It's nice to have a Superbowl where the game is SO much better than the ads. How many times have you spent the Monday after the game discussing the ads and not the game with your colleagues at work? Not this year. What a game!
I'm not a big football fan, nor did I have a preference for either New England or Giants going into the game. But, I couldn't help cheering for the underdog Giants as they came from behind in the 4th quarter. Now that's good football.
On to the Chicken Dance. As you may have read, KFC challenged any scoring player or Tom Petty to do the Chicken Dance during the game. If they completed a 3 second dance, KFC would donate $260,000 to charity. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy called it a case of "ambush marketing 101" and warned that any players participating could face stiff fines.
Chicken Dance winners and losers?
NFL is a big loser for even commenting on KFC's "ambush marketing". Why dignify the challenge with a response? Comment board traffic was overwhelmingly negative towards the NFL with one poster renaming it the "No Fun League".
KFC was a slight winner. They managed to jump on the Superbowl marketing machine without spending more than the cost of a press release distribution. They'd be a big winner if they had figured out a way not to seem so crass and opportunistic.
The players and Tom Petty were winners. Of course, neither the players nor Tom Petty Chicken Danced during the game. With the quality of the performances all around, they focused on winning the game rather than KFC or any of the other Superbowl hype. True professionals.
What a game! (Did I say that already?)
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Monday, February 4, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Blurring Lines of Entertainment
Despite the cold weather, My husband, son and I were nice and toasty last Saturday at the Girl Talk/Dan Deacon show at Metro. Markus and I stayed in the balcony while my son, Mars (aka Button), joined in the fray below.
Both Girl Talk and Dan Deacon blur the line between performer and audience. Dan Deacon performs in the middle of the crowd instead of on the stage. He becomes, not a showman for the audience, but the leader of a massive party experience. Everyone participates. Everyone is an entertainer.
Girl Talk (Gregg Gillis) performs on the stage, but invites people up on stage with him. Like Deacon, the crowd becomes the entertainment. Of course, Gillis became part of the crowd several times by crowd surfing or jumping in and dancing.
I'm not sure if the decision to break down audience barriers is because the performers are both solo acts and it's difficult to pull off a full set by yourself or because of the personalities of Deacon and Gillis. Both seemed to be humble and accessible - a sort of anti-rock star.
Both Deacon and Gillis are products of the current digital age of user generated content (can we think of a new name, please? DIYc?). With the collapse of the industrial music complex and the speed of exposure on the internet, it's no longer anointed stars that make it on to the stage. It's people like Deacon and Gillis who understand that creating an environment of social participation and interaction is the future of entertainment.
In the future, everyone is famous.
Both Girl Talk and Dan Deacon blur the line between performer and audience. Dan Deacon performs in the middle of the crowd instead of on the stage. He becomes, not a showman for the audience, but the leader of a massive party experience. Everyone participates. Everyone is an entertainer.
Girl Talk (Gregg Gillis) performs on the stage, but invites people up on stage with him. Like Deacon, the crowd becomes the entertainment. Of course, Gillis became part of the crowd several times by crowd surfing or jumping in and dancing.
I'm not sure if the decision to break down audience barriers is because the performers are both solo acts and it's difficult to pull off a full set by yourself or because of the personalities of Deacon and Gillis. Both seemed to be humble and accessible - a sort of anti-rock star.
Both Deacon and Gillis are products of the current digital age of user generated content (can we think of a new name, please? DIYc?). With the collapse of the industrial music complex and the speed of exposure on the internet, it's no longer anointed stars that make it on to the stage. It's people like Deacon and Gillis who understand that creating an environment of social participation and interaction is the future of entertainment.
In the future, everyone is famous.
Friday, February 9, 2007
The Apple of RIAA's Eye
You know you have a lawyer in the family when dinner table discussion often involves digital rights and illegal downloading. Actually, I can't only blame the lawyer (me) in this instance. My husband is a photographer and his profession involves licensing intellectual property rights in his photographs. My son is interested in pursuing a career in a creative field. We have many friends who are artists, writers,musicians and in the film industry. Also, the three of us (me, hubby and teenage son) are avid music fans.
I also worked at a startup that was in the internet radio/streaming music business. We had a direct interest in the RIAA's policies on digital rights and licensing. In 1999 and 2000, my business development team worked out licensing arrangements with several major and independent labels at prices that didn't make a whole lot of sense at the time. Hey, it was 1999 and startups were paying crazy prices for everything just to be the first one to make a deal. The labels liked our model because we didn't offer downloads and we were willing to pay them to play their artists on our internet radio stations. In the traditional radio world, it was often the other way around.
