Clear Channel, Warner Music cozy up in multiplatform deal
Clear Channel and Warner Music, one of the "Big Three" music labels, signed a partnership Thursday that will share the radio giant's revenue for unprecedented promotion of Warner artists on air and online, as well as efforts to make it easier for digital listeners to buy Warner's music when they hear it. The pact, Clear Channel's first wide-ranging strategic alliance with a major label, underscores how both labels' and traditional radio are testing new ways to ensure self-preservation in the digital age. The partnership means Warner Music will share in revenue from Clear Channel and get special treatment on its 850 radio stations, online radio feeds, and its iHeartRadio digital service. The companies said aligning their interests would drive digital growth, increase radio's audience, and attract attention to Warner's new and legacy artists. At first blush, the deal sets up Clear Channel to pay for things it didn't before while also promoting things it wasn't before, but Clear Channel CEO Bob Pittman told CNET in an interview that both work in the radio operator's favor as well as the label's. "The more we can regularize the relationship with the music company, the better we can" connect music fans to artists, he said. "When we're promoting an artist, it not only helps the artist and the marketing company, it's helping us."He said the deal has an economic structure that makes sense for Clear Channel. He wouldn't go into further detail about the terms. He also said one of Clear Channel's top goals with the partnership is growth of the digital marketplace for digital radio and custom radio.An industry source said that Warner Music benefits from the tie-up by getting more payments for its sound recordings and Clear Channel benefits by smoothing out unpredictability in its licensing costs. Related storiesClear Channel's revamp to iHeartMedia puts digital center stageTraditionally, terrestrial radio doesn't pay labels to play the sound recordings of their songs, although the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did set up a sound-recording royalty for services over the Internet.The recorded music industry has shriveled in the last decade as sales have shifted to digital forms, only recently reaching the point that recorded music's overall trade value worldwide has ceased a more than 10-year slide.Most of the credit for the stabilization is due to physical sales finally reaching their nadir, while growth in digital sales continues. Meanwhile, entrants into online radio have been encroaching on traditional radio's turf -- and driving up the costs and unpredictability of royalties in the meantime. Though AM/FM still commands the lion's share of the radio audience, traditional broadcasters have largely sat on the sidelines as upstart digital services have taken the lead in delivering innovative radio products with new technology. The coming launch next week of iTunes Radio, Apple's online radio service linked to its iTunes program with an installed base of more than 575 million customers worldwide, will bring the same player that upended the sale of recorded music into the realm of radio. Warner Music, however, has been one of the more progressive of the major labels to seize upon digital opportunities lately. It was the first label to strike a deal with Apple for iTunes Radio, and it reportedly was a vanguard in working with Google's YouTube in its development of a streaming music service. Labels have also taken a contentious route to protect royalties in the digital age. This week, labels including Capitol Records, Sony Music Entertainment, and Universal Music Group -- though not Warner Music -- sued satellite radio operator Sirius XM, accusing it of not paying royalties on music recorded before 1972. Thursday's Clear Channel pact will include special programs using the radio operator's digital footprint, including its digital simulcast, digital-only stations, and custom stations, as well as special audio and video content, programming, and promotions. It will also launch targeted online interfaces so consumers can easily buy Warner's music as it plays.CeeLo Green, a Warner artist, weighed in on the partnership. "The reach of radio, its power to promote, coupled with a recognition of the value of music makes this a great opportunity for artists and a promise to all people that finding their favorite music is fun and fundamental," he said in a statement.That's cogent praise for a singer who rose to fame thanks to a chorus of upbeat, explicit invective. Update, 7:55 a.m. PT: Adds additional details and context.Update, 12:07 p.m. PT: Adds interview with Clear Channel CEO.
