Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Strangers, Critics, Friends or Fans
The work you do when you spread the word or run an ad or invent a policy is likely aimed at one of these four groups.
- Strangers are customers to be, but not yet
- Critics are those that would speak ill of you, or need to be converted
- Friends are those that might have given permission, or even buy now and then
- Fans are members of your tribe, supporters and insiders
You already know the truth: can't please all these groups at once. And you also probably realize that each of us with an idea to spread has a knee jerk default, the one we lean to without thinking. Many marketers are evangelical, focused on strangers at all costs... they'd rather convert a new customer than revisit an old one. A cubicle worker, on the other hand, might focus on no one but the boss, at the expense of broadening her platform.
Before you launch anything, run down the list. How can you optimize for the group you truly care about? How much is that optimization worth? (Hint: a new true fan is worth a thousand times as much as a slighThe Song/Artist Adoption Formula - 2010 Update .... BY: BRUCE WARILA
If you want to be semi-scientific about music promotion, here’s a song adoption formula to consider: Listeners * Optimal Frequency Rate * Social Situation Rate * Conversion Rate = Song Fans.
Here’s the short form: (L * OFR * SSR * CR = SONG FANs)
Here’s how the formula breaks down:
Listeners (L) is the variable that equals the number of listeners (not fans but receptive listeners) that have frictionless access to your song via a download (paid is ok, free is better), a digital music stream, a broadcast, or by way of receiving your CD. Side note: In 2009, I would not refer to handing someone a CD as granting them frictionless access to your music; there are a lot of people that can’t be bothered with unwrapping and playing a CD from an unknown artist. Optimal Frequency Rate (OFR)
It’s often stated that falling in love with a song is a complex process. For the purpose of this post, I am going to speculate (comment below if you have better information) that a song needs to be heard by the average person at least 10 times within 60 days to make a lasting (classic-like) imprint upon one’s memory. Therefore, 10 spins within 60 days equals the Optimal (maximum) Frequency Rate of 100%.
Less spins over a longer time period equates to a lower Optimal Frequency Rate.
Social Situation Rate (SSR)
Once again, the imprinting/socialization process is complex. Most (young) people need social cues (signals from others) to believe in (adopt and evangelize) a song. When people spin songs in a vacuum (think about the lone iPod user with headphones on), they are less likely to adopt a song than when the song is played within a social setting.
Conversion Rate is the subjective component of the formula. Listeners are going to love your song(s) along a spectrum. A percentage of listeners (this would be the conversion rate) are going to adopt your song, while others won’t give it a second listen. Although optimal frequency rate (OFR) and social situation rate (SSR) drive conversions (CR), investing in iterative song improvement is something you have complete control over.
Consider the power of radio…
Radio is great at making fans. Radio has receptive listeners; radio spins songs to death; and for many people (worldwide), radio is the ultimate social cue and social sharing mechanism. (It’s got to be good if it’s on the radio right?) My last post on Music Think Tank - “Don’t go over the self promotion cliff, crush your local radio station instead” - should give you some ideas on how you can create a ‘channel’ to drive the formula (L * OFR * SSR * CR = SONG FANs) covered in this post. Nobody (sane) records to tape any more…
There are lots of things artists do (like prematurely finalizing songs without seeking the best possible collaborators or expert feedback) and there are lots of things the industry does (like collecting royalties) that are artifacts from days gone by when music was expensive to create and distribute. Anything that prevents any variable in the formula (L * OFR * SSR * CR = SONG FANs) from being the largest number or highest (%) rates possible is something that’s holding you back. In my next post, I plan to cover the friction that slows, and the forces that accelerate, the song adoption formula.
===================================
To the extent that a recording artist (versus an entertainer) is the sum of his or her songs, I am going to stipulate that song-adoption equates to artist-adoption.
