Music, news and the greater good

Michael Hedges May 4, 2009 Follow on Twitter

Music has been called the universal language. News is considered a universal right. In the cold light of this century’s media reality, both are merely content to be consumed.

In broadcastings earliest days, music was entirely self-produced. Broadcasters hired singers, bands, combos and orchestras. Big TV networks still do, mostly to spice up late night talk shows. Several European public broadcasters continue to support orchestras. In general, however, the technical advance of recording technology put an end to broadcasting live music. That advance gave rise to the music industry then able to put recordings into the hands of consumers…for a modest charge.

For two generations the music industry has prospered from a symbiotic relationship with broadcasting. Beginning with radio and continuing with television, the music business has had a free showcase for the work of its artists and producers.  Elvis wouldn’t have been Elvis without radio. Britney wouldn’t have been Britney without MTV.

To the metaphysical joy of the music industry broadcasters not only waited in line for the latest and greatest hits but also forked over fees for the privilege. Some of those fees were and continue to be returned to a privileged few broadcasters in the time-honored tradition of graft, payola and sin. Those amounts as a percentage of music industry profits were incidental but the stories made headlines.

Music has been a dominant content element for radio, certainly, and television. It takes up some time, audiences like it and it fits well between ads. Radio broadcasters first step into digital technologies was computerized play-back systems, eliminating DJs - the dreaded cost-center. Arguably four out of five of radio channels and one in ten television channels are music branded by content produced by somebody else.

The news business, like the music business three generations ago, remains very much in the hands of distributors.  Broadcasters and publishers hire writers, editors, reporters and technicians to create content that takes some space, audiences and readers like and fits well between ads. Sure, there are syndicates and agencies producing some of that content but most television channels and virtually all newspapers are news branded by their own content. The New York Times and the BBC are what they are because of brand strength built on the news content they produce.

Expensive stuff, news is. I was told by an American colleague that a recent 3,700 word page one feature in a major – and financially bleeding – US newspaper cost in excess of $100,000 to produce; time, travel, photographers and editors included. It ran once. I didn’t see it. You probably didn’t either. The rule of thumb in all-news radio was 3 minutes of original content per day cost the weekly salary of one reporter-producer. For television it’s closer to 45 seconds and three people.

Broadcasters, particularly of the radio variety, found joy in being simply distributors of music content produced by others. The cost was right; storing trombones takes space. Along the way the radio people decided that music was an inexpensive means to an end and took joy from the music companies by shortening playlists, virtually eliminating new artists material. But the broadcasters joy ended when the iPod arrived and consumers could get the music they wanted by other means – the Web – avoiding the middle-men. That would be both broadcasters and the music industry.  It’s no surprise that audience figures for hit-music radio channels have been steadily dropping. It’s also no surprise that traffic to YouTube for music vastly outstrips the MTV audience. And more and more singers and musicians are using the Web to go directly to those consumers.

And consumers are setting the price. Free download portals like Pirate Bay, which the music industry can never kill, pop up like moles in a garden. Even invoking Pareto’s Principle (the 80-20 rule) to suggest most people will pay something for content and only a minority will spin their wheels looking for something for nothing, the Web and its wonders have allowed consumers nearly full control over content pricing.

The news business is arriving at a point of discovery not unlike the day broadcasters fired their orchestras and started playing recorded music.  Examples abound of reporters and writers seizing the opportunity afforded by low cost Web access and going independent. Though the blogging crazy has mostly cooled some of the survivors are now attracting viewer and reader attention and sometimes a little cash. Like the singers, musicians and song writers facing life without a regular salary from broadcasters who formed the first ‘record companies’, reporters and journalists, editors and photogs are creeping toward the future.

A recent study naming the world’s largest media companies showed little joy for those concentrating on distribution – broadcasting and publishing - and content producers are simply holding on. The Web has given consumers an alternative means of distribution more tailored to specific, at-the-moment interests and nearly complete control over pricing. And all of this is taking place as those consumers spend more time with media.

Both in broadcasting and publishing the future for news is changing, thank technology and the irresistible urge for instant (and brief) gratification. People in the news business, particularly journalism advocates, continue to esteem their role in generating listener, viewer and reader interest and the greater good for all. The music business did, once, too.