She started by referencing Prince’s insane rant (here’s just part of that gem):

“The internet’s completely over.  The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated.  Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good.”

This quote is ironic, as Prince’s own music studio is comprised of both computers and digital gadgets.  Kara then goes on to remark that perhaps Prince is actually not that far off:

But–after spending several days here in Los Angeles this week, talking to execs, talent and others who toil in the entertainment industry–I can’t say what I am hearing is that much different in terms of the continuing frustration with the lack of decent business models to replace the ones that have worked for so long and been so lucrative for the entertainment and media industry.

Wait – so an industry that constantly tries to sue it’s fans, scares off it’s own artists and lock up content is frustrated they have lost their old business model due to technology changing society?  An industry which tries to cling to the past does not get the right to complain of a “lack of decent business models.”  Perhaps if they spent their time innovating instead of fighting a changing world and treating their own customers like criminals we could feel sympathy for them.  But absolutely no one should feel sympathy for this litigious, backwards looking group attempting to protect a dead monopoly on both media and marketing.

From music to movies to television, the biggest minds here still sound perplexed as to what will finally be the golden ticket to carry them through to the inevitable next era of digital distribution.

Typical monopoly thinking – waiting for the “golden ticket” to carry them through the future.  Except, in a hyper-competitive world where everyone has distribution capabilities, power is now with the people.  In an open information world, leverage is not going to magically be given back to the past players who used to have monopolies.  Mike Masnick provides a nice analogy in his commentary to Kara’s piece:

These guys are sitting back and waiting for someone to hand them a golden ticket that replicates the old ways of doing things. That’s not how it works. No one gave the buggy whip makers a golden ticket that let them keep their old lines of business going.

Can you imagine what it would have been like if we subsidized horse and buggy manufacturers instead of investing in the automotive industry?  Society would have looked back in shame of such a move.  Thankfully, it looks like we’re making some good decisions.

I want to provide commentary on just a few other of Kara’s comments…

Who will pay for the high up-front production costs of most major entertainment projects? Can costs come down enough to make up the difference?

This is a problem with the industry – their artists were paid ridiculous sums and marketing budgets were bloated for so long they can’t fathom a world where they are not the only ones making and distributing art.  Huge production budgets are irrelevant in a long tail media world.  Technology such as Ableton Live made high quality audio production costs within the reach of everyone and high quality video cameras are also affordable.  Marketing and distribution of digital goods is even cheaper (if not free).  Now we all can make, distribute and consume music and other media and don’t have to blindly listen to what the controlling players force onto the world through payola.

“Why is the consumer always right?” said one exec to me this week in a typical statement. “You can’t have a business if there is no business model.”

Can anyone see what’s wrong with this statement?  They refuse to actually deliver what people want.  It’s no wonder their customers are fleeing in droves for competing services who actually do deliver what the market wants or simply pirating what they want.  The entertainment industry is no longer some special market, they are now part of a hyper-competitive market and just like others in similar situations they do need to actually deliver on what people want if they hope to survive.  We all need to realize the professional entertainment industry is actually not that special and that music and other forms of media can be of equally high quality when coming from the commons.

Steve Levitan, co-creator of ABC’s “Modern Family” echoed the “Why is the consumer always right?” statement, and goes on to say:

“At its core, 90 percent of my job is still sitting down in a room full of people and breaking stories,” he said. “And that requires virtually no technology.”

This quote shows just how little the industry actually pays attention to their consumers.  Rather than listening to conversations, mining information and being data-driven in their strategies or even asking fans for input, they still make decisions behind closed doors.  They aren’t listening, they obviously don’t care, and so we should be equally reticent to support them.  Why not support independent artists instead of propping up a dated industry who fights change?

Thus, instead of mocking that sentiment, perhaps it is time for tech leaders to figure out a way to keep talent from being dragged into the future without so much kicking and screaming.

So, according to Kara, it’s up to tech leaders to keep the entertainment industry alive?  That’s abusrd.  In a digital society, the web is everyone’s domain and if any industry is going to put their hopes for the future in the hands of another group, it’s unlikely they are going to survive.

The entertainment industry as a whole is doing better than ever, and we see new services to both promote and serve media cropping up daily.  However, the funds aren’t going to the existing industry players, thus all the “kicking and screaming” noted by Kara.  Perhaps it’s time they stopped banking on irrelevant strategies and wake up to the world they live in.

Entertainment Industry Still Fights The Future At Every Turn is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

Another situation happened this week where there is an obvious disconnect between two different groups at a media outlet, this time with the New York Times.

