Apparently, I am the reason why Lady Gaga is blonde now

Music, , ,

Over the weekend, my sister called me and said that E! Online was reporting that Lady Gaga said she changed her look from brunette to blonde because she was once mistaken for Amy Winehouse. I found the same story in The UK Sun this week.

Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But this is what Lady GaGa used to look like:

I think it would be easy to mistake her for Amy Winehouse, especially if she was sporting a makeup job similar to Winehouse. In fact, I know it would be…

Because I did.

Here’s what happened, excerpted from my original post about a 2007 Lollapalooza afterparty:

“Standing next to me was a short, dark-haired, woman with heavy eye makeup who was being fawned over by someone else. “Ah ha,” I thought. “Amy Winehouse, my first sighting.” Despite the “no-that’s-not-her” protestations of my fellow partygoers, I decided to open with a question that would get me an easy “yes” and go from there. “Excuse me,” I said, “are you still touring with the Dap Kings?” She looked me dead in the eye, smiled – with suddenly worrying perfect teeth – and said:

Amy Winehouse: “I’ve never toured with the Dap Kings.”
Me: “…”
Totally Not Amy Winehouse: “I’m Lady GaGa.”
Me: “Ohhh. Um, hi. I’m sorry, I thought you were someone else.”
Lady GaGa: “Who did you think I was?”
Me: “You know, I….it doesn’t matter. Say, you’re from New York, right?”
Lady GaGa: “Yes, I’m from Man-haht-tan.” (in the thickest New Yawk accent ever)
Me: (determined to salvage this opportunity) “And you’re playing the MySpace stage tomorrow, right?”
Lady GaGa: “BMI.”
Me: “Oh-KAY! Well, it was nice meeting you, have a nice night.”

I turn back to Whitney and her friend, who are looking at me as if they’ve just witnessed someone willingly throw themselves through a plate-glass window. “So, that wasn’t her,” I said, confirming the obvious.

So…yeah. It’s entirely possible I’m not the sole person responsible for her dive into a bottle of peroxide. But at the very least, I’m a contributing factor.

Chicago Media Future Conference non-wrap-up

Internet, Media,

I don’t really want to make any proclamations about the Chicago Media Future Conference yesterday. That isn’t because I don’t have an idea about how it was received by the attendees and those who followed the conversation in our live-blog and on Twitter; I spent most of the event walking around the room to get a true feel of the mood and talked to many people afterward who thankfully offered their honest assessments. My co-organizer, Mike Fourcher, and I ran through a shortlist of things we could have done better, and what we thought worked, on the El ride home.

But I’m more interested in hearing what everyone else has to say first. So if you were there, please comment in our open thread on the chicagomediafuture.org site or blog about it; we’re linking to the responses we see.

And thank you to everyone who gave us the gifts of their minds and time on a Saturday afternoon.

Thanks, Esquire!

Internet, ,

In this month’s issue, Esquire magazine published a list of things that are “Not Worth Your Time” One of them was playboy.com, which stung a little only because I like Esquire.

But then I thought about it, and wondered if they thought all men’s magazine web sites were a waste of time since Esquire‘s online editorial strategy seems to be “port over everything from the magazine and then throw up some YouTube clips.”

Then I thought about it some more and there’s usually only one reason why you mention your competitors: They’re getting to you.

So thanks for the free advertising, Esquire, and thanks for helping me get motivated this morning – I love a good fight. Good luck with your next fancy magazine cover in a medium on the decline. We’ll be publishing original content on the Internet, if you’re looking for us.

Take heed, Jay

Media, , , ,

“So you go on at nine o’clock at whatever night and you get killed and you say, ‘What am I doing this for? For my ego? For the money?’ I don’t need that anymore. I have an ego like anybody else, but it doesn’t need to be stoked by going before the public all the time.” – Johnny Carson, as quoted in this Esquire piece by Bill Zehme, on why he didn’t want to do “specials” after leaving The Tonight Show

Also, I killed a good amount of my workday productivity recently by reading this Playboy interview with Johnny Carson from December 1967. Our Leno interviewfrom October 1996 was interesting as well. (Note: The links are safe for work, but your workplace may disagree.)

Alderman Carothers, allow me to educate you on James Brown lyrics

Music, , ,

Earlier this week, Alderman Ike Carothers said the following re: his indictment on charges of fraud and bribery:

“There’s a song that James Brown made which is very prominent,” he said. “That song is, ‘You’ve Got to Deal With It’. And that’s what I have to do. I have to deal with it.”

Now, I’m not well-versed in matters of fraud and bribery – or no moreso than most people in Chicago and Illinois, which is to say “more than most of us would like to be” – but I do consider myself one of the top 20 experts on James Brown (Caucasian division). And I’m here to tell Alderman Carothers that, no, there is no “prominent” song by James Brown called “You’ve Got To Deal With It” (or even “You Got To Deal With It” as he was quoted by the Sun-Times). Would that make a good James Brown song title? Absolutely. But no such song by the man exists.

