The title of this post is from the website Snopes.com. I love the way in sums up a problem that infects our modern mass and interpersonal communication environment. In an age of nearly instantaneous electronic communication via SMS, email, blogs, and a 24/7 news cycle, there is no shortage of information. There is also no shortage of rumors, gossip, half-truths and fabrications masquerading as truth. How is one to tell the difference? Well to start, a healthy dose of skepticism is advised...especially for you budding journalists out there. You know the mantra, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out!" No matter how much you want to believe the latest juicy bit of info, don't contribute to the rumor mill until you've had a chance to confirm the fact with other reliable sources.
Just a few days ago MSNBC admitted that it had been duped into reporting that, "Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a Fox News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent. (AP, Yahoo! News) The news story about the false report continued, "Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish."
We expect journalists to do their job and fact-check their sources. But what about personal communications. When you are tempted to pass along an email or other communication that does not come from a trusted source, consider checking with an online service that exist to squelch internet rumors, e.g., Snopes.com
Just today I used Snopes.com to confirm that one of my favorite stories about planning ahead is actually an urban legend. I first read the story in Wired magazine in 1995 and it made a great impression on me. According to the story, Oxford University discovered a few years ago that it needed to replace the original oak beams in the ceiling of College Hall. The new beams were cut from oak trees that were planted the same year the Hall had been built--1386. The moral of the story, of course, is that forward-thinking carpenters living in the 14th century foresaw a future need for large oak timbers, and planned (planted) accordingly. Unfortunately, it appears that the story is not entirely true. True, oak trees growing on property owned by Oxford University were harvested to provide the necessary oak beams. But there is no indication that these trees were planted specifically to meet a need that was envisioned 600 years in the future. Great story, but sadly not one that holds up under scrutiny.
How about you, have you ever been duped by a great story that turned out not to be true?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
A Social Media White House?
Advertising Age is reporting that President-Elect Obama has a database of over 3 millsion supporters who contributed to his campaign and stay routinely wired for interaction with him and his staffers. Experts are saying this is the largest database of active donors ever assembled, other than some religious organizations.
The database was created in-house, name by name...email by email...mobile number by mobile number...no list was bought here. The Obama team knew to record every single person who made a point of interacting with the campaign.
So the next questions is, what does the presidnet do with the list once he's in office? Does it just get old until he runs for president again?
Absolutely not! Barack Obama and his team have no intentions of letting the list grow cold... and no doubt plan to keep adding to the list each day.
If you were consulting the president-elect, what communication strategies would you suggest he use the list for? What uses could he get out of the list? What interactive efforts should be considered between the president and his database of loyal constitutent supporters?
The database was created in-house, name by name...email by email...mobile number by mobile number...no list was bought here. The Obama team knew to record every single person who made a point of interacting with the campaign.
So the next questions is, what does the presidnet do with the list once he's in office? Does it just get old until he runs for president again?
Absolutely not! Barack Obama and his team have no intentions of letting the list grow cold... and no doubt plan to keep adding to the list each day.
If you were consulting the president-elect, what communication strategies would you suggest he use the list for? What uses could he get out of the list? What interactive efforts should be considered between the president and his database of loyal constitutent supporters?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
We may all be guilty of criminal libel
A man was arrested in Pueblo the other day and charged with criminal libel, apparently for using imaging software to graft the face of one woman onto the bodies of other women, then publishing them in some fashion on the Internet or via e-mail, and thereby ridiculing her and impeaching her reputation, according to Pueblo County District Attorney Bill Thiebaut, as reported in the Pueblo Chieftain on Nov. 3.
Regardless of the particulars of this case, it brings to light one of the worst laws on the books of any state in the nation, a law just about everyone in Colorado likely has violated at one time or another.
Colorado's Criminal Libel statute reads:
18-13-105. Criminal libel
(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.
Note that truth is not a defense (contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court case law on libel) if you blacken the memory of a dead person or expose the natural defects of the living.
