Digital shift makes radio like never before

The music industry just isn't what it used to be decades ago. In your dad's time, an artiste asking a radio station to pay royalties was unheard of and would promptly result in the artiste disappearing from radio waves and seeing CD sales tank.

Today, CD sales are tanking anyway. And the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) wants radio stations to pay up. Simple logic really. It used to be that both the recording industry and radio stations had a symbiotic relationship. Radio stations get to play songs for free and make money off selling ads. The recording industry got free publicity from radio stations and sold CDs to make money.



In about 40 years, this has changed. Today, CDs are not the only way people buy music and radio is no longer the only way for people to hear about a great act. The internet means word-of-mouth is much more effective and distribution doesn't have to be physical.

So, along comes the RIAA with the idea that since it no longer relies on radio to make CD sales, and since, this essentially means the radio stations are making money for free off their content, they should get a cut of the advertising revenue. Genius!

This has stoked quite a lot of debate, and while its a sad situation for radio, I do think that industries do need to adapt to the realities ANY social shift incur upon them. In this case, the internet, the proliferation of personal media players and the digitisation of music have put the radio stations in a spot. But if the old business model breaks, then the new business models must come on.

My suggestion would be that radio stations start thinking about how to disassociate proprietary content from music. Funny hosts, witty scripts and the opportunity to interact is what makes most of the charm of radio. With music now being such a personal thing, and iTunes helping people sample and enjoy songs much more than ever, radio stations need to think of making relevant content.

What about a couple of talk show podcasts? Quality content people can listen to anytime, anywhere. Or branching out to video?

We're certainly seeing that now in Malaysia with the effort Media Prima puts behind developing gua.com.my but there's definitely a long road to tread. Still, with the ruckus the RIAA is creating in the US, it'd be wise for radio broadcasting industries in other countries to start preparing for the inevitable - when a media consumption format starts to go the way of the dodo.

What? You mean what I'm consuming isn't mainstream (media)?

There was a bit of interesting banter on Episode 139 of This Week in Tech revolving journalists who do shows on the internet (like on TWIT or Cnet or Tech TV in the old days) jumping over to "mainstream" media to make it big.

But would folks like Veronica Belmont necessarily need to get a job as a CNN anchor to make it big? I thought CNet and Revision 3 was as big as they come!

Though this has been discussed much, it still struck me that these were the shows I am listening to or watching more and more of, to the detriment of the more "mainstream" TV3 or newspapers. An oxymoron perhaps? Or is "mainstream" changing?

Not too long ago, it was widely considered by marketers that your average working class adult would consume media on a daily basis at routine intervals. The morning paper. 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. prime time TV. The breakfast show on the way to work. Sticking an ad into any of these slots would cost more simply because the stats show more viewers were consuming media at these time-slots.

Personally, for me, this has changed. Yes, I still read the papers every morning (to keep up with current trends, for job's-sake) but that's about it. I hardly watch TV anymore. Instead, my morning drives to work are dominated by catching up with the latest tech news, miniature gaming news or world news via podcasts. When i'm bored, I surf the internet with RSSed links to sites like Soccernet. More and more, I'm building an echo chamber of the news that I'm interested in and filtering out everything else.

I wonder how many people out there are like me? I'm guessing few, but growing.

Here's why:

1. Content Syndication technology (RSS)
Thanks to RSS, content delivery can now be automated, giving rise tonew forms of media like podcasting (sticking an Audio file to an RSS feed) that give people access to timely information that can be consumed at their own time. It's like choosing the channels you want to watch, and then watching them at your own time. The bad thing is, you'll be limiting yourself only to the type of news you want to hear.

2. More personal media players and multifunction devices.
All the best content in the world isn't going to do you much good if you're going to be stuck at home on the computer to consume it. The good thing is, more and more people are now carrying portable devices that are capable of playing media. It could be your phone, your MP3 player, your PDA. The option is now there for you to sync your favourite RSS-delivered content and consume it wherever you are.

3. Mobile internet getting better and better.
People a long time ago predicted the death of the newspaper thanks to the internet. As it turned out, those predictions were unfounded mainly because people didn't want to be stuck at home reading the newspaper on their computers. They rather prefer to read it in their toilets.

However, if you take my two points above and mesh it with the fact that now you can get a decent 3G / WiFi connection in the toilet and your mobile phone / device is most likely with you. Heh. You can easily see how a small device can replace that paper you used to hold in the toilet.

So, how much do you consume "mainstream" media?

Media + New Media and the new age journalist?

Was listening to an old episode of Buzz Out Loud (timestamp 39:30) on the way to work and there was a really interesting discussion about the relationship between blogs and traditional news media.

You can click on the link above to listen to it (and if you're interested in PR and media etc., you should!) But an interesting point was brought up that some newspapers (in the US) could benefit from giving their journalists blogs, and these blogs could allow entirely credible media (say WSJ) to cover stuff that they normally wouldn't cover in print. Or provide opinions or commentary that wouldn't make it in print.

