If you're paying a subscription you're not buying "Art"

A guy's gotta eat right?

I've noticed an annoying trend over the past few years.  It seems like everywhere I turn on the Internet there's a hand out.   I get that somebody's got to pay for all this stuff but when it comes to online, we're paying too much.

Either you've got a pay wall in your face when you try to consume content or you're constantly getting pitched an "upgrade."

If I go to the online version of a local newspaper more often than not I'm greeted with a demand to purchase a subscription to see their content.  Yeah, I know, newspapers have it rough these days what with all those tablets and smartphones floating around.  At some point, however, I start to question their value when they want me to pay for the same dubious content I can find in the average blog post.  (of course I exclude myself...tee hee hee)  

For example, my local paper's online extension AZCentral.com now requires a paid subscription to access more than a few articles on the web.

In the old days I could just pick up a paper when I wanted it or suffer a few ads to read the same content online.  I didn't have to take out a subscription to get today's hot news story or have a pile of wasted newsprint lying around in the corner of my house. 

Now I have to pay not only for that story but the digital equivalent of the clutter than comes with it.  You just know that the minute you sign up your inbox is going to be flooded with pointless garbage until you turn it off in your subscriber "Profile."

So why did all this happen?  Why does it seem that every digital highway now has a toll booth? 

The claim is that the ad-supported media model has failed with the rise of the Internet.  Advertisers have too many choices for their ad dollars these days and have to spread it around to get their pitch across.  That means declining revenue for traditional media sources or so they claim. 

It's the justification behind the rise of "premium" services like Hulu, Pandora and even TWITCH.TV some of which still show ads even with a paid subscription.  Yes there are free levels of these services but they're usually a shadow of their premium counterparts and cluttered with intrusive ads.

The latest entry into the subscription model is Jay-Z's new "premium" music service, Tidal.  It's claiming CD quality audio over the Internet and exclusive artist tracks to subscribers.   There's no pretense here.  The service unabashedly demands a minimum of $9.99 per month for access to a glorified Internet radio station.  The argument being, " We're not for everybody."  Meaning people who pay are somehow of a different caliber than all of those poor people. 

Classic marketing trick.  Buy your way into the "in crowd." 

The simple premise of the service (minus the marketing fluff) is that starving recording artists (like Jay-Z and Madonna) can make more money and subscribers can get an exclusive experience with premium-only content. 

Hmmm, The last I checked Madonna wasn't eating out of garbage cans and Jay-Z could use $100 bills to wipe his ass with reckless abandon.

Ok, here's where this crap has to stop...

At what point do we just admit that the whole "artist" thing has gone off the rails.  Hey, I firmly believe that you have a right to make a living off of doing what you're best at.   You do not, however, have a right to fleece me to pay for a new coat of paint on your private jet by offering me the artistic equivalent of post-it notes.

And what about all those "little" people like the engineers, producers and song writers?  You can bet Madonna and Jay-Z aren't hammering out hits in their back bedroom with an IPad and some old amp.  C'mon now, someone has to make those middle-aged fading vocals sound passable.  

One thing is for sure.  The people that make these "artists" sound good aren't flying First Class.

But we must protect those poor, suffering "artists." 

In a country where the top 20% of the population controls 85% of the money, you can't sell me on how my $10 a month to Tidal is helping Main Street. It is, however, keeping Easy Street paved with gold.

The problem with the current definition of "Artist" is that it's intermingled with the "business" of art.  It's all about the money and somehow having one hit song on ITunes entitles you to a lifetime of privileged status.

When art becomes business then the result of all those "artistic" efforts is nothing more than a "product."  Mass produced, packaged and disposable.

Art was never meant to be a commodity.  It was meant to be an expression with its primary reward being the appreciation of the work itself.  The great societies of Greece and Rome recognized this and while they may have "commissioned" great works of art, they were never meant for resale.  Rather the intent was meant to enrich a culture and advance a society. 

I can guarantee Krewella will never do either of those things...

In the context of what Jay-Z considers to be "Art" (aka: products)  the great works of a Michelangelo or Beethoven would be held in the same light as a toddler banging on pots while scribbling on the wall with a crayon.  All of which would be behind a pay wall.