What happened?  The New York Times forced Apple to takedown an RSS reader.  And for what?  Showing RSS feeds!  It’s almost as if the New York times isn’t sure how the Internet works.  A quote from Techdirt highlights the absurdity of this request:

Basically, this app is your standard everyday RSS reader, the same sort of RSS reader that has been available all over the place for years. It’s using the NY Times official RSS feed, because the NY Times put it out there. For the NY Times to then complain about it doing so is bizarre.

Amazing that the New York Times – a media outlet – would misunderstand their own feed of content so much they would immediately send in legal because an RSS reader featured in the Apple Store was (gasp) sending them new subscribers (and if they actually thought about this instead of freaking out, they could actually monetize them).

Either:

1.  They are upset another iPad application is putting out their content and they want users to download the New York Times iPad application.

OR

2.  They are upset someone else is charging for an application that can display their content.

Except both reasons are bogus when you consider that they are publishing content through RSS and there exists a long tail of paid/free devices and applications accessing this feed.  It would be impossible to police all of this use of open content, and in fact they can’t.  But going after specific apps on specific platforms merely because they don’t like that app makes no sense:  if they don’t want people accessing their content through a feed, they shouldn’t offer a feed at all.

My sense is they aren’t pleased that an RSS application is a far superior application for the iPad than a single-publication device like their New York Times app.  Like I said before, the iPad is not magically going to bring back even close to the revenue print publications received in previous years.  It’s so tactical, they need a larger, strategic play to win a connected society.

Anyway, their misunderstanding of the web aside, what’s even more amazing is the New York Times, just like Fortune has a clear philosophical and strategic disconnect between different internal teams.  What’s our proof?  The NYT Bits Blog praised this application last week.  In other words:  part of this company is actively rallying against something it doesn’t understand (or like) and another part of the company is embracing it and praising it editorially.

These media brands that tell an inconsistent story don’t come off looking good by having internal disconnects play out publicly for the world to see.  The web is always going to put the pieces together.  They only succeed in sending mixed signals to their fans, reducing the value of their brands and hurting their relevance in a digital society.

More Disconnects Internally At Traditional Media Outlets is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

Case and point: Robert Scoble thinks the iPad is changing art and music.  Not the consumption, the synthesis.

His proof for this?  3 singular example videos of artists using an iPad to create their works:

1. A sketch artist
2. A hobbyist using an iPad to DJ and play around with soft synths
3. A famous pianist using an iPad on stage for a few moments

And each example is an interesting experiment, but falls short of the real thing.  A convergence device does many things, yes.  But it doesn’t do one thing well, especially in areas there are many players working hard to evolve devices for specific use over years of iteration to answer unique problems.

Let me provide an analogy.  Consider the duck:  it can fly, swim and walk on land.  In a sense they’re a true convergence animal.  Except…they’re not really that good at any of those things compared with animals who specialize.  Compared to the elegance and grace of an eagle, a duck’s flight is clumsy.  Compared with the agility of a fish, a duck’s swimming ability is poor.  Compared with a horse, a duck’s ability to walk/run on land falls short.  Comparing the iPad to devices designed to address specific solutions within verticals is like comparing a duck to any animal that specializes.

Anyway, back to Scoble’s examples – they are experiments and interesting as that, but to say that the iPad is changing synthesis of art – especially electronic art – shows a misunderstanding of it.  As an electronic musician for nearly 10 years I’d like to offer my perspective of examples 2 and 3 Scoble gives – the music examples.  The sketch artist example I’m not going to touch since I’m not actually a sketch artist but perhaps some of you can comment on that.

Let’s go through Scoble’s points:

Now that more and more people are getting iPads we are seeing just how they change everything, especially art and music.

I fail to see why a new consumer-designed device you can’t customize – which is powered by a closed platform and a crippled web browser – changes music creation or performance.  It’s a bit like saying Guitar Hero changes rock music.

Remember, Scoble isn’t talking about consumption, he’s talking about production.  Think about that for a minute.  Serious producers of digital art have studios they work in. While the right apps on the iPad might allow for the sketching of ideas on the go, this is easily possible already on a laptop (and is much more sophisticated there).  Also, the fact that a laptop can run full fledged audio production suites like Ableton Live means I can essentially have my studio on the go as opposed to stripped down applications.  Further, multi-tasking, something vital to audio production, is not even possible on an iPad.

Let’s look at Scoble’s first example – iPad DJ Rana June Sobhany

A few weeks ago I met Rana Sobhany who had gotten tons of compliments at the first iPad Dev Camp with her iPad DJ’ing system. So, she gave me a look at what she’s doing. That video went viral and has been watched half a million times. Wild.

OK Scoble, you know exactly why it went viral – someone playing around with iPads to do something interesting right during the product hype cycle.  It’s a neat experiment with what she is doing, but the fact that “that video went viral and has been watched half a million times” doesn’t really mean anything from a trend perspective.  There is no logic behind how you’ve framed this:  that just because a bunch of people watch a video with a music-lover using a gadget in a unique way is “changing everything, especially music.”