Would this sort of dynamic would work here in Malaysia (thanks to our own laws and controls over media)? I believe it can. I know at the moment when we say "blogs" people think "politics / opposition" but blogs don't necessarily need to cover potentially inflamatory topics like politics, race and religion; rather, they could serve a supplementary role to whatever hard news gets published in the actual print.

If you know me, you know I've been talking about this for the longest time. Newspapers could give their Tech Editors a blog and see where that takes them. A while back, The Sun had blogs setup for their editors (I've lost the link, if you have it and it's still alive, could you post it in the comments?) At least one local tech publication I know has a blog - check out The Zone.

Yes, I know many journalists have blogs of their own, but personally (as a reader), I'm interested in seeing the crossover between printed medium and the online happen. The print mag / paper is your product, but the online blog is the conversation that let's us engage with the people behind the product.

Especially for mags ( and I believe for pullouts), the community you build around your readers is going to be crucial to the success of the publication. In the old world, you'd put out a product and count your readers by subscriptions. In the new world, subscription and circulation numbers don't go away, but the web will let you make that connection with readers / fans in a way print doesn't.

By "connection" I mean this: Journalists have started to become personalities, and I think this is probably due to the way blogs affect publishing. I loved John C. Dvorak's column in PC Mag (the Malaysian Edition is now defunct). Now, even if I can't read his column, I'm able to follow his blog. I'm not just reading PC Mag, I'm reading Dvorak. In the same way, I'm listening to Robert Scoble, Leo Laporte, Tom Merritt, Molly Wood, Don Risinger and all these other really intelligent techy people. It started with a podcast or a blog, but I now follow them on Twitter as well.

I also follow some of our very good local tech editors like aggromonkey, fatcatlim and, across the causeway, eBolasaurus.

At the end of the day, I guess you could say it's about reading credible stuff intelligent people put up, regardless of whether its in print or online through blogs. But there's space for both and I think blogs convey a personality, opinion and enables feedback in a way print can't (technically, you could still write letters to the editor).

Worth Surfing: malaysiavotes.com

For all of you interested in following the Malaysian Elections through an independent news site that's not biased to either side, you really should check out www.malaysiavotes.com.



The people running this site were journalists from The Edge and an ex-colleague of mine (who happened to be their colleagues in The Edge) has vouched for them. Personally, I've worked with at least one of them in the past (part of my job) and they are credible, intelligent and decent people so I'd vouch for them too.

Hooray for Online Journalism!

Malaysia's very own Internet Elections portal

So, what sort of change does the Internet bring to elections? Would it affect Malaysia? We'll know in a couple of weeks, I guess.

There was a really good article from ReadWriteWeb I read that characterised how the Internet would change the nature of electoral campaigning and allow candidates to get closer, more directly engaged, with their audiences. Case in point:

• Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and the other US candidates all have Facebook profiles & groups.
• YouTube partnered CNN to host presidential debates on its Video Service.
• At least Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton have blogs. Many more campaign workers have blogs.

But that's not all. Just run a Yahoo! search and you'll find countless forums, blogs and sites that support discussion and debate on the US Elections.

Well, the good news is, us Malaysians aren't too far behind. Beyond the political bloggers / watchers in our country, I'd like to point out that leading Bahasa Melayu daily Harian Metro has launched its own elections site entitled, aptly, "PilihanRaya 2008."


Harian Metro's Pilihan Raya 2008 site.

What really surprises me with this site is the functionality built in. You can not only get the latest news and information for the General Elections, but also vote in the on-going poll, or add your own comment.


Comments are on the left side of the screen.

I cannot stress how important a factor it is to allow people to comment. What's an election if we don't allow people to debate? The simple ability to comment makes this platform more than just a web-site. It'd be interesting to see the discussions (and... uh... moderation?) that'll go on on the site.

This is pretty ground-breaking stuff, especially coming from an established newspaper. I'm personally wondering if we'll see a similar site from NST the next couple of days to cover off the English-speaking audience.

Meanwhile, kudos to Harian Metro and its online team. Exciting stuff.

You don't want THIS at your press event...

This has got to be the nightmare of all PR people - especially the folks handling the invite to the Gizmodo folks!

There's this part in the video where this Motorola spokesperson actually is presenting about a pretty cool product and... the TV goes off! poof! It went off so fast the spokesperson didn't even know what was going on.



Still, I think CNet's reaction to this stunt pretty much sums it up. However, I think I can add that is probably an isolated incident in the blogging community and that the bloggers I've had for press events are nothing if not decent and interesting people.

Verdict? This is a one off. Good stunt for Gizmodo (more than 400 comments on the associated post) and nothing that should stop PR people from inviting bloggers again in the future.

Now, nobody get any ideas mmmkay?

To hear, or to silence

Firstly, if you're the CIA and you're reading this post, I am NOT a terrorist, serial killer or any like minded person. I just have an opinion.

I'm sure by now you've all heard about South Korean student Cho Seung Hui's mass murder at Virginia Tech and how he shot himself after killing more than 30 people. You've probably also heard the outcry over the media outlets publishing his "manifesto".