Report- Google TV struggling to find partners
Report: Google TV struggling to find partners
The first gadgets to feature Google TV are due in the not too distant future from companies including Sony, Logitech, and Dish Network. Sony, for one, plans to offer both an Internet-ready TV and a set-top with a Blu-ray Disc drive that tap Google TV services.Citing unnamed sources who are familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that Google has met with representatives from major television networks ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC in a bid to bring their programming to Google TV. According to the publication's sources, those companies are "skeptical that Google can provide a business model that would compensate for potentially cannibalizing TV owners' existing broadcast businesses." (Editors' note: CNET is published by CBS Interactive, a division of CBS.)From the networks' perspective, providing content to Google could cause some viewers to opt for the Google TV option rather than watch shows live on the networks' channels where they can generate more revenue.It's worth noting that right now, the services Google TV will be competing against, such as Apple TV, allow users to watch episodes from popular shows from the major networks. On Apple TV, for example, consumers are required to either buy an individual episode or pay for a season pass from iTunes. The major difference for the networks, the Journal reports, is that Google TV rivals won't give users access to any site on the Internet--so the networks reason that their content won't get lost in the world of Web content and pirated clips the way it might on a Google TV device.It gets worse. According to the Journal, "some media companies are discussing whether they should take steps to block their Web video from playing on certain devices." The idea, according to the report, is to limit access to content from a Google TV-equipped device. The networks fear that if consumers can access their Web content, they would simply watch episodes online through the Google TV, rather than watch them when they air.For now, it seems, the search giant isn't going to easily get networks to change their minds on the Google TV. And as with so many other products--Netflix Instant Streaming immediately comes to mind--the company will need to attract users first before it can attract the best content. It hopes to do that starting this fall when Google TV will start making its debut on a few products, including the Logitech Revue set-top box.
The first gadgets to feature Google TV are due in the not too distant future from companies including Sony, Logitech, and Dish Network. Sony, for one, plans to offer both an Internet-ready TV and a set-top with a Blu-ray Disc drive that tap Google TV services.Citing unnamed sources who are familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that Google has met with representatives from major television networks ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC in a bid to bring their programming to Google TV. According to the publication's sources, those companies are "skeptical that Google can provide a business model that would compensate for potentially cannibalizing TV owners' existing broadcast businesses." (Editors' note: CNET is published by CBS Interactive, a division of CBS.)From the networks' perspective, providing content to Google could cause some viewers to opt for the Google TV option rather than watch shows live on the networks' channels where they can generate more revenue.It's worth noting that right now, the services Google TV will be competing against, such as Apple TV, allow users to watch episodes from popular shows from the major networks. On Apple TV, for example, consumers are required to either buy an individual episode or pay for a season pass from iTunes. The major difference for the networks, the Journal reports, is that Google TV rivals won't give users access to any site on the Internet--so the networks reason that their content won't get lost in the world of Web content and pirated clips the way it might on a Google TV device.It gets worse. According to the Journal, "some media companies are discussing whether they should take steps to block their Web video from playing on certain devices." The idea, according to the report, is to limit access to content from a Google TV-equipped device. The networks fear that if consumers can access their Web content, they would simply watch episodes online through the Google TV, rather than watch them when they air.For now, it seems, the search giant isn't going to easily get networks to change their minds on the Google TV. And as with so many other products--Netflix Instant Streaming immediately comes to mind--the company will need to attract users first before it can attract the best content. It hopes to do that starting this fall when Google TV will start making its debut on a few products, including the Logitech Revue set-top box.
Feet-on with Zombies, Run! 2 jogging game
Feet-on with Zombies, Run! 2 jogging game
Out of steam? Can't bring yourself to finish that last mile? Maybe a zombie horde breathing down your neck will give you the adrenaline boost you need.That's the idea behind Zombies, Run! 2 (Android | iOS), which bills itself as an "immersive running game and audio adventure" for your smartphone.It works like this: Before you start your run, you load the app, choose a mission, put in your earbuds, and then hit the road. Along the way, you're treated to audio segments that gradually reveal the story of Abel Township and the zombie apocalypse that has runners like you on the run.Interesting premise, no? Think RunKeeper, but with a "Walking Dead" plot woven in. Each mission has a basic goal (fetch supplies, rescue other humans, carry news to another base) directed by radio operators, with occasional shout-outs from other runners. It's all very virtual; there's nothing tied to your exact location or speed or anything like that. Basically, it's theater for your ears.And, I'm sorry to say, mediocre theater at that. Perhaps it's because the actual "Walking Dead" set the bar so high for