Now, there IS a song by James Brown called “The Payback” in which a variation on those lyrics figures into the song.

To wit:

Took my money, you got my honey
Don’t want me to see what you doing to me
I got to get back I gotta deal with you! [x4]
Hey let me tell ya!
Get down with my woman, that ain’t right! You hollerin’ and cussin’, you wanna fight!

I guess I can understand Carothers twisting James Brown’s lyrics around to suit his own purposes since the actual lyrics don’t exactly serve him well in this instance. For example, I don’t imagine he ought to be saying to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, for whom he wore a wire for a year:

Sold me out, for chump change (Yes you did!!)
Told me that they, they had it all arranged
You handed me down, and that’s a fact
Now you’re pumped, you gotta get ready for the big payback!! (The big payback!!)

Although I really wish at some point he’d say:

Don’t do me no darn favor
I don’t know karate, but I know KA-RAZY!

James Brown – “The Big Payback” – MP3 stream

Secret is as secret does

Internet, Media,

Last Thursday, there was a meeting of news publishers and editors. According the James Warren, who broke the story on the Atlantic Web site:

There’s no mention on its website but the Newspaper Association of America, the industry trade group, has assembled top executives of the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication Inc., among more than two dozen in all. A longtime industry chum, consultant Barbara Cohen, “will facilitate the meeting.

The subject of the meeting? “Models to Monetize Content.” (Let’s leave aside for now the notion of how much sense it makes for the same people who broke the system to be the only ones involved in fixing the system.)

Warren reported it as a “secret” meeting, and from the reaction of the people and sites that follow these “future of journalism” discussions, it would seem he’s correct.

But on Friday, Editor and Publisher published this story:

Michael Golden, vice chairman of The New York Times Co. and chief operating officer of The New York Times Regional Media Group, defended the controversial Newspaper Association of America meeting Thursday in Chicago, saying there was nothing secretive about it.

“The characterization in The Atlantic that this was a ‘secret meeting’ was inaccurate,” Golden, who attended the event, told E&P Friday. “If it were secret, there wouldn’t have been a sign on the door saying ‘NAA meeting.’ This was a meeting that had been planned for weeks — you can’t get these people together without planning it over a period of time.”

The question now is how much bullshit to call on Golden.

There’s no mention of the event in the Events section of the NAA‘s website and no press release in its Press section. I’ve run half a dozen Web searches for anything remotely resembling an event like this and come up with nothing. And again, the reactions of the people who make it their business to know this sort of thing has been akin to “Wha wha whaaa?” so…

Let me help Golden with an operational definition here: A meeting is secret if no interested parties – other than the participants – know it’s happening.

And you know what? This meeting had to be secret, in order to do what Golden and the rest of the cabal wanted to do, which was to create ways to make people directly pay for content they’ve been getting without direction compensation up to now. (Notice I don’t say “for free” as that’s a misnomer but another subject for another time.) If it wasn’t kept secret, the NAA would risk attention from the feds for anti-trust actions.

According to Zachary M. Seward:

Why so cautious? Well, surely the executives discussed ways to charge for content online, but they can’t appear to be coordinating a move to erect pay walls around their sites. That’s illegal. The industry would like an antitrust exemption, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports the idea, but the Obama administration is opposed.

Seward also posted a statement from NAA President John F. Strum that read, in part:

With antitrust counsel present, the group listened to executives from companies representing various new models for obtaining value from newspaper content online. The participants also shared success stories in driving new revenue to their newspapers products.

Emphasis mine.

So how does that work exactly? Does the antitrust lawyer sit there and interrupt someone whom he or she thinks is about to say something that could be construed as collusion? ‘Cause then I imagine the meeting sounded a little something like this:

By the way, if you’re interested in a not-at-all secret meeting of people interested in coming up with innovative solutions to news publishing, might I suggest the Chicago Media Future Conference on June 13? Don’t forget to register!

Huffington Post needs an intern; copy-and-paste experts need no longer apply

Internet, Media, , ,

I regret that too often this blog is replete* with bomb-throwing posts directed at just a few targets. Even I think “Move your needle to a different groove, son.” But sometimes it’s just too easy:

AdAge: Someone Bids $13,000 for Huffington Post Internship

I don’t know what the job description is, but it most certainly does not include re-publishing reviews from local publications…anymore.

Hey, do I at least get points for doing something constructive? Truth be told, The Chicago Media Future Conference is why this blog has languished as of late. But on the plus side, we’re close to announcing our full slate of panelists, and we already have some interesting posts up about SEO, unbundling content and the Trib’s new Chicago Now project. Head on over there and check it out, and sign-up for the conference if you’re so inclined. It’s free!