Though the news stories about the Pueblo man say it is rare for anyone to be prosecuted under this law, at least three people have been arrested under it since 2004. In one case, the charges were dropped. In another, the man accused was convicted. The outcome of this latest case may take awhile.
But whatever the outcome, it raises questions about this law, which may be unconstitutional on its face because Section 2 bars truth as a defense in certain instances and because the language used in Section 1 is vague and overly broad. For example, try to draw the line with regard to "tending to blacken" -- it can't be done, and the law does not specify who is to make that judgment and according to what standard.
In addition, the law has no provision allowing for one section to be held unconstitutional without affecting the entire statute. If either Section 1 or Section 2 is unconstitutional, the whole law is.
So, what do you think?
Should people be convicted of felonies and sent to prison for knowingly publishing in some way false and defamatory material about others, or should the remedy be the traditional civil lawsuit?
How about when publishing the truth about dead people or living people with natural defects -- or should truth be the absolute defense it has always been in civil libel case law within the United States?
As you ponder your response, ask yourself if you have you ever published (by letter, e-mail, photo, etc.) something that could be considered a violation of the law?
Have a nice day!
Regardless of the particulars of this case, it brings to light one of the worst laws on the books of any state in the nation, a law just about everyone in Colorado likely has violated at one time or another.
Colorado's Criminal Libel statute reads:
18-13-105. Criminal libel
(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.
Note that truth is not a defense (contrary to all U.S. Supreme Court case law on libel) if you blacken the memory of a dead person or expose the natural defects of the living.
Though the news stories about the Pueblo man say it is rare for anyone to be prosecuted under this law, at least three people have been arrested under it since 2004. In one case, the charges were dropped. In another, the man accused was convicted. The outcome of this latest case may take awhile.
But whatever the outcome, it raises questions about this law, which may be unconstitutional on its face because Section 2 bars truth as a defense in certain instances and because the language used in Section 1 is vague and overly broad. For example, try to draw the line with regard to "tending to blacken" -- it can't be done, and the law does not specify who is to make that judgment and according to what standard.
In addition, the law has no provision allowing for one section to be held unconstitutional without affecting the entire statute. If either Section 1 or Section 2 is unconstitutional, the whole law is.
So, what do you think?
Should people be convicted of felonies and sent to prison for knowingly publishing in some way false and defamatory material about others, or should the remedy be the traditional civil lawsuit?
How about when publishing the truth about dead people or living people with natural defects -- or should truth be the absolute defense it has always been in civil libel case law within the United States?
As you ponder your response, ask yourself if you have you ever published (by letter, e-mail, photo, etc.) something that could be considered a violation of the law?
Have a nice day!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
LittleBigPlanet
Playstation fanatics have been patiently awaiting the arrival of “LittleBigPlanet,” a platformer action game that has been described as “beautiful,” “dazzling,” and “very special.” I have to admit, I considered asking Santa for a PS3 just to play this game.
Well… there’s been a recall. The game apparently featured a song with lyrics from the Quran, Muslim gamers told Sony that the song could offend some members of the religion (we can’t forget Sony’s run in with the Church of England last year over the game “Resistance: Fall of Man”). Sony had originally planned to have the game on shelves Monday of this week, now… LBP will likely see the light of day on the 27th or possibly the first week of November.
One Muslim group is speaking out against Sony’s decision to initiate a world wide recall of the original version of the game.
M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said:
"…Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted. The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive. But to demand that it be withdrawn is predicated on a society which gives theocrats who wish to control speech far more value than the central principle of freedom of expression upon which the very practice and freedom of religion is based…”
"...We (the AIFD) do not endorse any restriction whatsoever on the release of this videogame but would only ask those with concerns to simply choose not to buy it. We would hope that the producer’s decision not be made in any way out of fear but rather simply based upon freedom of expression and the free market…”
Is this a case of political correctness overblown, or has Sony handled the situation appropriately? Videogames already come with parental advisory labels, should we consider adding a portion to the existing label that details a game’s political correctness? Your thoughts…
Well… there’s been a recall. The game apparently featured a song with lyrics from the Quran, Muslim gamers told Sony that the song could offend some members of the religion (we can’t forget Sony’s run in with the Church of England last year over the game “Resistance: Fall of Man”). Sony had originally planned to have the game on shelves Monday of this week, now… LBP will likely see the light of day on the 27th or possibly the first week of November.