zombie-fueled drama, but for me, Zombies, Run! comes across as pointless, silly, and not very scary.I base this on having run the introductory mission and listened to a couple others. Much of the radio-operator chatter is just blather, and when there's talk that does drive the plot, it's just dull. "C'mon, Runner Five, you've got to get to the hospital to retrieve the CDC files. Now go!" Try as I might, I never felt engaged by these (sorry) disembodied voices who can somehow see me and track my "location." The whole experience just felt hollow, even with the occasional zombie groans scattered in.To make matters worse, these radio communications pop up between songs in whatever playlist you've chosen, and it's unintentionally hilarious to go from a gravely serious warning ("They're right behind you! Run as fast as you can!") to a cheery pop hit like "Boogie Shoes." Any drama or suspense that might have been established gets instantly erased when you next find yourself jamming to "Livin' La Vida Loca." (Before you laugh at my song choices, I'd just picked up this cardio collection, and it's actually really good.)The app does offer some interesting post-run activities in the form of base-building, where you can trade supplies collected during your run for new buildings, building upgrades, and even base expansion. A bigger base means more missions, but ultimately you'll end up paying real money for them: $1.99 for a "season pass," which entitles you to all 40 Season Two missions as they're released (three per week). The game comes with over 20 missions from Season One and the first four from Season Two.One important thing to note if you bought the first edition of the game last year: Because the whole base-builder system has been revamped, your original base and collected supplies won't transfer over. Based on the iTunes user reviews of Zombies, Run! 2, players are pretty unhappy with this outcome.The app normally sells for $7.99, but for the next few days it's on sale for $3.99. I understand the pricing given the extensive collection of missions and the need to hire writers and voice actors to create them. Still, RunKeeper costs nothing, and if you want a story on your run, you can always listen to an audiobook, podcast, or whatever.Make no mistake: I think this is a really cool idea, and I genuinely dig zombie drama. But Zombies, Run! made me feel bored, not motivated. Perhaps if the developers move to a freemium model, you can judge it for yourself without spending any cash.
Out of steam? Can't bring yourself to finish that last mile? Maybe a zombie horde breathing down your neck will give you the adrenaline boost you need.That's the idea behind Zombies, Run! 2 (Android | iOS), which bills itself as an "immersive running game and audio adventure" for your smartphone.It works like this: Before you start your run, you load the app, choose a mission, put in your earbuds, and then hit the road. Along the way, you're treated to audio segments that gradually reveal the story of Abel Township and the zombie apocalypse that has runners like you on the run.Interesting premise, no? Think RunKeeper, but with a "Walking Dead" plot woven in. Each mission has a basic goal (fetch supplies, rescue other humans, carry news to another base) directed by radio operators, with occasional shout-outs from other runners. It's all very virtual; there's nothing tied to your exact location or speed or anything like that. Basically, it's theater for your ears.And, I'm sorry to say, mediocre theater at that. Perhaps it's because the actual "Walking Dead" set the bar so high for zombie-fueled drama, but for me, Zombies, Run! comes across as pointless, silly, and not very scary.I base this on having run the introductory mission and listened to a couple others. Much of the radio-operator chatter is just blather, and when there's talk that does drive the plot, it's just dull. "C'mon, Runner Five, you've got to get to the hospital to retrieve the CDC files. Now go!" Try as I might, I never felt engaged by these (sorry) disembodied voices who can somehow see me and track my "location." The whole experience just felt hollow, even with the occasional zombie groans scattered in.To make matters worse, these radio communications pop up between songs in whatever playlist you've chosen, and it's unintentionally hilarious to go from a gravely serious warning ("They're right behind you! Run as fast as you can!") to a cheery pop hit like "Boogie Shoes." Any drama or suspense that might have been established gets instantly erased when you next find yourself jamming to "Livin' La Vida Loca." (Before you laugh at my song choices, I'd just picked up this cardio collection, and it's actually really good.)The app does offer some interesting post-run activities in the form of base-building, where you can trade supplies collected during your run for new buildings, building upgrades, and even base expansion. A bigger base means more missions, but ultimately you'll end up paying real money for them: $1.99 for a "season pass," which entitles you to all 40 Season Two missions as they're released (three per week). The game comes with over 20 missions from Season One and the first four from Season Two.One important thing to note if you bought the first edition of the game last year: Because the whole base-builder system has been revamped, your original base and collected supplies won't transfer over. Based on the iTunes user reviews of Zombies, Run! 2, players are pretty unhappy with this outcome.The app normally sells for $7.99, but for the next few days it's on sale for $3.99. I understand the pricing given the extensive collection of missions and the need to hire writers and voice actors to create them. Still, RunKeeper costs nothing, and if you want a story on your run, you can always listen to an audiobook, podcast, or whatever.Make no mistake: I think this is a really cool idea, and I genuinely dig zombie drama. But Zombies, Run! made me feel bored, not motivated. Perhaps if the developers move to a freemium model, you can judge it for yourself without spending any cash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)