In that light, today's popular "artists" are frauds.  They produce commodities for no purpose but their own gain regardless of claims to the contrary.

Art is meant to be shared freely and has no intrinsic value in a vacuum or behind a toll booth.  Which means what Jay-Z and ITunes sell is not art, it's a product and products don't deserve such exalted status.

Real art is only sold once in awhile with its value dependent on a market's interest in that unique article.  Copies, on the other hand, are sold in the millions and their value reflects their status. (aka: fake)

When you pay for streaming content or a newspaper article online with anything but a few seconds to watch an ad you're attributing excess value to fake product.

Would you pay millions for a Van Gogh knockoff? 

Then why would you pay full price for access to the online equivalent of a Redbox rental?   Does anything available on Tidal really rise to the level of being art?  How exclusive can a work be if it's distributed like a magazine subscription?

I'll answer that, it's not.  Art is given freely, products are sold.

So if popularity isn't enough to bring adequate compensation for your (product) efforts then maybe it's time to look at who's got their hand in your pocket.  That or you just suck...

I know, for example, that for all the ads that run on my YouTube videos I make the princely sum of .001 per view on average. 

But then I create content, not "Art" and the market (and YouTube) decides the worth of my "product."

What is wrong with these people!

In a world where talent is manufactured rather than cultured I suppose it should be no surprise that nobody bothers to look past the superficial anymore.

Case in point, GoDaddy's now pulled Super Bowl commercial.  In it we see what can only be called a ripoff of the Budweiser tearjerker commercials of the past few years featuring an adorable pup.  This time, however, GoDaddy went below the belt with the cold twist of a lost puppy returning home only to be sold online by a puppy mill.

What the hell was the ad agency thinking?  Was there any scenario where this was funny to anyone, anywhere but a drunken stupor in some dive bar?

And what of the GoDaddy management team?  They approved it.  Did they actually think it would bring in more business?

I suppose if you have no social conscience such things are trivial.  After all, it's just a commercial.  But is it?  Is there a segment of the population that something like this appeals to?  Apparently the ad agency thought so or it would never have gotten out of the bar.

GoDaddy isn't exactly a premier provider so biasing toward the slimy is nothing new.   Titillating Super Bowl commercials with female models in various states of undress are the norm.  

But really, what does T & A have to do with selling Internet domains anyway? 

 So maybe this latest ad was just GoDaddy coming clean.  Maybe they've decided to drop all pretense and just admit that it's all about the money.  Maybe this is a reflection of modern sensibilities.

Maybe they should have just let the ad run...

Ordinary Injustices

Thoughts on a leisurely weekend commute

Recently, as I've been going about my normal daily routine I've been paying more attention to the mechanisms of ordinary commerce.

Take that gallon of gas you're inevitably going to buy if you live in a State like I do with poor public transit.  Conventional wisdom says that the law of supply and demand shall always reign supreme but that isn't necessarily the case.

Pay attention to the financial news and you'll see a correlation between the nervous commodities traders and the yo-yo of gas prices.  Since everyone's afraid of the stock market, commodities are the newest darling of the financial markets. 

That means traders will react to any piece of information that threatens their profit margins.  If the leader of a middle eastern regime has a fit of flatulence it's cause enough to raise the price of a barrel of oil $5. 

You can bet before the business day is over the gas station owner will be out changing his signs to reflect the sudden threat to supply. 

Except there is no threat...

Remember that the fuel in your local gas station is already in the ground and all but paid for.  The price has very little to do with supply or demand.  Rather it has to do with oil companies investing in slick marketing instead of their own infrastructure.   And why not? It's easy money to do less and charge more, especially if you can get away with it.

Lest we forget all those oil speculators who never actually buy anything, they place a bet hoping for the big win.  Thing is, they can only win if you lose and it's in big oil's interest that they do.  After all, it's not ExxonMobil, Chevron or Shell's fault prices are high, it's just "the market"

Considering that speculation can be up to 40% of the cost of a barrel of oil and as much as $1 of the price of a gallon of gas there's good reason to be angry. 