One Muslim group is speaking out against Sony’s decision to initiate a world wide recall of the original version of the game.
M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said:
"…Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted. The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive. But to demand that it be withdrawn is predicated on a society which gives theocrats who wish to control speech far more value than the central principle of freedom of expression upon which the very practice and freedom of religion is based…”
"...We (the AIFD) do not endorse any restriction whatsoever on the release of this videogame but would only ask those with concerns to simply choose not to buy it. We would hope that the producer’s decision not be made in any way out of fear but rather simply based upon freedom of expression and the free market…”
Is this a case of political correctness overblown, or has Sony handled the situation appropriately? Videogames already come with parental advisory labels, should we consider adding a portion to the existing label that details a game’s political correctness? Your thoughts…
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Feds are all aTwitter
Just came across this interesting piece by Eric Krangel of Silicon Alley Insider showing how federal agencies are using Twitter. Does this signal a new era in federal accessibility to the masses? Incidentally, how many of you Twitter out there? And how many of you are going to start after seeing all the federal information now available in easily digestible tidbits?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Get Your Facts Straight
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY once said, "You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts." Here we are just four weeks away from one of the most hotly contested presidential elections in history, and a lot of us aren't sure which facts are facts and which are not. It can be hard to tell who is actually going to raise taxes and who is really going to move us towards energy independence. Trust is at an all time low and if we're not careful we'll slip from skepticism to cynicism. Thankfully, there are a few places to turn and most of them are just a few clicks away. Check out Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org, the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly’s PolitiFact and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog. At these non-partisan websites you can find out which claims are legitimate, and which are playing fast and loose with the facts.
If you're serious about getting the straight story, I suggest you pick up a copy of the book, UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Jackson runs the FactCheck.org website and Jamieson is a well respected author and political communication scholar. This fascinating and easy read will help you learn how to find information while avoiding being duped by the people who would like to sell you a bridge to nowhere.
But perhaps the greatest danger is for those who really don't want the facts...they only want others to confirm what they already believe and hold dear. They value being "affirmed" over being "informed." For such individuals, truth will always be elusive.
If you're serious about getting the straight story, I suggest you pick up a copy of the book, UnSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Jackson runs the FactCheck.org website and Jamieson is a well respected author and political communication scholar. This fascinating and easy read will help you learn how to find information while avoiding being duped by the people who would like to sell you a bridge to nowhere.
But perhaps the greatest danger is for those who really don't want the facts...they only want others to confirm what they already believe and hold dear. They value being "affirmed" over being "informed." For such individuals, truth will always be elusive.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Teenagers: Virtual or Real Relationships?
Recent research from the Intelligence Group studying teen online behavior concludes that although teens love their online communication, they prefer real friends over virtual friends. Here are some of the results of the study:
-91% prefer real friends, 9% prefer online friends
-87% prefer to date someone from school, 13% prefer to date someone from the Internet
-54% prefer to instant message a friend, 46% prefer to call on the phone
-The average teen has signed up for four social networking sites and currently belongs to two.
It would appear that although the Internet is a wonderful invention of electronic relationship building, this segment of human beings still likes to build relationships the old-fashioned way, through face-to-face, interpersonal communication.
Where is this going? Is the Internet going to create preferred virtual relationships for people rather than real ones? Are we going to sit in our house and relate to strangers all over the world, but not go next door and meet our neighbors?
What are the benefits one gets, or society gets, by virtual relationship building?
What are the drawbacks you see in the future?
-91% prefer real friends, 9% prefer online friends
-87% prefer to date someone from school, 13% prefer to date someone from the Internet
-54% prefer to instant message a friend, 46% prefer to call on the phone
-The average teen has signed up for four social networking sites and currently belongs to two.
It would appear that although the Internet is a wonderful invention of electronic relationship building, this segment of human beings still likes to build relationships the old-fashioned way, through face-to-face, interpersonal communication.