I effectively use this formula when working with industry startups and artists to concisely communicate (usually on a bar napkin) the challenges that artists face as they attempt to obtain marketplace traction for their songs. I have updated the formula (below) to recognize the importance of placing unknown songs into a series of songs that are familiar to listeners (the Adjacent Song Factor).Fans = L * OFR * SSR * RR * ASFFans = Listeners * Optimal Frequency Rate * Social Situation Rate * Resonation Rate * Adjacent Song Factor
- Listeners - a song obviously needs as many listeners as possible.
- Optimal Frequency Rate - a song needs maximum spins (plays) within a compact span of time.
- Social Situation Rate - a song benefits from maximum socialization during that same time period.
- Resonation Rate - the percentage of listeners that a song easily resonates with.
- Adjacent Song Factor - the frequency rate in which a song is placed into a series of familiar songs.
The formula stipulates that for a song to obtain maximum traction, all the variables in the formula have to push up and max out. If you plug the formula into a spreadsheet and play around with scenarios, you will notice (it’s all multiplication), that a single low variable sinks a song (this is important). In other words, you need ALL the variables to work for you to maximize the conversion rate from listeners to fans.
Listeners (L) is the variable that equals the number of listeners (not fans but receptive listeners) that have frictionless access to your song via a download, a music stream, a broadcast, or by way of receiving your CD. Optimal Frequency Rate (OFR)
It’s often stated that falling in love with a song is a complex process. For the purpose of this post, I am going to speculate that a song needs to be heard by the average person at least 10 times within 60 days to make a shallow (but lasting) memory imprint. Therefore, 10 spins within 60 days equals the Optimal (maximum) Frequency Rate of 100%. Less spins over a longer time period equates to a lower Optimal Frequency Rate.
Social Situation Rate (SSR)
Once again, the imprinting/socialization process is complex. Most (young) people need social cues (signals from others) to believe in (adopt and evangelize) a song. When people spin songs in a vacuum (think about the lone iPod user with headphones on), they are less likely to have an imprinting experience than during a shared/social listening session. Social settings (where social cues are gathered) range from listening to songs with friends, to hearing songs at a club or party, to sharing/playlisting/promoting songs to friends online. In a perfect world, 100% of a song’s early spins would occur within a social situation; this would equate to a Social Situation Rate of 100%. All social situations are not created equal. If you want to be more specific, assign varying weights to different social situation types.Resonation Rate (CR)
Resonation Rate is the subjective component of the formula. Listeners are going to love your song(s) along a spectrum. A percentage of listeners (this would be the resonation rate) are going to adopt your song, while others won’t give it a second listen. Adjacent Song Factor (ASF)
A recent study has shown that listeners easily tire of screening unfamiliar songs. The more often that a song is played within a playlist or stream of familiar songs, the higher the Adjacent Song Factor is going to be. Now in simple terms…
You need a ton of listeners; a lot of spins within a compact time period; spins that occur within social situations have more impact; you obviously need a great song; and your songs are more likely to be received when sandwiched between pre-existing hits. Sounds like radio doesn’t it?
Friday, January 29, 2010
My Awesome Friend: MAURA FOGARTY 1965 - 2009
We are saddened to hear of the loss of NYC singer & songwriter Maura Fogarty, who died suddenly from an asthma attack.
Did You Think About Me by Maura Fogarty (4044 KB)
Listen on posterous
Cliffs Of Dooneen by Maura Fogarty (4308 KB)
Listen on posterous
Every Now And Then by Maura Fogarty (3611 KB)
Listen on posterous
Leavin' On Your Mind by Maura Fogarty (3503 KB)
Listen on posterous
Great Songs (INDIE ARTIST)
Download now or listen on posterous
OBAMA AND TRIANGULATION .... Dick Morris
Any president, at any time, can choose to embody the consensus his nation has reached after it has engaged in a period of extended debate. That process, called triangulation, involves the embrace of the elements advanced by the right and by the left that Americans have found valid, and the rejection of those from which they have turned away.