I noted with interest the recent exchange between Apple, EMI and the RIAA regarding digital rights management (DRM). EMI is contemplating a model where music is distributed without DRM and would, therefore, allow the digital music files to be freely transferred. EMI's first offer to online music retailers was an upfront, multi-million dollar "risk-insurance" payment that would not apply against future sales. This proposal didn't fly with the retailers. According to the Wall Street Journal, EMI has requested that the online retailers submit a proposal that indicates the size of advance they would be willing to pay. EMI received the proposals on February 8th. So far, no announcements have been made, but Yahoo Music's General Manager, Dave Goldberg, predicts that by Christmas most of Yahoo's catalog will be DRM free.
Apple's Steve Jobs jumped into the fray on February 6th (two days before the EMI proposal was due) with an essay on DRM entitled "Thoughts on Music". He states that CD's do not have DRM software, so the music industry currently sells 97% of music without DRM. What's all of this fuss about a measly 3% of the market? Isn't it an artifice to require Apple to use DRM when 97% of music sales are not protected? Can't we just all get along in an DRM-free world?
Nice try, Steve. Everyone knows (or assumes) that Apple is seeking complete and utter control over the remaining 97% of the market. And, while digital music sales are increasing, they aren't making up for lost CD sales, which fell by 23% between 2000 and 2006. Total music sales for 2006 fell by 3%.
The RIAA quickly reiterated its position on the necessity of DRM, and shot an arrow at Steve Jobs and Apple. The RIAA suggested that if the constraints of DRM are slowing the growth of digital downloads because files can't be transferred freely between devices, then Apple should remove the portion of their DRM that restricts songs purchased from Apple to playback on the iPod only. Wouldn't that solve the problem? Touché, Apple.
I'm not a big fan of the RIAA and their "sue first, and think outside the box later" strategy. I'm also not a big fan of the argument that record labels deserve it because they are big companies and they've been ripping off artists for years. If they deserve it, then why doesn't everyone loot their local Walmart? It's an extreme example, but one that highlights the fact that Intellectual Property is, just that, property. The number of files that have been traded online is equivalent to looting.
Back to the dinner table discussion. I think my son understands the consequences of illegal downloading. Not the punitive consequences that "you could get sued or go to jail", but the fact that people he knows, like his father and our friends, make a living from Intellectual Property by licensing the right to reproduce their creations. Copying other peoples work and not paying for it may be convenient, but it is still stealing.
A legal, convenient and inexpensive approach is needed. The RIAA's DRM solution is inconvenient. Apple's $0.99/track approach is too expensive. Actually, the solution that makes the most sense to me is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's proposal on a collective licensing arrangement. The artists and labels get paid and consumers get the convenience of file sharing at a reasonable cost.
Unfortunately, don't expect the RIAA or Apple to agree to this approach any time soon. They have too much invested in the current system. There are other alternatives, such as emusic, that are making headway with DRM-free downloads from independent music labels. Personally, I subscribe to two streaming music services, Yahoo Music Unlimited and Rhapsody from Real Networks. Because I don't have a long commute to work, I listen to music at home. With these services and my Kima KS-110 (shameless plug), I'm happy as can be. I have access to millions of songs, without advertising, and I don't have to worry about DRM or my hard drive crashing and losing 1000's of downloaded music files. I listen to more new music now than ever. However, most Americans listen to music primarily in their car where streaming music is just starting to be available. So, for now, a solution to the DRM-wars is still needed and don't expect it from the RIAA or Apple any time soon.
I also worked at a startup that was in the internet radio/streaming music business. We had a direct interest in the RIAA's policies on digital rights and licensing. In 1999 and 2000, my business development team worked out licensing arrangements with several major and independent labels at prices that didn't make a whole lot of sense at the time. Hey, it was 1999 and startups were paying crazy prices for everything just to be the first one to make a deal. The labels liked our model because we didn't offer downloads and we were willing to pay them to play their artists on our internet radio stations. In the traditional radio world, it was often the other way around.
I noted with interest the recent exchange between Apple, EMI and the RIAA regarding digital rights management (DRM). EMI is contemplating a model where music is distributed without DRM and would, therefore, allow the digital music files to be freely transferred. EMI's first offer to online music retailers was an upfront, multi-million dollar "risk-insurance" payment that would not apply against future sales. This proposal didn't fly with the retailers. According to the Wall Street Journal, EMI has requested that the online retailers submit a proposal that indicates the size of advance they would be willing to pay. EMI received the proposals on February 8th. So far, no announcements have been made, but Yahoo Music's General Manager, Dave Goldberg, predicts that by Christmas most of Yahoo's catalog will be DRM free.