Where is this going? Is the Internet going to create preferred virtual relationships for people rather than real ones? Are we going to sit in our house and relate to strangers all over the world, but not go next door and meet our neighbors?
What are the benefits one gets, or society gets, by virtual relationship building?
What are the drawbacks you see in the future?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Big music just doesn't get it... again.
You really have to wonder if the music industry is oblivious or actually trying to transition to obsolescence. Though there have been great strides in being able to purchase digital music with little or no restrictions, two of the more innovative music-related sites on the 'net are in danger of going under.
Muxtape, the virtual mixtape application is currently shut down (and has been for a few weeks) citing "problem with the RIAA". The "problem" is most likely that the RIAA wants them to either pay up or stop using copyrighted music. Muxtape claims none of the labels or artists have complained about their service, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd fly under the radar of the big meanies at the industry group.
Possibly more troubling is some comments from virtual radio station site Pandora indicating that they're paying new fees on the music they broadcast over the Internet. Fees that traditional broadcast radio stations don't have to pay. Considering the reach of terrestrial radio compared to online radio like Pandora, it seems disingenuous to charge extra fees to broadcast over the Internet. The net result is Pandora is basically running on borrowed time because they're not profitable or even sustainable with the increased fees.
I've never been a user of Muxtape (though I know people who are and love it), but I'm a big believer in Pandora and Pandora-like services being the future of radio-style music delivery... mainly because your "stations" are based on a really complex--and very accurate in most cases--analysis of what you like in music.
VentureBeat has a good piece on one (very radical) scenario where all music is free and artists are paid by patrons. Sound familiar? If you're a history buff (especially art and music history), it should. That's how things were (and still are in some cases) done in the art and music world prior to wide-scale commercialization.
Aside from the idea of patronage, the fact that the recording industry doesn't seem to get that these new delivery methods are disruptive technology is troubling. Truth is, the music industry has to adapt to the way people these days want their music, and any attempt to muscle people back into the "way things were" is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
Muxtape, the virtual mixtape application is currently shut down (and has been for a few weeks) citing "problem with the RIAA". The "problem" is most likely that the RIAA wants them to either pay up or stop using copyrighted music. Muxtape claims none of the labels or artists have complained about their service, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd fly under the radar of the big meanies at the industry group.
Possibly more troubling is some comments from virtual radio station site Pandora indicating that they're paying new fees on the music they broadcast over the Internet. Fees that traditional broadcast radio stations don't have to pay. Considering the reach of terrestrial radio compared to online radio like Pandora, it seems disingenuous to charge extra fees to broadcast over the Internet. The net result is Pandora is basically running on borrowed time because they're not profitable or even sustainable with the increased fees.
I've never been a user of Muxtape (though I know people who are and love it), but I'm a big believer in Pandora and Pandora-like services being the future of radio-style music delivery... mainly because your "stations" are based on a really complex--and very accurate in most cases--analysis of what you like in music.
VentureBeat has a good piece on one (very radical) scenario where all music is free and artists are paid by patrons. Sound familiar? If you're a history buff (especially art and music history), it should. That's how things were (and still are in some cases) done in the art and music world prior to wide-scale commercialization.
Aside from the idea of patronage, the fact that the recording industry doesn't seem to get that these new delivery methods are disruptive technology is troubling. Truth is, the music industry has to adapt to the way people these days want their music, and any attempt to muscle people back into the "way things were" is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
Friday, September 12, 2008
msNBC... National Barack Channel?
MSNBC executives have decided to pull the plug on Keith Olbermann (Countdown) and Chris Matthews (Hardball). Both anchors will not be at the helm when MSNBC delivers “political night” coverage. For the record, executives have blamed dismal Nielsen ratings as a justification for the move. Anyone watching MSNBC knows that it might have more to do with impartial reporting than audience share.
