Beyond Frequency

Beyond Disappointed In CNN

My disappointment with CNN has been building steadily over the years, primarily as I have seen the morning show, American Morning, which I enjoyed as an entre to the day now resembles Good Morning America and Today with their puns and banter ...fluff over substance. I have also lost quite a bit respect as CNN includes pop news like E!

Frankly it has become even more infuriating through Reliable Sources as they speak out against the very trends in the media that they are perpetuating...broad rather than deep coverage.

Now, I have heard the argument that pop news items are important to the national zeitgeist, but I honestly held CNN to a much higher standard. To me, those type of stories are the lowest common denominator and with 24 hours, international reach and access to top-tier technology CNN could push conversations in more intellectual and impactful directions if the chose to do so.

The straw or me, the impetus for my disappointment and exit from being a regular CNN viewer, specifically came from the all-Michael Jackson cycle over the past 2 days. I completely understand that MJ is big news, but it is not the only news.

The morning after his death, MSNBC's Morning Joe did a good job of talking about Iran, increased Iraq violence & impending urban withdrawal, Obama/Merkel and other items along with MJ news. CNN seemed to attempt no such balance.

When I saw that every show was MJ and even the Situation Room mentioned other news as merely passing items, that was the straw for me. And I see it is still going on this weekend...even on Reliable Sources. 

I feel that CNN should not be sucked into this personality discussion at the expense of other relavent information that impacts our lives. I believe that networks like CNN have an opportunity to elevate our national discourse, but have abandoned it in the face of pop culture. 

This is not universal as CNN does have good content, but the business model seems to be tilted toward that as the exception rather than the rule. As a person who has focused on the intersection of traditional and digital media, I know for a fact that there is more opportunity to generate revenue than just TV ratings so I feel that CNN could use that to expand its core news coverage.

I truly hope they move beyond this lull and return to their roots as a legitimate news organization.

Barack Obama & JibJab - Oustanding!

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Open Up To Shut 'Em Down

Union Square Venture analyst, Andrew Parker, wrote a quick opinion about Steve Jobs's liver transplant related to distinguishing between the rights of shareholders, the media and public individuals.  You can read the post from his blog The Gong Show here and below.

I agree with Andrew that Apple said enough in Jobs taking a leave of absence and that any further intrusion into the specifics go beyond the 'right' of the media and shareholders.  There is certainly debate on both sides as to whether the public and the shareholders should have known the specifics. 

I, however, fall on the side that by announcing a leave of absence, Apple explicitly stated that Jobs was not running any aspect of the company - vision or otherwise - and the shareholders could make their decisions accordingly.

Now, to be perfectly candid and in the interest of full disclosure I am a dogmatic defender of the 1st amendment BUT I absolutely abhor gossip shows, celebrity followings, paparazzi and other such information.  That means nothing, of course, as those items are extremely popular amongst many, including my wife and neither I, nor anyone, have the right to refuse them their public discourse. 

I can, of course, complain about them and plot their demise which is my ultimate goal.

I mention it here for 2 reasons:

First, that I believe artists (celebrity or otherwise) would be better served in controlling as many outlets for their craft, brand, life as possible.  By letting people in through the multitude of conversation and communication tools available across digital & mobile communities, those who are victims of the paparazzi culture can go on the offensive instead of constantly being on the defensive.

Second, I would like to reaffirm the fact that it is essential for any artist, personality, brand to keep a keen eye on all places they are mentioned.  Any of us with the slightest opinion have the ability to share it and, thankfully, that is not going away.  In fact, it is accelerating as all data suggests. 

Moreover, for those companies and individuals that create content and support brands, it is essential that you work cooperatively with those who like your content, not against them.  I believe creators will find they foster a better fan & consumer relationship, and will ultimately earn more revenue by including those of us who consume content in as much of the process as possible.

Take control of your life by opening on YOUR TERMS through new tools, and keep the TMZ's and Perez's on the sidelines by offering what they cannot. 

We will all be better off!

Andrew's Post

After three days of ducking the press — and telling the Wall Street Journal that Steve Jobs was not listed as a patient there — Methodist University Hospital in Memphis finally admitted Tuesday that Jobs did in fact receive a new liver at their transplant facility.

From a Fortune article on Steve Jobs.

I find this introductory paragraph absurd and completely representative how invasive the recent Steve Jobs’s health media blitz has been. Methodist University Hospital did *not* “finally admit” anything. A better way to phrase Methodist University Hospital’s statement is they “Violated HIPAA.” Steve Jobs’s health is none of our business, and there is a whole world of legislation that intends his privacy should be respected.

What is our business (as public shareholders) is the effect of his health on his role at Apple, and Apple has been forthcoming with that information. We were told when to took a leave of absence, and we were informed about realistic expectations of a return date.

The actual details of his health is his personal matters which are legally protected and should be properly respected.

Hear 2.0 - The 3 Rules

While Mark Ramsey's post on Hear 2.0 speaks to the broadcasting industry, the focus of the 3 rules that he borrows and begins with are universal.

Learn to be like Google with these three rules

Megan Smith is Google's director of new business and strategy.  And Google knows a thing or two about both.

Since your business - especially if it's connected to broadcasting - is unlikely to have anyone with such a title on board, let alone unlikely to fancy that it needs one, you might be curious about what Megan's three rules are, and why Google believes in them so utterly.