The next time a politician gets on stage and defends record oil company profits with a gallon of gas at $4/gallon or more I'd really like someone to siphon all the gas out of his limousine.  If CNN covered that I might actually call them a news network again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opinion/ban-pure-speculators-of-oil-futures.html

Oh but friends I'm not stopping there, no sir (or ma'am)

Like many of you I've had to rely on credit more than I want to.  With prices inching ever higher, wages stagnant and the value of a dollar worth 1/2 of what it was just 10 years ago it's often the only way to fill the void. 

And just like your friendly neighborhood gas station they know a profit opportunity when they see it.  There was a time in this county when excessive interest rates were called usury.  Usury is defined as:

an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically: interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usury

These days the credit card companies and the banks that back them get away with pretty much any interest rate they want.  They did get their hands slapped a few years back when congress passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act.

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/what-the-credit-card-act-means-for-you/

The effect was putting the brakes on surprise interest rate charges, raising your rates if you're late on a completely unrelated account (Universal Default),  yo-yoing fees and predatory practices against new customers.

That hasn't stopped the 29 % or more interest charged, however.  Congress stopped short of defining what constituted usury which means you pay whatever they want.  Yes, you could go find a better rate with another company but the days of 0% credit cards are over.  Expect no better than 11%.  which is almost amusing when you look at most state legislation (the only place usury is defined) can range from 8% to 45%.  So technically your capital 1 card at 34% is breaking the law in most states.  Good luck taking them to court though...

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ban02.htm

Something's very wrong when monthly interest fees added to your balance are more than your minimum payment. 

Speaking of Interest the other dirty little secret of credit has to do with getting an education.  Most of us aren't fortunate enough to have a rich uncle or all the money we need to take advantage of higher education.  Scholarships and grants are nice but you can't count on them especially if you go to a private college. 

Such is the case for many in the working world who aren't able to upend their lives to attend a regular public college or university.  Many private colleges try to address the problem by scheduling classes outside of a normal work schedule.  They can offer the same financial aid as a public university and often have private lending available when traditional sources aren't enough. 

Look out for those private sources though.  If usury is alive and well anywhere in the financial world it's in education finance. 

There's a wonderful opportunity in education funding for banks and other lenders to make ridiculous profits with virtually no risk. 

The opportunity comes from government secured education loans like the Stafford.  Lenders who participate in the program lend money at lower rates than private loans not unlike government backed housing loans. 

Understand this, to the lenders of these education loans there is NO RISK.  If the student defaults on the loan the lender is repaid leaving the government to collect on the debt. 

With a sour economy these loans are often the only option to pay for an education.  Worse, with increasing tuition costs student indebtedness can become overwhelming even with low interest rates.  That's where the options of deferment and forbearance come in.   With these options a borrower can buy time (literally) when they are unable to pay their monthly payment but don't want to default on their loans. 

The catch?

It's called capitalized interest.  Capitalized interest is the practice of taking the interest that would normally be paid during deferment and adding it to the principle balance of the loan.  In some cases it can swell the principal balance to 15 to 20% of the original amount borrowed. 

In effect, you pay the interest twice on the same money with this option.  Once for the original payment and again for the interest on the payments you defer when  it's added to the principal payment.  Combine this with loan consolidation which is often used to bring payments to a reasonable level. (Mine were almost $1000/mo. without it) and you have an inescapable money machine that only a winning lottery ticket could fix.

Again, any politician that stands up on a podium and blames the borrower for this legalized graft should be strung up by his toenails. 

We're told education is the road to success but soon find that road a financial minefield.  There should never be a profit motive in education outside of personal growth but we all know that's just an idealistic pipe dream.

So it seems we can't even drive to work or get an education without being subject to someone else's profit motive.  So imagine the depths of depravity when someone tries to convince you a luxury rises to the same level of a necessity.

Ah the price of convenience.  That gallon of milk or pack of cigarettes may always be available but you'll pay more because of it.  So it is with our modern toys. 

After all, who could live without being in constant contact with friends and loved ones or without the Internet at your fingertips wherever you go.  It's all so very... convenient, isn't it.