Somewhere along the way, Keith lost the script. Within 18 months he's gone from super broadcaster (I’ve been a fan of Olbermann and SC since 1992) to leftist mouthpiece without a sign of neutrality. Its been painful at times enduring the Olbermann/Matthews man-crush on Obama. MSNBC’s coverage of the DNCC in Denver was memorable and ugly at the same time. Switching from Chris’s tingly feelings to what seemed like Fox News broadcasting live from a funeral was awkward to say the least.
During convention coverage, Olbermann apologized to his viewers after MSNBC aired a September eleventh video homage created by the Republican Party. Olbermann said, “we would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again, if you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize.” I think Keith may have missed the memo on MSNBC re-airing “9/11 AS IT HAPPENED” (two hours of September 11th, 2001 footage including the terror of both towers falling, etc. etc.) yesterday, September 11th, 2008.
So… is there objectivity on FOX News, MSNBC, or CNN… if not, where can you find it?
Somewhere along the way, Keith lost the script. Within 18 months he's gone from super broadcaster (I’ve been a fan of Olbermann and SC since 1992) to leftist mouthpiece without a sign of neutrality. Its been painful at times enduring the Olbermann/Matthews man-crush on Obama. MSNBC’s coverage of the DNCC in Denver was memorable and ugly at the same time. Switching from Chris’s tingly feelings to what seemed like Fox News broadcasting live from a funeral was awkward to say the least.
During convention coverage, Olbermann apologized to his viewers after MSNBC aired a September eleventh video homage created by the Republican Party. Olbermann said, “we would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again, if you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize.” I think Keith may have missed the memo on MSNBC re-airing “9/11 AS IT HAPPENED” (two hours of September 11th, 2001 footage including the terror of both towers falling, etc. etc.) yesterday, September 11th, 2008.
So… is there objectivity on FOX News, MSNBC, or CNN… if not, where can you find it?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Journalism ethics: Where do you stand?
The Society of Professional Journalists is holding its annual convention this week, and discussions of ethics in journalism are once again drawing interest. The SPJ issued a press release from its ethics committee which outlines some of the highs and lows in journalism ethics over the past year. Many of the ethical lows are related to media outlets trying to make more money by securing deals that ultimately end up placing their objectivity and credibility into question. In one example cited in the SPJ press release, a Fox TV affiliate in Las Vegas penned a sponsorship deal in which McDonald's drink cups will sit on the anchor desk during broadcasts with the cups' logos facing the camera. As media consumers, do deals like this bother you and make you call into question the credibility of the news outlets? Or do you think they are a necessary part of the competitive, bottom-line world of modern mass media?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Digital Media Summit
Earlier this month I had the privilege to attend the Digital Media Summit, an event sponsored by ABC/Disney and the International Radio & Television Society. The week-long event was held on the campus of ABC/Disney in Los Angeles and was attended by faculty from approximately 60 colleges and universities from around the nation.The summit addressed two important issues--diversity and digital media--and featured seminars from industry executives. Producers and writers of the ABC hit show Lost provided insight into the new media marketing techniques used to build WOM (Word Of Mouth) buzz around the program. Another panel discussed techniques used to "monetize" the digital space...in simpler language, how to turn a profit from alternative means of experiencing digital media content, e.g., webisodes on cell phones and alternative reality games based on TV shows or movies. In addition to the seminars, we had opportunities to tour the sound stages and animation studios on the ABC/Disney lot.
But there were two specific things that caught my attention and that I want to share with you. First, was the growing problem of unauthorized use of digital media content. According to ABC executives, the average time elapsed after the initial broadcast of a new TV episode before that program becomes available--in HD (High Definition), with commercials removed--on a P2P (Peer to Peer) network such as BitTorrent is 17 minutes. In an attempt to counter this phenomenon, ABC is making much of its new programming available (including the first 4 seasons of Lost), in HD, on it's own website using their award winning Full Episode Player. Of course there are embedded and pre-roll ads to generate revenue, but at least it is a legal alternative for viewers who miss a broadcast or want to watch it again.