 | When our nation encounters a new problem, we welcome vigorous debate and encourage each side to articulate its views and elaborate its solutions. But, after a time, we have heard enough and want resolution, consensus and implementation. If Obama heeds that call, he can, indeed, turn his presidency around. But if he continues to pursue his leftist, socialist agenda and uses a feigned moderation as a guise for his radicalism, we will not be fooled again. We have been down that road with him before. |
In healthcare, for example, the debate has left most of us in agreement that insurance companies need to be reined in. They should not be allowed to reject those with pre-existing conditions or to raise rates when their clients become sick. We mostly agree that lifetime caps on benefits are unfair. Since each of us could become sick and run afoul of those rules, we oppose them and ask for their reform. On the other hand, we reject the total revamping of the healthcare industry, the reduction of doctor pay, the cuts in Medicare and the mandatory insurance embedded in the ObamaCare legislation. Were Obama to embrace these solutions, he would be able to pass his bill quickly and would be hailed for it.
But will Obama do it? Will he emulate Clinton and save his presidency by moving to the center? Certainly not before he has lost his control over Congress. It was not the defeat of healthcare that impelled Clinton's change of course, but his defeat in the elections of 1994. Even then, it took six months to turn the battleship around. And after he loses Congress? Probably not even then. Clinton was a lifelong moderate who moved to the left when expediency dictated. Obama is a lifelong liberal who pretends to move to the center when he has to. A committed socialist, one doubts that Obama would sacrifice his cherished transformative goals for incremental policies. But even if Obama did, it might not save him. There is a basic difference between the circumstances that surround the Obama and Clinton administrations. Clinton faced relatively minor problems while Obama is neck deep in recession, deficit and stagnation. Clinton could reshape his presidency by positioning, posturing and passing moderate legislation. But Obama can only succeed by altering outcomes. Americans want jobs, lower unemployment, economic growth, a reduced deficit and an end to the recession. They will not be assuaged or appeased by programs or proposals. They demand results. The skills of the spin doctor are wasted on his administration. All the photo-ops in the world and all the populist-sounding rhetoric will not do the job. They may provide a short-term bounce -- as will probably follow the State of the Union speech -- but they will become undone with the next week's jobless numbers. Just as George W. Bush could not recapture his popularity with new programs for Iraq -- voters demanded a reduction in casualties and then withdrawal -- Obama cannot save his by announcing new ideas. He has to produce. All the spin in the world will not save Obama.Five Free Juice Recipes Targeting What Ails You
Juicing became a really big event twenty years ago. People were buying the Champion Juicer like it was going out of style. There were infomercials and demonstrations at every turn. What has changed and was any of the hooplah of value? The answers: not much and yes.
The fact is that nothing has changed. The truth is that our bodies need the nutrients from juicing more than ever. Why? Because our livers and other internal organs are stressed to the max from these main assailants: pollution, artificial ingredients, impure water, drugs and pesticides.
These chemicals are inescapable and your body’s screaming for nutrients that detoxify your liver and cells. It doesn’t matter what brand of juicer you get, as long as it can juice without creating a lot of heat. Here are five powerful juices that really help:
1. Liver cleanser: beets, parsley, carrots, celery, add five crushed tablets of VitaLiv
2 Blood purifier: carrots, parsley, broccoli sprouts
3. Preventer: carrots, kale, broccoli stems and florets, garlic clove, kale
4. Skin and blood vessel booster: strawberries, oranges, apples, pomegranates, 1t SuperGreens PhytoFood powder
5. Heart happy: grapes (organic and with seeds), pepper, guava, pineapple
Global Conservatives
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political attitude and philosophy that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically,[2][3] thus emphasizing stability and continuity.[3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term has since been used to describe a variety of politicians with a wide range of views.
In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought based on British politician Edmund Burke's criticism of the French Revolution. Though his legacy as a conservative is disputed, he wrote against the excesses of mob rule.[5][6][7]
R. J. White wrote: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere ... The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living."[8] Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology."[9]
Conservative political parties have diverse views; the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Republican Party in the United States, the Conservative Party in Britain, the Bharatiya Janata Party in India, the Conservative Party in Canada and the Liberal Party of Australia are all considered major conservative parties with varying positions.