As told by Alan Webber in his new book Rules of Thumb: 52 Truths for Winning at Business Without Losing Your Self, here are Megan's rules:

1. The consumer participates

2. The consumer drives

3. Open systems beat closed systems

Let's take each in turn...

1. The consumer participates

The line between producer and consumer is getting fuzzy.  

What is a "program director" in an era when listeners are programming their own iPods and Pandora stations, an era when some of us are creating radio programs for the rest of us?  

What is an "air talent" when listeners are podcasting their own content or, say, contributing parody songs to enhance your morning show?

What is a "news station" when the most current headlines come from Twitter, and a revolution is powered by YouTube?

We can blather on all we want with the comforting slogan that "radio is the original social network" but - right or wrong - what does that matter to today's audience?  After all, the Model T was the "original automobile."

If you don't open the gates for audience participation on-air and online, then you are hopelessly out of step with the times, and your audience will choose to participate without you and around you.

Shockingly, I can't even find a radio station website with so much as a "tell us what you think" response box on its front page.

If you don't want your listeners to participate and you don't care what they think, there's no better way to tell them so.

2.  The consumer drives

The gift of choice is that consumers choose.  And the era in which their choices were constrained by the broadcasters on an FM or AM dial are long gone.

Even today, however, I see broadcasters Hell-bent on attracting listeners to their websites and keeping them there, as if their audience didn't have a zillion options to choose from and every inclination to do so, regardless of what you want.

The goal isn't to try to glue listeners to our properties, but to make our properties so attractive that listeners want to go there.  The goal isn't to force listeners to our sites but to allow listeners to share our content wherever and with whomever they want - because they want to and because it's worth it to them.

As Webber writes: "Your job is to learn to accept the fact that you're not driving anymore...Your job is to create the most exceptional, enjoyable customer experience you can conceive of.  You're just another roadside attraction.  That's it."

When the customer is driving its imperative to know what that customer wants and where she wants to go.  Woe unto the broadcasters who fail to do their homework in this area. They will be playthings for Arbitron.

3. Open systems beat closed systems

Whether its the fall of the Berlin Wall or the current strife in Iran, nature gravitates towards open systems.

Historically, radio has been a closed system - an exclusive club with a limited supply of federally sanctioned members.  But thanks to the Internet, no more.

Even famously closed Apple throws open its doors to podcasters and radio streams and iPhone apps - and the primary sales pitch for the iPhone becomes not the calls you can make with it but the apps you can use on it - Apps which depend on an open system (albeit one with standards and an approval process).

It's still common to find radio groups that perceive all the answers to their digital problems reside within the corporate castle walls.  But nature suggests that such fixed, closed systems are extraordinarily vulnerable to environmental change.  Meanwhile open systems, writes Webber, "save money, increase speed, invite participation...break down barriers, promote pragmatism, spotlight talent, and reward real performance."

Better to be like Google.

RIAA and Sisyphus...Two Peas In A Pod

To say the RIAA is out of touch goes beyond obvious...what is more obvious than obvious?

Greg Sandoval of CNET wrote an interesting article about the fact that 6 months after announcing it was working with the top ISPs, the RIAA has yet to have any concrete deals.  Now I cannot speculate as to why the telecoms have not officially crafted a deal with the RIAA, but I can hope that they have realized what I have long believed to be true...

...that top down, blanket administration of content rights is a waste of time and resources.  I am sure Sisyphus would agree.

I have 2 core problems with the RIAA's attempts in this regard. 

First, they do not represent the majority of artists, just the major labels.  While the RIAA may tryp paint a picture of working for the "music industry" they are only working for a few companies whose business models are in flux at best, failing at worst.  Now there is nothing inherently wrong for defending those who are a part of your trade group, but I believe it is difficult to bring in the help of companies like ISPs whose responsibility stretches to a much wider cut of the public.

The irony cuts even further when you think of the multitude of non-major label artists who depend on the ISPs to create the connections with fans that drive their business.  And that brings me to my second point...

The best path for artists is not to dictate a top-down mechanism, which is always going to be limited in scope versus the wide and increasing number of fragmented media outlets that exist and will emerge in the future, but to support a mechanism that gives content creators complete visibility into the use of their content.

With visibility into activity and the ability to both discover and interact with those who use your content comes choice on the part of the creator to determine the business model that works best for them.  Each outlet (traditional media, web, mobile, P2P) and all of their subsets brings the artist a different community with a different belief in how to consume content.

Some may want to buy songs, some may want to remix, others interact with the artist..etc, etc.  The fact is with each new community comes a new opportunity to extend the reach of your content and, most importantly, an ability to leverage the relationship to earn a living.

The key is that the choice remain with the artist, not some antiquated industry group who represents a small fraction of the industry.

Big Radio Kick In The Pants

Digital Music News editor Paul Resnikoff has a good post this morning about the pending defeat of the Performance Rights Act called 'Why Big Radio Has Major Labels By The Balls'.  In it he writes that should the Act have gone through the stations would have diverted much of their music attention to local and internet-driven artists since the Major label music would come with an extra cost.

I have said it before...I completely agree.

I like the piece, but believe he could go even further in that the radio should be moving to local and internet-driven anyway to spread their supply and influence. The power of the digital and mobile tools for radio are not in merely another outlet, but in listener interaction to increase the known acceptance of new music.

Big Radio should take this Performance Rights Act as a kick in the pants to change their approach to music all together. Stop taking major label music as inherently better than local & indie internet and put them all together...

...because that is what their consumers do.