The second thing that I want to share with you is the importance of team work and collaboration in this creative industry. Time after time ABC/Disney executives told us to encourage our students to develop collaborative skills...skills that will be essential when they come to work in the TV and film industry. There is no place for a lone ranger in this business...unless he's wearing a mask and performing in front of the camera. So don't be afraid of team work. Embrace it and learn to find creative ways to enhance your productivity and the group's productivity at the same time. Collaboration is just another important tool that employers, at least in this business, will expect you to have in your toolbox.
Oh, and one last thing...both IRTS and ABC/Disney have well-established internship programs for students who want to spend a summer or semester in either NY or LA. It is a fantastic way to learn about the biz while making career contacts!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
To Drink or Not to Drink: Lowering the Drinking Age
CNN.com (www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/18/college.drinking.age.ap/index.html) is reporting that college presidents from about 100 of the nation's best known universities are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, claiming the current laws lead to underground, unsafe, and binge drinking on college campuses. One college president said the current law "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening the risks."
The age of legal consent to drink can be determined either of two ways: a federal law could be created for every state, or each state could evaluate the decision and determine what age was best for that state. In Colorado, the legal age of consent for drinking is 21.
MADD disagrees, citing research that a lowered drinking age will mean more fatal car crashes and more deaths from binging.
Which is it? Will a lowered drinking age mean more responsible drinking for our college students because they won't have to hide it? Or could it mean more indulgence in alcohol...more hangovers...and more trouble healthwise and with law enforcement.
Should Colorado have this discussion at the state level?
The age of legal consent to drink can be determined either of two ways: a federal law could be created for every state, or each state could evaluate the decision and determine what age was best for that state. In Colorado, the legal age of consent for drinking is 21.
MADD disagrees, citing research that a lowered drinking age will mean more fatal car crashes and more deaths from binging.
Which is it? Will a lowered drinking age mean more responsible drinking for our college students because they won't have to hide it? Or could it mean more indulgence in alcohol...more hangovers...and more trouble healthwise and with law enforcement.
Should Colorado have this discussion at the state level?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
How much is it worth to you to respond?
Audience research is a significant element in communication. Promoters want feedback on their products, services, issues, or candidates, radio and television broadcasters want feedback for programming decisions, and newspapers want to hear reader comments on stories.
Public opinion determines success in a democracy so all entities need to know what their audiences opinions are in order to successfully move forward and prosper. In Mass Communications, we are acutely aware of how important it is for us to be willing survey participants. Perhaps the general population doesn't realize how important it is, but Mass Comm majors certainly understand the power of public opinion.
Audience surveying is now going online, of course, as is most communication. Regardless of whether the channel is an interpersonal moment with a clipboard at the mall, a print mail survey to your home, a telephone survey, or an email survey, a key question is what motivates you to respond?
Some options might be, how involved you are with what content the survey is covering, or current opinions you might have about the content you're being questioned about. Or it could be that you got caught at just the right time and felt like doing the survey.
But another option is some kind of actual INCENTIVE such as a free gift, or a coupon, or a percentage off, or any other kind of incentive.
What motivates you?
Do you think getting an incentive from a surveyor changes your opinion on the survey questions?
Do you think that getting something free might change one's opinion from negative to positive?
Public opinion determines success in a democracy so all entities need to know what their audiences opinions are in order to successfully move forward and prosper. In Mass Communications, we are acutely aware of how important it is for us to be willing survey participants. Perhaps the general population doesn't realize how important it is, but Mass Comm majors certainly understand the power of public opinion.
Audience surveying is now going online, of course, as is most communication. Regardless of whether the channel is an interpersonal moment with a clipboard at the mall, a print mail survey to your home, a telephone survey, or an email survey, a key question is what motivates you to respond?
Some options might be, how involved you are with what content the survey is covering, or current opinions you might have about the content you're being questioned about. Or it could be that you got caught at just the right time and felt like doing the survey.
But another option is some kind of actual INCENTIVE such as a free gift, or a coupon, or a percentage off, or any other kind of incentive.
What motivates you?
Do you think getting an incentive from a surveyor changes your opinion on the survey questions?