South Park Conservatives
The 3 Facebook Settings Every User Should Check Now
In December, Facebook made a series of bold and controversial changes regarding the nature of its users' privacy on the social networking site. The company once known for protecting privacy to the point of exclusivity (it began its days as a network for college kids only - no one else even had access), now seemingly wants to compete with more open social networks like the microblogging media darling Twitter.
Those of you who edited your privacy settings prior to December's change have nothing to worry about - that is, assuming you elected to keep your personalized settings when prompted by Facebook's "transition tool." The tool, a dialog box explaining the changes, appeared at the top of Facebook homepages this past month with its own selection of recommended settings. Unfortunately, most Facebook users likely opted for the recommended settings without really understanding what they were agreeing to. If you did so, you may now be surprised to find that you inadvertently gave Facebook the right to publicize your private information including status updates, photos, and shared links.
Want to change things back? Read on to find out how.
1. Who Can See The Things You Share (Status Updates, Photo, Videos, etc.)
Probably the most critical of the "privacy" changes (yes, we mean those quotes sarcastically)was the change made to status updates. Although there's now a button beneath the status update field that lets you select who can view any particular update, the new Facebook default for this setting is "Everyone." And by everyone, they mean everyone.
If you accepted the new recommended settings then you voluntarily gave Facebook the right to share the information about the items you post with any user or application on the site. Depending on your search settings, you may have also given Facebook the right to share that information with search engines, too.
To change this setting back to something of a more private nature, do the following:
- From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
- Click "Profile Information" from the list of choices on the next page.
- Scroll down to the setting "Posts by Me." This encompasses anything you post, including status updates, links, notes, photos, and videos.
- Change this setting using the drop-down box on the right. We recommend the "Only Friends" setting to ensure that only those people you've specifically added as a friend on the network can see the things you post.
2. Who Can See Your Personal Info
Facebook has a section of your profile called "personal info," but it only includes your interests, activities, and favorites. Other arguably more personal information is not encompassed by the "personal info" setting on Facebook's Privacy Settings page. That other information includes things like your birthday, your religious and political views, and your relationship status.
After last month's privacy changes, Facebook set the new defaults for this other information to viewable by either "Everyone" (for family and relationships, aka relationship status) or to "Friends of Friends" (birthday, religious and political views). Depending on your own preferences, you can update each of these fields as you see fit. However, we would bet that many will want to set these to "Only Friends" as well. To do so:
- From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
- Click "Profile Information" from the list of choices on the next page.
- The third, fourth, and fifth item listed on this page are as follows: "birthday," "religious and political views," and "family and relationship." Locking down birthday to "Only Friends" is wise here, especially considering information such as this is often used in identity theft.
- Depending on your own personal preferences, you may or may not feel comfortable sharing your relationship status and religious and political views with complete strangers. And keep in mind, any setting besides "Only Friends" is just that - a stranger. While "Friends of Friends" sounds innocuous enough, it refers to everyone your friends have added as friends, a large group containing hundreds if not thousands of people you don't know. All it takes is one less-than-selective friend in your network to give an unsavory person access to this information.
3. What Google Can See - Keep Your Data Off the Search Engines
When you visit Facebook's Search Settings page, a warning message pops up. Apparently, Facebook wants to clear the air about what info is being indexed by Google. The message reads:
There have been misleading rumors recently about Facebook indexing all your information on Google. This is not true. Facebook created public search listings in 2007 to enable people to search for your name and see a link to your Facebook profile. They will still only see a basic set of information.
While that may be true to a point, the second setting listed on this Search Settings page refers to exactly what you're allowing Google to index. If the box next to "Allow" is checked, you're giving search engines the ability to access and index any information you've marked as visible by "Everyone." As you can see from the settings discussed above, if you had not made some changes to certain fields, you would be sharing quite a bit with the search engines...probably more information than you were comfortable with. To keep your data private and out of the search engines, do the following:
- From your Profile page, hover your mouse over the Settings menu at the top right and click "Privacy Settings" from the list that appears.
