It's well known to most of you how much I love radio. Let me reset that... I love good radio. Good radio programming is coming in many shapes and forms these days. I listen to a lot of podcasts for example, a habit that is relatively new (about 24 months, perhaps). And I would listen to more radio broadcasting in my car or even over my receiver at home if I lived in a country that gave a damn about quality and variety like, say, Canada. But no, I live in the US where the only radio that is distinguished as quality and local are the sports talk stations that pepper the AM dial. It's a cliche, but if you drive through America the rule of the airwaves is similarity, not difference.
Which has spurred conversations with my fiance' about getting sattelite programming just for Air America and Stern. Of course, one is on XM and the other on Sirius, so we choose neither. In light or crap local programming and the loss of our Air America affiliate to an even crappier version of right-wing talk (does anyone, can anyone even listen to ten minutes of Laura Ingraham? Stupid and snoozeworthy is quite a vicious combo), the XM-Sirius merger is the kind of gift but you knew the NAB would fight it. After all they have a monopoly and any competition that erodes audience is to be resisted. And what we are seeing now by both the Sat Radio and Terrestial Radio camps is a lesson from argumentation 101: framing is key to any argument
Technorati Tags: NAB, XM, Sirius, satelliteradio, ipod, FCC, MelKarmazin, merger
Which has spurred conversations with my fiance' about getting sattelite programming just for Air America and Stern. Of course, one is on XM and the other on Sirius, so we choose neither. In light or crap local programming and the loss of our Air America affiliate to an even crappier version of right-wing talk (does anyone, can anyone even listen to ten minutes of Laura Ingraham? Stupid and snoozeworthy is quite a vicious combo), the XM-Sirius merger is the kind of gift but you knew the NAB would fight it. After all they have a monopoly and any competition that erodes audience is to be resisted. And what we are seeing now by both the Sat Radio and Terrestial Radio camps is a lesson from argumentation 101: framing is key to any argument
How Congress and government regulators frame the debate over a merger -- specifically, whether they consider new gadgets and services such as iPods, music-playing cellphones and high-definition radio to be in competition with satellite radio -- could have a profound impact on the future of other media businesses.My favorite part of the above block is how the NAB is resisting competition with one hand while trying to lobby for even more of a monopoly position with the other. Gotta hand it to them: too much is never enough!
The NAB, which lobbies for traditional radio and television companies, is in an awkward position, some government officials say. On one hand, NAB members argue that satellite radio's national coverage does not compete with traditional radio stations' local presence.
"I don't see how anyone can say that Clear Channel competes head-to-head with satellite radio in a national market," said NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton, referring to the radio company that owns hundreds of local stations. "It doesn't have a national footprint in every market in America like satellite radio."
But separately, the NAB is trying to make a case with the FCC that traditional radio companies do compete with satellite radio and therefore should be allowed to own more local stations than current rules permit.
Sirius chief executive Mel Karmazin, who testified before Congress this month, defines the market differently. He maintains that satellite radio is only one player in an broader "audio entertainment" market that has changed dramatically since the FCC approved the licensing of satellite-radio providers 10 years ago.
Car stereo systems, he said, are equipped to play music from iPods, while cellphone companies sell sports programming and music downloads. "I can't imagine who could say we're not competing with some of those things," Karmazin said in an interview yesterday. "If you're listening to music on an iPod while driving in your car, you're not listening to satellite radio."
Technorati Tags: NAB, XM, Sirius, satelliteradio, ipod, FCC, MelKarmazin, merger
Powered by ScribeFire.
This news hurts...
My press informed me today in an e-mail that 
The death of Betty Hutton this week was something of a shock since I didn't know she was still alive. Unlike most people I knew, I came to Betty Hutton through music first, not film. Specifically, I became a fan after reading 
I saw this in a shop in Chicago. It said it was licensed by Yoko Ono, Inc. You know 
This simply rocks. Of course many other elements will need to fall into line, like making amps a little lighter and smaller and, well, colorful (lugging around a big clunky, weighty, dull dark amp may be "macho", but I doubt if someone who has purchased a guitar brand with the word "Daisy" in it would not prefer a better designed object). And, of course, bass guitars and drums will need to fall in line as well. The whole point is to get more and more women in bands of all kinds and this is a good first step. 
That may be a bit of an overstatement, but if you are honest, and Lord knows that is rarity, then this is simply a variation on discussions about "selling out" (aka, I was into band x before my little brother was, now they have sold out...) and community. The reasons why people buy at Starbucks are twofold: 1) they feel like Starbucks is an efficient gatekeeper for their lifestyle and 2) it's convenient. That's it. It's the same reason why punks in the 1980s purchased at their local indie shops or dubheads head on down to their local reggae shop. Starbucks has essentially corporatized the gatekeeping element and allows in only the media that they feel is "Starbucky" or has meaning for their audience. That people won't buy the same media at the shop down the street that is not quite as clean or staffed by people who sneer down their noses at them because they have "terrible" tastes has as much to do with a specific kind of identity as does the person who, like myself, prefers trolling through bin after bin of dusties when I have the time. 
But it is interesting that Starbucks is entering into the labeling business, right? That's different, right? It's a company that doesn't do music so this is odd right? Well, no... Records have, in the past, been issued by labels owned by film studios who then would produce soundtracks and 45s that could be sold at places of exhibition; record companies have worked with numerous types of consumer good manufacturers to produce records that would tie-in with the "needs" of each others audiences; comic books have been made into hitmakers in search of specific demographics. So, while this is interesting because Starbucks is utilizing state-of-the-art data crunching and marketing methods, let's just see this as an extension of a popular music history rather than something that is beyond the pale. Remember, what's really beyond-the-pale is that acoustic Alanis Morrissette record.