Apple's Steve Jobs jumped into the fray on February 6th (two days before the EMI proposal was due) with an essay on DRM entitled "Thoughts on Music". He states that CD's do not have DRM software, so the music industry currently sells 97% of music without DRM. What's all of this fuss about a measly 3% of the market? Isn't it an artifice to require Apple to use DRM when 97% of music sales are not protected? Can't we just all get along in an DRM-free world?
Nice try, Steve. Everyone knows (or assumes) that Apple is seeking complete and utter control over the remaining 97% of the market. And, while digital music sales are increasing, they aren't making up for lost CD sales, which fell by 23% between 2000 and 2006. Total music sales for 2006 fell by 3%.
The RIAA quickly reiterated its position on the necessity of DRM, and shot an arrow at Steve Jobs and Apple. The RIAA suggested that if the constraints of DRM are slowing the growth of digital downloads because files can't be transferred freely between devices, then Apple should remove the portion of their DRM that restricts songs purchased from Apple to playback on the iPod only. Wouldn't that solve the problem? Touché, Apple.
I'm not a big fan of the RIAA and their "sue first, and think outside the box later" strategy. I'm also not a big fan of the argument that record labels deserve it because they are big companies and they've been ripping off artists for years. If they deserve it, then why doesn't everyone loot their local Walmart? It's an extreme example, but one that highlights the fact that Intellectual Property is, just that, property. The number of files that have been traded online is equivalent to looting.
Back to the dinner table discussion. I think my son understands the consequences of illegal downloading. Not the punitive consequences that "you could get sued or go to jail", but the fact that people he knows, like his father and our friends, make a living from Intellectual Property by licensing the right to reproduce their creations. Copying other peoples work and not paying for it may be convenient, but it is still stealing.
A legal, convenient and inexpensive approach is needed. The RIAA's DRM solution is inconvenient. Apple's $0.99/track approach is too expensive. Actually, the solution that makes the most sense to me is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's proposal on a collective licensing arrangement. The artists and labels get paid and consumers get the convenience of file sharing at a reasonable cost.
Unfortunately, don't expect the RIAA or Apple to agree to this approach any time soon. They have too much invested in the current system. There are other alternatives, such as emusic, that are making headway with DRM-free downloads from independent music labels. Personally, I subscribe to two streaming music services, Yahoo Music Unlimited and Rhapsody from Real Networks. Because I don't have a long commute to work, I listen to music at home. With these services and my Kima KS-110 (shameless plug), I'm happy as can be. I have access to millions of songs, without advertising, and I don't have to worry about DRM or my hard drive crashing and losing 1000's of downloaded music files. I listen to more new music now than ever. However, most Americans listen to music primarily in their car where streaming music is just starting to be available. So, for now, a solution to the DRM-wars is still needed and don't expect it from the RIAA or Apple any time soon.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Fear and Loathing in Boston
The saga continues on the Turner Broadcasting/Cartoon Network guerrilla marketing campaign. In textbook PR fashion, Turner Broadcasting quickly apologized and offered full restitution to the city of Boston. Turner also took out full page ads in Boston newspapers apologizing. From what I can tell, the media is treating them kindly for their efforts.
On the other hand, Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky, who were charged with placing a hoax device that causes panic, told reporters they would answer questions only about hair in the '70's. The media did not understand why the two would not answer their questions and used terms like "odd rant" and "nonsensical discussion" to describe what happened.
The charge of "placing a hoax device that causes panic", which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail, requires the prosecutor to prove that the two men had a reasonable expectation that the devices would cause a panic when placed. The judge at the arraignment seemed skeptical that their intent was anything other than advertising.
The media was bewildered by their statements, but I say brilliant. No perp walk for these guys. If they dodged questions and left the building with hoods over their heads, they would look like criminals in the best case and terrorists in the worst case. They faced the press and, according to their defense attorney, performed. They are graffiti/performance artists who by their very nature have chosen an anti-establishment lifestyle. The press conference showed that 1) they were performers, not terrorists causing panic, and 2) only the establishment feared their actions.
After the press conference, young Bostonians couldn't wait to condemn the actions of the police. One young person called the police reaction "silly and insane" and said that Boston was "the laughing stock" of the country.
Those young and in the know are laughing at the older generation. Sounds a bit like the '60s, doesn't it?
From a PR perspective, the big loser is Interference Inc., the guerrilla marketing agency who couldn't be reached for comment. According to reports, their offices are closed and the CEO can't be located. Also, CNN reported that an employee from the company called one of the graffitti artists right after the panic started and told him to keep quiet. A textbook example of what not to do in a PR crisis. Any guesses on whether their offices will ever reopen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