- Click "Search" from the list of choices on the next page.
- Click "Close" on the pop-up message that appears.
- On this page, uncheck the box labeled "Allow" next to the second setting "Public Search Results." That keeps all your publicly shared information (items set to viewable by "Everyone") out of the search engines. If you want to see what the end result looks like, click the "see preview" link in blue underneath this setting.
Take 5 Minutes to Protect Your Privacy
While these three settings are, in our opinion, the most critical, they're by no means the only privacy settings worth a look. In a previous article (written prior to December's changes, so now out-of-date), we also looked at things like who can find you via Facebook's own search, application security, and more.
While you may think these sorts of items aren't worth your time now, the next time you lose out on a job because the HR manager viewed your questionable Facebook photos or saw something inappropriate a friend posted on your wall, you may have second thoughts. But why wait until something bad happens before you address the issue?
Considering that Facebook itself is no longer looking out for you, it's time to be proactive about things and look out for yourself instead. Taking a few minutes to run through all the available privacy settings and educating yourself on what they mean could mean the world of difference to you at some later point...That is, unless you agree with Facebook in thinking that the world is becoming more open and therefore you should too.
Note: Other resources on Facebook's latest changes worth reading include MakeUseOf's 8 Steps Toward Regaining your Privacy, 17 steps to protect your privacy from Inside Facebook, the ACLU's article examining the changes, and DotRights.org's comprehensive analysis of the new settings. If you're unhappy enough to protest Facebook's privacy update, you can sign ACLU's petition. The FTC is also looking into the matter thanks to a complaint filed by a coalition of privacy groups, led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. You can add your voice to the list of complaints here.
Do Agnostics Get a Second Chance?
 |
By Billy Graham
Q: My cousin always claimed to be an agnostic -- a person who doesn't know if God is real. Last month, he had a heart attack, and although he's getting better, I know he could have died. Do you think God is giving him a second chance? -- Mrs. B.McK.
A: Yes, I believe God is giving him a second chance -- and I pray he won't ignore it or laugh it off. God loves your cousin and wants him to discover the joy that can only come from knowing God and being in His presence forever. The Bible says that God "is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). Situations like this should remind us that life is short, and we never know how long we'll have on this earth. Your cousin didn't plan on having a heart attack; he probably thought he'd go on living for many years. Perhaps he is like the rich man in one of Jesus' parables who said to himself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry" (Luke 12:19). But God called him a fool, and that very night he died and entered eternity -- without God and without hope. That can happen to us. Pray for your cousin, that he may realize the seriousness of what's happened to him, and turn in faith to Christ. Ask God also to give you an opportunity to share your concern with him and urge him to face his need to put his trust and faith in Christ. Make sure also of your own relationship with God. God loves you (just as He loves your cousin), and the most important decision you will ever make is your decision to give your life to Jesus ChrisPosted via email from Religion
Thursday, January 28, 2010
NO I DIDN'T WATCH SOTU
Does It Matter How You Live Since Jesus Will Forgive You?
By Billy Graham
Q: I work with a woman who claims to be a Christian but she leads a pretty wild life and doesn't seem to see anything wrong with it. When I confronted her about this, she said it doesn't matter how she lives because Jesus will forgive her anyway. Is she right? -- Mrs. C.D.
A: No, she is not right -- and in fact she's living a life that's very dangerous spiritually because she has deceived herself into thinking it doesn't matter how she lives. But it does -- as the Bible makes clear. Yes, God has promised to forgive all our sins when we turn to Christ in faith and trust, but we must first repent of our sins. What does it mean to repent? It means to turn from sin -- to leave it behind us and commit ourselves to live the way God wants us to live. There is no forgiveness without repentance! Jesus' first recorded sermon included these words: "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15). The Apostle Paul said that God had called him to tell people "that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds" (Acts 26:20). Does this mean we have to be perfect before we can be saved? No; if it did, then no one could be saved, because no one is perfect. But Christ came to cleanse us of our sins, and He did this by becoming the final and perfect sacrifice for our sins on the cross. Pray for this person, that God will convict her of her sin and bring her to true faith -- a faith that changes her life. And make sure of your own commitment to Christ, for life's greatest joy comes from following Him.Wednesday, January 27, 2010
HOW PEOPLE USE NIELSEN TO HURT MUSICIANS!!!