* Confidential to Chris Jones: This is the proper use of this word.

The Chicago Media Future Conference's rallying cry?

Internet, Media,

Normally, I’d just toss this on my Tumblr blog as a quick quote, but since I’ve been using this space to promote the Chicago Media Future Conference, I thought it best to note this passage from a NY Times story last week:

“‘New media’ doesn’t mean transplanting old media to a new medium; it requires a new vocabulary, a new relationship with the audience — a massive social network that now talks back — and, sometimes, a new set of expectations about objectivity and timeliness.”

If there’s a better outline of what we ought to be talking about at the CMFC, I haven’t read it yet.

Thanks to the Trib’s Rob Elder for the tip.

The Lackner Andrews blog also had some thoughts on our project:

Understanding how media habits are changing – and how news operations can adapt – should be a top priority for all media managers. Before you can talk about how to make money, you have to know how people are consuming your product.

[Snip]

Google isn’t killing journalism, but Google has changed the way people find, consume, and share the news – and do so in ways that circumvent the old revenue models.

[Snip]

Professional journalism is still wanted and needed – but we have to start saying out loud that news organizations are not providing their work in ways that meet the needs and habits of their audience. And by not adapting to this reality, the news industry is losing credibility, relevance, and revenue. News orgs need to figure out the nature of their product and its value to the consumer before setting their sites on making money. Business models are not solutions for what ails journalism right now.

I’m not sure I agree that “business models aren’t solutions for what ails journalism.” They’re not the ONLY solution, but I think they’re part of it. Then again, I could be wrong. It’s a point for debate, and that’s why we’re doing this.

More on The Chicago Media Future Conference.

Note: The Chicago Media Future Conference website launches May 1.

Selling out revisited…again

Music

I’ll be honest: I didn’t read Miles Raymer’s follow-up in the Chicago Reader to his previous column on selling out. I thought his original piece fell apart once you looked at the evidence (and I said so here). Plus, on this issue, I think he’s being contrarian just to get a good column out of it (not that there’s anything wrong with that), so I didn’t bother with it.

On the other hand, Anne Elizabeth Moore did read it and had some interesting things to say about it in a letter to the editor.

Read more of my own navel-gazing musings on the concept of selling outhere.

Don’t let Zell fool you: The Trib isn’t opposed to giving it away for free

Internet, Media, , , ,

Sam Zell’s recent interview with Bloomberg News is getting a lot of attention because he’s calling his purchase of TribCo “a mistake.” But it was this quote that stuck with me:

“I think we’re looking at every option at the Tribune Co.,” he said. “It’s very obvious that the newspaper model in its current form is not working. And the sooner we all acknowledge that the better. Whether it be home delivery, whether it be giving away content for free, I mean these are critical issues.”

This isn’t the first time Zell has complained about “giving away content for free.” In 2007, he said:

“If all the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content for nothing, what would Google do? We have a situation today where effectively the content is being paid for by the newspapers and stolen by Google…That can last for a short time, but it can’t last forever.”

The Beachwood Reporter columnist Sam Singer takes Zell to task from a legal perspective over the folly of trying to fight Google on this and says:

“Their best bet, I believe, is to embrace aggregation, to invest in optimization strategies that will ensure their content a more prominent place among the search results.”

The thing is, the Trib is already doing this. In fact, it did this on Bloomberg’s Zell story, effectively taking advantage of the strategy just as its Chairman and CEO railed against it.

Right now, the Trib article is the first result in Google News if you search for “Sam Zell.”:

(Click to embiggen)

This isn’t an accident. It’s because the Trib has a well-executed SEO strategy (just ask this guy, he’ll tell you), and it uses services like Google News (the kinds of services Zell is referring to when he talks about giving away content for free) to build revenue. More traffic to the Trib makes its website more attractive to advertisers. And speaking of ads:

(Click to embiggen)

That’s the Trib article in question; I’ve sloppily highlighted a few areas on the page. Those are ads the Trib is selling against content that’s comprised mainly of an interview by another news organization. And they did this – hang on, this is shocking – to make money. Against content that’s “given away for free.”

In a previous column on Beachwood Reporter, Steve Rhodes had this to say:

As I’ve written before, newspapers sell ads against content created by others all the time, be it Oprah, the Cubs or American Idol. Not only is it mutually beneficial, but it’s the responsibility of a news organization insofar as cultural criticism – including that of the media – is warranted.

He’s right, of course. Newspapers have been making money this way since they began, and now many of them have figured out how to do it online. None of this is sneaky or underhanded. It’s industry standard at this point. And it’s how media companies monetize their content. The Zell story is one of many on the Trib site alone (every time you read the headlines on their movie reviews, you see their keyword strategy at work to hilarious effect), not to mention many many other sites.

So when Sam Zell says “giving content away for free” isn’t working, he only means they’re not making enough money on it yet. Not that they’re not making any.