Now, I'm not pro-silencing or pro-airing. But I am pro-listening-to-what-he-has-to-say-and- making-some-good-judgement-or-learning-good-lessons-from-it. From what we know in the media, Cho rants against "rich kids" and "debauchery". And classmates said he was bullied. So what does that tell us?

Instead of an outcry over "disturbing images" we should ask ourselves, really, why did he do it? What was he experiencing? His story seems so similar to what happens here in malaysia, kids who get ostracized in school, laughed at, and ragged.

I've seen people like that when I was in school. I'm sure you have.

The most that most of these people do is go home to Mommy crying. This one went out and bought two guns. There's a message here somewhere.

Maybe Cho's telling us to look at how we live and how we treat others. Do we victimise and put people down around us, in our workplace, or in school? Someday, the "butt of all jokes" will have the last laugh.

Read this guy's blog posting. He makes a good comment.

Bloggers to register with government?

This just in, from lowyat.net:

BLOGGERS using locally hosted websites may be asked to register with the authorities, Deputy Energy, Water and Communications Minister Datuk Shaziman Abu Mansor said. He said registration was one of the measures the Government was considering to prevent the spread of negative or malicious content on the Internet.

One more reason to stay on blogspot? A resounding YES for me. Need to sort my thoughts out. Then I'll be back with more.

World of WhoreCraft?

*Whoring is to journalists what PR people who push products do. You Whore when you say "such and such product does this and this and this, and is the best reason for you to spend money."

I know there's been a lot of talk about Second Life as the next big PR platform. Many PR agencies, including my own, are gaping with jaws wide open about the "possibilites."

• Virtual Press Conferences.
• Virtual Product Launches with Virtual 3D models of the latest products.
• Limitless interaction with a media footprint that crosses geographies.
• Interactive gaames and contests.

More than 5 million "residents" and about 1.6 million of which logged-in within the last 60 days (taken off http://www.secondlife.com), this is some audience. Besides, you can almost be certain that whoever is spending time on Second Life is in some measures a geek. And if you're selling geek products, that's quite a big audience that you can safely say is "targeted."

Heck, even my agency has a virtual office in Second Life-land, and Reuters has a reporter covering stuff in Second Life full time.

But... this whole shebang is dwarfed by an even bigger phenomenon. One that has gamers aged over 50 playing and logging on and pretending to be tight women in skimpy leather outfits. With a last reported number of over 7 million subscribers, I'm wondering if any PR agency or corporate client has ever thought about targeted product placements or press events in World of Warcraft.

Think about it.. that's 7 million people with the cash to shell out USD 15 a month to play pretend (vs 5 million of people not shelling anything out). WoW players would be more likely to be logging in than Second Life onlookers.

Next, the demographics are kinda there, in any case, Blizzard will have the info. So you'd know exactly which people you're targeting. So, if you're a brand that's totally not targeted or related to the WoW-playing demographic, don't bother.

Sure, there'd be problems given that you'd have to have the same presence across the different "shards" or "servers", but we could just mirror the activities, content and events.

Then there'd be problems in, say, throwing a press conference on WoW. What about journalists who don't have passes? Well, we COULD give away passes to journos to get online just for that event. Maybe a special media pass Blizzard could design. Of course, the 3.5 GB download is going to be killing, but maybe over time, with WoW as a platform, WoW would come pre-installed on every journalist's PC. (I have a dream...)

And most Malaysian Tech Journos I know are on WoW in some form or another...so that would pretty much be a moot point.

So, that's my case. Blizzard, you're sitting on a marketeer's dream. Figure a way to let the brands in, and the money would start rolling. Would your average, paying subscriber be open to marketing in WoW World? Yeah, why not? If done tastefully and in character, we love these kind of things. So, what're you waiting for?

"Toothless" Journalism and UNcredible bloggers

This article over at thecicak.com nails the bug right in its face and unearths the age old discussion of Malaysian press freedom. Whilst, and I'm sure you've read about this before, this counter punches alternative media.

So what's a honest-to-goodness Malaysian citizen to read nowadays to just get an honest-to-goodness perspective of what's happening in the country? If we have journalists who can only paint rosy pictures and bloggers who spread lies, there doesn't seem like much else to read.

Of course, that depends on which camp you're on.

One side would have you believe that it's new media that's uncredible and therefore should be dismissed without a second thought. These "bloggers" or "citizen journalists" don't do their research before shooting off their views, and should be summarily ignored.

In the other camp, the mainstream media is pictured as suppressed. The only way to let the truth out is to do it online.

I'm not for either camp, as there's truth to both and bad examples of both camps. You've got great journalists and great bloggers. At the same time, I've come across some pretty poor examples of both.

But what I'm really wondering is... does your average Malaysian really care? I studied that the Media was the fourth institution of society, meant to be a watchdog. So, whilst we're watching out, who're we watching out for? Do they even care?

Gah...