I read an
With all due respect, his information is wrong. But worse, the conclusions he reaches from this faulty information could be damaging to artists.
Some highlights include statements like:
Silverman counted 105,575 new album releases that year, and found that just 225 of those were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time. Of that, just 14 were do-it-yourself artists, unaffiliated with a major, indie, or other entity."
and
"What does this say about the Chris Anderson 'Long Tail' promise?" Silverman blogged in Musician Coaching. "Clearly the ease of making and distributing music does not benefit 'breaking' music. Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both. I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true."
I wrote a response to the editor of the blog where the article appeared, I do not know if he will post it, but I feel so strongly about making certain word gets out, I am re-posting my response to Tommy's statements here
------------ I hope this email finds you well. I am writing you in response to Tommy's information and posting - the good news, he is dead wrong. The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutly helped more great artists and bands rise to the top. The Nielsen data cited is not only incomplete, but also provides a false analysis.Let me provide you some hard stats to back this up:According to Nielsen and Tommy there were:
"...106,000 new (music) releases in 2008" In 2008, TuneCore released approximately 90,000 newly recorded releasesThis means, according to Nielsen and Tommy, almost every single new music release in 2008 was distributed via TuneCore.I know this simply not to be true - the base assumption that Tommy is making is as dead wrong as his other statistics. Another example, Tommy states:" just 225 of those (the new releases) were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time. "This is an empirically false statement for a few reasons. First, in order for Nielsen to accuratly track sales, the UPCs for those albums must be pre-registered in their database. If the UPC is not registered in its database, Nielsen can not match the sales data to an album (or song). For example, if a digital store tells Nielsen it sold 100 copies of UPC # 123456789, and Nielsen has no idea what UPC # 123456789 is, it can not report the sales. Next, the majority of the 90,000 releases via TuneCore in 2009 were not registered with Soundscan therefore making it impossible for them to track or report on the sales.But these two points are actually kind of moot. Music is no longer bought by the album, it is bought by the song across an artist's catalog. Tracking album sales as the sole indicator to determine if something is "breaking" is analogous to tracking only vinyl album sales to determine if something is "breaking" Some examples:When they were unsigned, the following TuneCore artists sold the following quantities of songs across their releases:Kelly sold over 2,000,000 million tracks
William Fitzsimmons sold over 150,000 tracks
Soulja Boy sold over 200,000 tracks
Boyce Avenue sold over 1,200,000 tracks
Ron Pope sold over 250,000 tracks
Colt Ford sold over 300,000 tracks
Secondhand Serenade sold over 250,000 tracks
Tapes N Tapes sold over 200,000 tracks
Nevershoutnever sold over 1,000,000 tracks
Drake sold over 300,000 tracks
MGMT sold over 225,000 tracks
The Medic Droid sold over 150,00 tracks
Nickasaur sold over 150,000 tracks
Harry and the Potters sold over 200,000 tracks This is just a very quick partial list that goes on and on and onUnder Tommy's model, none of these artist sales count as they are not "album" sales.With all due respect, Tommy might discount selling over 1,000,000 songs by an "unsigned" artist as not "breaking", but I do. On a macro level, in 2009 alone, the internet allowed the "long tail" unsigned artists that used TuneCore to generate over $32,000,000 in music sales by selling over 42,000,000 songs - this is more than one song a second selling by a TuneCore Artist on iTunes. This "long tail" catalog that TuneCore's Aritsts represent is now one of the most valuable music catalogs in the world. And this all happened due to the net, social networking and access to the media outlets (like YouTube). "Breaking" is not just about selling albums or even just the music - it is about generating revenue off of fame. This is done via merch, gig, publishing, music sales, ad revenue and more. Nevershoutnever sold over 35,000 t-shirts in a number of months via a regional sales program with Hot Topic. Surely Tommy does not mean to discount these sales and revenue simply because the artist is selling merch? How about if the band sold no music but consistently sold out 1,000 venue clubs and made $15,000 a night? Why does Tommy discredit bands for their success if they are not selling "albums"? Another distributing and incorrect point suggested by Tommy is that music sales are down due to the fact that there is more music available to buy, share and discover.As a matter of fact, its quite