate, so in case you need to sniff, cough or produce other kinds of unpleasant noise that you don’t want to be amplified over the PA or recorded on the video, you — the one who’s wearing it and knows when the incident is about to happen — can just mute it out.
BUT what would make it really great would be if the button were part of a presentation remote that works with both Mac and PC and has all the other cool stuff. But only what we really really need, ok?
So if you’re a microphone manufacturer and don’t want to make the handheld device, please integrate a bluetooth or whatever-works-interface so someone else can make the counterpart.

What else would be cool (in case you’ve already recorded a presentation and want to clean it up afterwards — audio-wise): A plugin or function in your audio software that lets you define a sound (like the noise print in a noise removal plugin) which then marks all the spots in your recording where the software thinks this noise occurs (with adjustable tolerance and so forth), so you have just to check whether the predicted sounds are the ones you want to get rid of and remove them.

Should any of these solutions already be available, I’d be happy if you dropped me a line. Otherwise I recommend you to run with it!

Challenge

May 4th, 2010

When someone noticed you had a Mac computer…

… 15 years back, they knew you had to be graphics designer.

… 10 years back, they knew you were graphics designer or musician.

… 5 years back, they knew you were someone working in the media biz.

A device that replaced your business card. A caste mark.

Today, you’re someone who can afford the lifestyle. Apple has finally made the transition from a company making products for freaks to everybody’s lifestyle supplier. Time to cash in. That’s what you’re dreaming of when you go into business. Appealing to everybody without pleasing them.

The losers in this game are the freaks, of course, because they’ve lost one of their trademarks. Which is just one example. All over the place, what has worked previously is about to stop working tomorrow. Whatever special tools helped you define yourself in business or as a person will have become commodities or obsolete at all tomorrow.

The challenge for Apple is to remain special and not to become yet another provider of electronics accessories. The challenge for the freaks is to define themselves not by peripheral attributes but by what they do. It makes no more sense to rely on what you have. If you strip away all that stuff, what remains? This is what needs to be worked on.