When does a convenience become a necessity?  When your work requires it? Maybe when you can't always be in the same room with those you care about?

Sometimes I think I'm a bit of a troglodyte and I've been called as much.  I'd like to think that I'm eminently practical.  I could care less how many processors your phone has or how great it takes pictures all I care about is if it rings.

Seems your choices to avoid the hysteria are ever dwindling.  Phones that don't have all those gee-whiz features are called amusingly enough, feature phones.   If you reject the Smartphone revolution these are your only option.  Mobile carriers would try to convince you that all these extras are critical to your survival at any cost. 

Of course that's a viewpoint subject to interpretation.  Along the way with clever marketing and peer pressure the public has been led to believe that paying hundreds of dollars a month for mobile phone service is no longer a luxury but a necessity. 

Carriers will always claim infrastructure costs, taxation and overhead to justify their rates but in the end it's really just about reaping the benefits of a good con.

Look at even the most basic of Smartphone plans and you see mandatory service charges even if you don't use the service.  Even if you don't surf the Internet or send a single text message you'll find yourself paying for the privilege anyway.

So it seems that even the most frugal among us can't escape the fleecing.  Even if we shun the Smartphone,  remain uneducated or never carry a credit card we can't escape being taken advantage of.   It's woven into the culture and reinforced with peer pressure and social marketing telling us all is as it should be and right.

It's not right, however, it never has been but as our lives get ever more comfortable we willingly suffer because we've accepted the programming to our own detriment.  Still so long as we have the trappings of our gilded cage built with institutionalized extortion no one will complain.

Apple revs up expectations for the latest IPAD.

Article first published as Apple Revs Up Expectations for the Latest iPad on Technorati.

I wrote an article last week in my Digital Dynamic Blog entitled, "It's Crazy".  I aimed it squarely at this week's IPAD launch and the media frenzy that accompanied it.  Seems I was right as we were treated to an avalanche of media attention and outlandish marketing sound bites.  Of course Apple's CEO Tim Cook wrung a bit more anticipation out of the crowd by first announcing the new 1080P Apple TV box before getting to the star of the show.   The new IPAD which is curiously just called, IPAD (not IPAD3 or IPAD HD) has the following specifications.

2048 x 1536 (3.1 million pixels) Retina display.

A5X processor, quad-core graphics

5 MP camera on the back

HD (1080p) video capture

Voice dictation (not SIRI by the way)

4G LTE capability For the IPAD LTE (73 mbps on LTE).

Wireless hotspot capability

10 hour battery life, 9 hours on 4G.

9.4mm thick, 1.4lbs.

Compatible  mobile carriers; Rogers, Telus and Bell in Canada, At&T and Verizon in the U.S.

Price Wi-Fi iPad: 16 GB ($499), 32 GB ($599), 64 GB ($699)

Price Wi-Fi + 4G: 16 GB ($629), 32 GB ($729), 64 GB ($829)

IPAD2 pricing will also drop by $100.

Availability: March 16th in the U.S. and Canada

During the event, Tim Cook boasted of more IPAD sales in the 4th quarter of 2011 than any makers PC sales.  That's a dubious statement considering most people don't use tablets the same way they use a pc especially when there's heavy lifting to be done.  While technically accurate, the statement holds no more distinction than asserting that more paperclips were sold in the same quarter than the total number of IPADS ever produced. 

The advent of the tablet is a welcome utility for many but just as your corner convenience store is not a threat to the supermarket the tablet is no threat to the pc.  Unfortunately, Ultrabook pc makers feel it is  leading at least one manufacturer, Acer to aim for a $499 price point.  This after admitting they currently make no profit at the current $799 price.   Considering a pc in any form factor will by its very nature will have more functionality than a tablet it seems a pointless goal.  More so when you consider that the top end of the IPAD food chain offers little more than a nice display and LTE connectivity at a $829 price point.  

Tablets have their place but limitations of storage, dependency on network connectivity for basic functionality and limited performance compared to even entry level PC's makes them more of a compliment than replacement for pc's.  That also calls into question the Apple price premium especially if you don't normally utilize their ecosystem.  Cooler heads suggest selecting devices based on your needs instead of marketing hype.