the opposite In the late 90's - also known as the "golden age" of market share and revenue for the music industry - more music was being released and bought than ever before (as an example, Warner was releasing one new release a day). Despite this increase of releases, sales (not just revenue) went up, not down. Or from a pure logic perspective, if iTunes had 2,000,000 less songs, would an artist that is not selling now as no one likes their music magically start selling. Or to flip it around, I would suggest more music on the virtual shelf causes more music to sell as it allows the music buyer to discover music via the digital stores own recommendation association engines. Tommy's goes on to state:"Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both."This statement is also dead wrong - and he knows it based on is own experiences at Tommy Boy. Historically, in the music industry, 98% of what the record labels distributed, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on to market and promote and get played on commercial radio and MTV did not "break". If "breaking" simply "required mass exposure", there would have been a 98% success rate, not failure rate. But music is not a math equation, and therein lies the problem with Tommy's statement. Yes, to break you need exposure, but that by no means guarantees success. The music has to cause reaction. For example, if "Smells Like Teen Spirit' was not a song that people liked, it would not have mattered how much money was spent on getting you to hear it. And that's the excitement and beauty of the internet. The masses now have direct access to the media and "music discovery" social networking outlets. - i.e. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Pandora, Jango and more. These new social networking and media vehicles allow mass communication in an instanteous fashion at a click of button. Suddenly one person's opinion does matter and can can impact a bottom line. Even the digital stores themselves provide a vehicle to market and promote yourself off off (i.e. iTunes iMixes or recommendations of other music to buy). Through these vehicles the internet has delivered the ability for anyone to "break", and they actually are. The masses now have access to the media outlets to get heard. The problem is the old school view that "breaking" is simply defined by selling albums. This could not be farther from the truth. Tommy also goes onto say:"I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true." It might be a bold statement by Tommy to help get headlines, but it's also false (and kind of silly). The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutly helped more great artists and bands rise to the top. The distressing part for me about this is based on Tommy's statements, if an artists' release is not counted by Nielsen than it is not actually released. If music does not sell as an album then it has not sold. In effect, he is de-legitimizing artists. With all due respect, I believe an artist's release should "count" even if not recognized by Nielsen as this de-recognition closes off possible opportunities based on the perception that a release is not "real" I also find it distressing that the media, and other outlets, turn to Nielsen as the definitive source to determine what is occurring in this industry thereby decreasing the opportunities for musicians and artists that are not part of this old school system. The reality is the majority of music is now being created, released and sold outside of the traditional system. Ad agencies, music supervisors, video game manufacturers, radio programmers etc turn to Nielsen for information to discover music in an attempt to use/license it. They need to understand that the Nielsen information is an incomplete and an inaccurate portrayal of reality. This inaccurate perception is holding back opportunity and validation for others. Tommy needs to stop propagating this false perception as it hurts artists. It's important that an accurate picture of what is occurring be presented to fans and businesses to provide additional choice and opportunity for musicians. They work hard enough as it is, the last thing we need to do is propagate a false reality to hurt them. Tommy's heart is in the right place, we are here to help musicians, but let's start with a more accurate description as opposed to a "bold" but false statement that helps promote an agenda.
Don’t Ignore EPA’s New Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule
DCCC Takes on Fox News
The DCCC email, which says it aims to recruit 5,000 new members to its fact check team by midnight, comes with head shots of four top Fox villains—Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.
Is It Wrong to Be Rich?
|
By Billy Graham
Q: Is it wrong in God's eyes to be rich? I've heard that Jesus had some harsh things to say about rich people, but does that mean you can't go to heaven if you're rich? I'm not a wealthy person, but do I have to give away everything I have in order to be saved? -- K.W.