Anyway – here are some factual limitations to this setup:

• Touch screens or a mouse are not precise – that’s why midi controllers were created to work with soft synths.
• You can’t scratch with the same accuracy as vinyl (or at all from what I saw).
• Rana notes this would be a great solution for a newbie as it’s “the cheapest option when compared with CDJs”  I disagree – you can see it’s a custom setup she has (that would confuse a newbie) and there are far cheaper and simpler solutions than this that are even inclusive of a mixer (for example, you could be an iPod DJ or get an all in one kit from PSSL/123DJ).
• The audio quality coming out of the iPad is going to be sub-par when compared with hardware designed purely for music.

Even the artist herself doesn’t think her setup is changing music, as illustrated by her Tweet:

Awesome that Rana says this, and unfortunate Robert frames his argument the way he does and uses her as an example.  But lately it seems like he’d rather be sensationalistic than actually have depth to trends he reports on.  Let’s consider some actual examples of those who changed digital music:

• Pioneer of electronic music Robert Moog best known as the inventor of the Moog synthesizer (the first commercially-available modern synthesizer) changed the music industry and helped give birth to countless new genres of music.  Evolution of the synth continuous to this day.
• Technics set the industry standard for vinyl turntables with the 1200 which – 30 years later – is still the best device for mixing and scratching out there.  Even DJs using digital tools like Serato/Final Scratch or CDJs will admit this.  The 1200 is the device that changed the industry, virtual DJ software merely mimics it.
• Software like Ableton Live changed how modern producers create and perform and allows incredible flexibility, customization and editing on the fly that it enables musicians to create sets that previously required far more sophisticated setups.

If you’re versed in music history, it’s obvious the iPad doesn’t fit within the evolutionary path of digital music synthesis.  In all cases, change happened from those passionate about music and interested in solving specific problems.  This is not at all what the iPad is.  Also, if Scoble did his research into the wide array of DJ gear that already exists and the fact that there are many, many, many unique styles of mixing and setups (both custom and available for purchase), he’d realize this singular example is interesting but not changing the industry direction.

Scoble goes on to say:

But she’s not the only one using iPads. I met Wil.i.iam who is the music genius behind the Black Eyed Peas. We talk mostly about Twitter, but at the end he pulls out his iPad too.

The “music genius” bit aside (not even going to touch that’s what he thinks of the Blacked Eyed Peas) Scoble tries to add into his argument that this person “pulling out an iPad” during an interview means the iPad is changing art.  Except his pulling out of the iPad during the interview had absolutely nothing to do with music production.  Here Scoble is trying to add another proof point hoping no one actually watched the video.  Skip to the last 10 seconds of the video and you’ll see what I mean. It’s unbelievable he added this into the argument and makes me trust the rest of his content a lot less.

Next, Scoble gives an example of Lang Lang, famous pianist, walking out on stage and playing flight of the bumblebee on his iPad.  While it’s interesting, I highly doubt Lang Lang thinks that true pianists are going to give away their real pianos during concerts for iPads.  It’s a fun use of a new device, but the beauty of analog instruments is never replaced by digital.  I’m passionate about electronic music and I’ll freely admit there is something special about the range, warmth and beauty of real instruments that cannot be replaced by digital.  Lang Lang is having a bit of fun, but this is not a game-changer for the classic music world.

Conclusion

Scoble tries to paint a picture of a trend that iPads are changing art composition with this piece and three examples, but I’d be hesitant to say any real artists are going to start abandoning better gear to scale down for a convergence device.  Other than as a publicity stunt, as an artist I don’t see this making sense on any level.  I left a comment on Scoble’s blog noting this – which he immediately responded with “I disagree” – thus the motivation for this post and fleshing out my thoughts further.

What do you think?

The iPad Is Not Changing Music Production And Performance is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

Previously, I wrote that companies and personal brands have a symbiotic relationship.  Smart companies nurture personal brands, those personal brands promote their employer, and situation emerges where all parties experience digital reputation benefits.  When there is mutual respect and transparency involved, everyone wins.

Employers should embrace team members interested enough to share thoughts on their industry on their own time under their own brand of media.  Sharp employees understand the importance of career security, and if you’re hiring strategists how can you blame them for creating personal marketing strategies?

And yet…Forrester – an organization that should understand the above – is muzzling team members from sharing thoughts about the industry on their own blogs.

As reported by Sage Circle:

Credible reports – since confirmed - are coming into SageCircle that Forrester management has set a new policy that analysts with personally-branded research blogs must take the blog down or redirect readers to a Forrester-branded role-based blogs.