Do you think that getting something free might change one's opinion from negative to positive?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Beautiful Deal
U2 has just signed a 12 year deal with Live Nation (tour production, promotion, branding, etc.) - in U2 speak that translates to (fingers crossed) three more tours… 2009, 2013, and 2017. The band is expected earn at least $100 million in the LN agreement before 2020 (completely believable considering their 05/06 Vertigo tour grossed over $400 million).
In order for U2 to earn their $100 million, what kind of ticket and merchandising prices can we expect?
15 years ago, I was to trying to scrape together $40.25 to attend U2's Zoo TV Tour (in the Fall of 92 it was nearly unheard of to charge $40+ for a concert ticket - even Springsteen, the Stones, Elton, Clapton, and Prince were still in the $25 - $35 range).
Then, in 1994 Hell Froze Over - the Eagles reunited and the rest is history. The Eagles were the first arena rockers to charge (and the audience abide willingly) $70+ for a show ticket, and $30+ for a tour t-shirt. The Eagles sold out three nights at Fiddler's Green in the summer of 94 (55,500 seats total for the Denver stop) - tickets for that particular tour were very hard to come by, they sold out arenas all over the U.S.
If you consider that CD sales and concert ticket sales have tanked for most contemporary musicians (only a few artists seem to be making real money touring... the Stones, Madonna, U2, etc.) - is perceived "price gouging" the next logical step (continued escalation of ticket and merchandise pricing) to counter illegal music downloading?
I've never bought into the "artist is greedy" argument - perhaps we're getting a bargain... I would suggest the U2 live performance is worth every penny of $175 or $275 or whatever they are going to charge per ticket next year. Before you ask me to step away from the Kool Aid, take a sip... Did you experience the Zoo TV, Popmart, Elevation, and Vertigo tours? If you skipped one or all of them, you missed out.
Please share your concert ticket price, concert merchandise price stories. What is the most/least you ever paid for a great concert? Have you recently caved and dropped $35 for a t-shirt inside the arena? What would you be willing to pay to see Gilmour and Waters together, or Page, Plant, JPJ, and Bonham Jr. on stage? Are you planning on paying $375-$500 per ticket to see Madonna's rumored Hard Candy tour? Does illegal downloading have anything to do with concert ticket pricing?
In order for U2 to earn their $100 million, what kind of ticket and merchandising prices can we expect?
15 years ago, I was to trying to scrape together $40.25 to attend U2's Zoo TV Tour (in the Fall of 92 it was nearly unheard of to charge $40+ for a concert ticket - even Springsteen, the Stones, Elton, Clapton, and Prince were still in the $25 - $35 range).
Then, in 1994 Hell Froze Over - the Eagles reunited and the rest is history. The Eagles were the first arena rockers to charge (and the audience abide willingly) $70+ for a show ticket, and $30+ for a tour t-shirt. The Eagles sold out three nights at Fiddler's Green in the summer of 94 (55,500 seats total for the Denver stop) - tickets for that particular tour were very hard to come by, they sold out arenas all over the U.S.
If you consider that CD sales and concert ticket sales have tanked for most contemporary musicians (only a few artists seem to be making real money touring... the Stones, Madonna, U2, etc.) - is perceived "price gouging" the next logical step (continued escalation of ticket and merchandise pricing) to counter illegal music downloading?
I've never bought into the "artist is greedy" argument - perhaps we're getting a bargain... I would suggest the U2 live performance is worth every penny of $175 or $275 or whatever they are going to charge per ticket next year. Before you ask me to step away from the Kool Aid, take a sip... Did you experience the Zoo TV, Popmart, Elevation, and Vertigo tours? If you skipped one or all of them, you missed out.
Please share your concert ticket price, concert merchandise price stories. What is the most/least you ever paid for a great concert? Have you recently caved and dropped $35 for a t-shirt inside the arena? What would you be willing to pay to see Gilmour and Waters together, or Page, Plant, JPJ, and Bonham Jr. on stage? Are you planning on paying $375-$500 per ticket to see Madonna's rumored Hard Candy tour? Does illegal downloading have anything to do with concert ticket pricing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