A: No, it isn't necessarily wrong to be wealthy, nor will wealth by itself keep us out of heaven. Some of the greatest men and women in the Bible were people of wealth (like Abraham and Job in the Old Testament). Among Jesus' most faithful followers were women of wealth who supported Jesus' band of disciples with their money (see Luke 8:3). The Bible, however, warns us about the dangers of wealth -- and we need to take those warnings seriously. What are they? One is that money becomes like a "god" to us -- the thing we worship and serve above all else, instead of the one true God. Jesus warned, "No one can serve two masters.... You cannot serve both God and Money" (Matthew 6:24). Perhaps you've met people like this -- people who loved money above everything (and everyone) else. Don't let this happen to you! But the Bible also warns us against the misuse of money -- using it to control others, for example, or cheat or hurt them. This too is wrong in God's eyes. Again, don't let this happen to you. Only one thing will keep us out of heaven -- our refusal to accept God's offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. Commit your life to Him, and then ask Him to help you use your money wisely and generously, and in line with His will.Creating Secure Passwords You Can Remember
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates declared the password dead. He told his audience that the password can't meet the challenge of keeping sensitive information protected, saying "People use the same password on different systems, they write them down and they just don't meet the challenge for anything you really want to secure."
Fingerprint scanners and other biometric controls are becoming more mainstream, but the password will still be the main barrier between hackers and your data for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, here is how to create a secure password that you can actually remember in "12345" easy steps.
1.No Personal Information. Any novice hacker can easily find out your full name, the names of your spouse or children, your pets, or your favorite sports teams. Never choose a password that has anything to do with you personally.
2.No real words. Let's take that a step farther. Not only should you not use your name or your pet's name, you shouldn't use any actual word that can be found in a dictionary. Passwords like that can be easily cracked by password software.
3.Mix Character Types. Passwords are almost always case-sensitive, so use both upper and lower case letters to make it more difficult. To really make it complex, be more creative than just capitalizing the first letter. For example, do "paSswoRd" instead of just "Password". Better yet, throw in some numbers and special characters to substitute for letters, and do "p@Ssw0Rd".
4.Use a Passphrase. Scratch that. Some password cracking utilities are also smart enough to use common character substitutions for common words. Cracking "p@ssw0rd" may take longer than cracking "password", but it will still be relatively trivial to crack because, special characters or not, the password is still "password".
Instead, take your favorite line from a movie, song, or book and convert it to a passphrase. If you like the scene from A Few Good Men when Jack Nicholson is on the stand, take the line "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" and convert it to "Ywtt?Ychtt!". It has upper case and lower case letters, as well as special characters. It is not a word appearing in any dictionary, yet it is simple for you to remember.
5.Use a Tool. The main reason that users choose passwords that are easy to crack is that they want to choose passwords that are easy to remember. It is obviously much easier to remember your dog's name, or type characters in the order they appear on the keyboard, like "123456", than it is to recall "a5$jgFD118@Kle45@". But, guess which one is more secure?
You can use a password management tool to store complex passwords. It has some impact on security since cracking the password to access the password management tool grants access to all the rest of the passwords, but it does enable you to use stronger passwords for various Web sites, accounts, and applications without having to remember them all.
Windows has included a Credential Manager utility since Windows XP that lets users save passwords and provides a single sign-on solution. Logging in to Windows unlocks the vault and automatically applies the credentials from the vault as needed to access sites and applications.
Lee Iacocca
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me the economy is getting better..' Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out along with Obama!' You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.. The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we're fiddling in Afghanistan, Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. And the liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.. I've had enough. How about you? I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.) Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with thumb up your butt and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. But our soldiers are dying daily. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day! We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are going to skyrocket again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the flea-hugging environmentalists. Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers union. Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegals amnesty and free healthcare. The middle class is being squeezed to death every day. These are times that cry out for leadership.But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point. Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy.. Deal with life. Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it! Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry. I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change? Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.