So essentially, if you work at Forrester and you’ve vested effort to create your own industry blog in your personal time over the years, you’ve got to hand over the keys.  If Jeremiah Owyang was still at Forrester, he’d have walked out that day (at least, that’s what I would have done).  What will happen to currently employed workers with their own blogs on the industry?  Will their independent work outside of office time about the industry now belong to Forrester?  Will they attract any new industry all-stars with such a draconian policy?

There were many downsides for this discussed, including the obvious one of the negative PR that would inevitably result from this move.

However Dave McClure nails the heart of this issue in a comment over at Sage:

Clearly, no analyst with a shred of talent or ambition will ever likely choose to work for Forrester, assuming this policy is enforced. Best of luck to the remaining losers who decide it’s a good idea to tuck tail between legs and go silently into the night to work as a faceless drone for FR. why not require everyone at FR commute to work by horse & buggy while you’re at it.

Forrester was absolutely idiotic for not taking more advantage of the incredible talent of folks like Charlene Li & Jeremiah Owyang while they were on staff at Forrester, and for not realizing how HUGE a benefit blogging & the visibility created by those folks was to generating business for Forrester. It’s no surprise they chose to break away and start their own firm, which appears to be growing leaps & bounds.

I can’t think of anything more likely to hobble and kill the spark of innovation and curiosity that most research analysts have in their DNA than to require them to publish as a no-name entity.

what an incredibly stupid & self-damaging move.

Indeed.

Forrester SVP Josh Bernoff provides a public statement of their reasoning for this move:

What people need to understand is that Forrester is an intellectual property company, and the opinions of our analysts are our product. Blogging is an extension of the other work we do — doing research, writing reports, working with clients, and giving speeches, for example.

And?  As a marketer, the consulting (essentially my experience/opinions as a strategist + current situation/data) I provide clients is my product.  I also do research, create reports, work with clients and present at conferences.  I blog about all of those things on my own branded industry blog and on my employer’s blog, and in both cases it helps me do my job better.  Sometimes companies even take advantage of my ideas.  All of these are positives for me and my employer.

I fail to see why Forrester thinks this is a drawback and feels a need to stop their team members from having their own, unique voice in the industry in an unstructured setting.  What this action really says to the industry is they don’t trust their own team members.  And I ask, why hire people you can’t trust?

I also find it slightly hypocritical that Josh says  in another post we must read Seth Godin’s new book, Linchpin:

This is why there are so few wise and passionate linchpins. Seth would never be so crass as to typecast people by age, but I know there are plenty of experienced and wise but passive people (he calls them bureaucrats, you know the type) and plenty of young, passionate, and inflexible people (he calls them fundamentalist zealots.) This is why the wise, passionate person stands out.

Agreed with Josh, it’s fantastic, you should read it.  However he’s not telling a consistent story by praising this book and then supporting the Forrester management team for this move.  Forrester doesn’t want linchpins – not really.  Linchpins are individualistic, they are artists, they are leaders.

Linchpins in technology, marketing and communications-related industries blog, and demand their own brand of media to do so.  It’s just not the same as writing for an employer’s blog, you have far more freedom on your own to create a voice in a setting agnostic of who employs you.

Those with a true understanding of the advantage social communication tools provide are going to use them to create personal leverage in any industry.  If you restrict these types, you’ll lose them even quicker than if you have an irrational fear they’ll get too popular from blogging.

Forrester wants to have their cake and eat it too, (conversation and total control) and they may get it.  But I don’t see how this move helps their reputation/credibility in the industry or attract talent as Dave notes.

Would you work for a company that does this?  I wouldn’t.

Forrester Research Says No To Analysts Keeping Their Own Blogs is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing

A stunning statistic:  70% of surveyed HR professionals in U.S. (41% in the UK) have rejected a job candidate based on online reputation information.

We’ve seen digital reputation issues repeatedly sensationalized by media, who pull out singular examples of inappropriate content shared in social channels causing job loss.  However the fact that a majority of hiring managers are outright rejecting candidates highlights a larger, if less publicized trend:  workforce Darwinism.

Further details from the survey solidify this:

63 percent of consumers surveyed are concerned that online reputation might affect their personal and/or professional life, yet, less than half even consider their reputations when they post online content.

Let’s get this straight:

1. A majority of hiring managers reject candidates for publicly posting items which make themselves look bad
2. Candidates are cognizant of it
3. Despite this, they continue

This is workforce Darwinism at its finest – I can’t think of a better label for the situation.  People are consciously taking themselves out of the talent pool.

image credit: HelgaNoir via Shutterstock

Workforce Darwinism is from The Future Buzz, a Blog Covering Digital Marketing