All Canadian ignorance aside though, reading Stevenson’s review and some of the other related thoughts on their inaugural show, I can’t help but wonder about a few things with respect to reality TV for the purpose of creating a new celebrity money maker.

• What are the factors that made Kelly Clarkson, Kelly Underwood and Clay Aiken rich and all the other American Idols to flop?  Same with the Canadians.  Some of it could be argued as talent I suppose, but certainly not all of it. 
• How much longer will record labels pump money into artificially generated fan bases?  And is that considered a higher or lower risk compared to signing an indie band based on the size of their email list and the number of records they sold off the stage?
• Do fans that were developed via reality TV have higher, lower, or the same lifetime value to the artist on average compared to fans who actually discovered a band, or actor, or porn star, or any other celebrity through more traditional channels.
• Who makes more money–the producer of the reality TV show, the winning contestant, or that contestant’s interested third parties (agents, labels, movie studios, lawyers, etc.)?  And how does that compare to shares of the pie in a more traditional business arrangement like a major label record deal, independent record deal, movie deal, etc.?  Is this really just the media/entertainment industry fleecing the boy and girl next door?

How would you rather become famous?  The "old fashioned way" (whatever that entails) or the reality TV way?  Which would be more lucrative?  More sustainable?  More fulfilling?

I was only in hiatus for 6 weeks and I missed all sorts of celeb gossip.  Thankfully I’m not all that big on celeb gossip so there’s not a ton of catching up to be done.

For example, I couldn’t care less about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes getting married.  (I do however love the stupid immature shit that celebrities do though, like JLo saving seats for her friends on the private jet and John Travolta not going because Oprah wasn’t invited.  Gotta love role models.) I wrote sweet Katie off as soon as I heard she was kanoodling with that twit.  I was over her long before she even got knocked up.  Don’t get me wrong, I’ll still be there to catch her when she falls from grace and is forced to do another semi-nude scene (like in The Gift and Thank You for Smoking) to save her nosediving career.

But speaking of doing audacious things to save a nosediving career, my favorite trailer-trash hottie is back on the singles scene after ditching Fed-Ex (the freeloader, not the courier).  What better way to announce that your school girl kilt is being tossed back into the ring than to show off your new body on David Letterman, paint Vegas red with Mario Lopez (amazing she didn’t get married again), and head out on the town partying with both Paris Hilton AND Lindsay Lohan?  This article was the inspiration for my post title since there’s nothing more fun than witnessing the British press coining of a new celebrity duo nickname.

It wasn’t so long ago (only two kids and two marriages since) that Britney was passed the baton as the new rock sex symbol of the ages when she and Madonna made Christina Aguillera jealous with an extra-long, extra-tonguey french kiss before the world’s eyes.  Not to be outdone in the competition for Brit’s BFF status, of course, Madonna wants Britney to sleep over for Christmas this year.

Imagine the hell of being Britney Spears’ publicist right now.  What a grand orchestration this all is.

I came across this great little collection of notable bloggers’ posts on the topic.  What strikes me is that so many people who get technology still seem hung up on the whole copyright lawsuit thing.  Clearly more of them need to read posts like the one I wrote back on September 18.  I’m not exactly in a position to say “I told you so!” because I didn’t explicitly predict a Google acquisition, although it is certainly along the lines of what I was alluding to when I said it was the most significant portion of their press release.

I’ll restate what I said then in light of the “in the dark” comments of bloggers like Mark Cuban and Jupiter Analyst Joseph Laszlo (who, by the way, even strikes a kinship with his fellow naysayer Cuban in this post): copyright infringement will not be an issue.  Read my lips.  Copyright infrigement will NOT be an issue.  If it was, do you think the major record labels would be standing in line to sign up for the new YouTube copyright screening revenue generator service? 

Copyright owners are drooling over an opportunity to instantly monetize a massive consumer audience without the costs, both monetary and relationship-wise, of suing every 14 year old who posts a homemade karaoke video on YouTube done to the new Justin Timberlake song.

And that’s exactly what Google gets out of this deal.  Of course the boys have to say things like “we have found some opportunities to leverage Google technology in the YouTube offering.”  But at the end of the day, this is a stock-for-stock deal that leaves YouTube operating independently as its own company in its own office.  This is Google building its media monetization empire, not cramming its intelligent search-based ad network into another online property. 

Google is not buying an audience.  Google is buying innovative technology that can identify copyrighted audio and video content within a user-created amateur video, calculate the royalties owed to the copyright owner based on ad revenue generated from the video’s traffic on YouTube, and deliver payment to the copyright owner with full back office reporting.  Google is buying a business, and they’re buying it with Google stock.

Joseph Laszlo asks, “Will Yahoo follow suit?”  I say good luck to Yahoo.

Then it suddenly dawned on me that I should tell you people about some of the cool shit that I take for granted and you may or may not know about.  After all, friends and co-workers who are also into the latest gadgets and applications share stuff with me all the time!

So it is with great joy that I tell you about one of my more favorite technology discoveries over the past little while: Orb!

This little gem of an application is essentially a streaming media server that you can install on any computer you like, which then makes the media collection on that computer available to you via a secure web browser interface on any other internet-connected computer anywhere.  You simply log into your Orb account and you can see and access the photos, music, and video on the base computer.  As if that alone weren’t enough, you can also tune into a number of internet radio and TV stations that Orb displays, and if you have a TV tuner card on your base computer you can stream live TV.  Similarly if you have a webcam running on your base computer you can stream audio and video signals from that too.  The Orb web interface allows you to choose a file or folder to play, and then instructs your base computer to create a stream that pipes directly into your media player of choice on the computer you’re browsing from.  I use it at work all the time to access my music collection at home.  Sheer brilliance!

The best part, of course, is that Orb is totally free.  As I understand it, they used to charge a monthly license fee.  I suspect that they wanted to significantly grow their user base and offering it for free is a pretty solid way to do that.  It wouldn’t surprise me if they re-introduce some sort of pricing model down the line.  So get in now and use it for free while you can!  If you do try it out, be sure to post a comment here to let me know what you think of it.

I would like to draw your attention specifically to the last two paragraphs of the press release which are a little bit obscured by the rest of the announcement:

By the end of the year, professional content creators, including record
labels, TV networks and movie studios, will have the opportunity to
authorize the use of their content within the YouTube community by
taking advantage of YouTube’s new content identification and royalty
reporting system.

YouTube has been actively working on the operational details and
building the infrastructure for this innovative new framework which
includes royalty tracking and reporting, and a sophisticated content
identification system. This new architecture will offer media companies
the following:

• Sophisticated copyright identification tools to help identify their content on the site;
  
• Automated audio identification technology to locate their works within user videos on the site;
  
• The opportunity to authorize and monetize the use of their works within the user-generated content on the site;
  
• Reporting and tracking systems for royalties, etc.

This, by far, is the most significant part of their announcement and it is tacked on at the bottom of a 2 page release.  By the sound of it, YouTube has developed a way for content owners to monetize the use of their copyrighted content in amateur videos.  That means that a record label will be entitled to its share of advertising revenue generated by ads on YouTube attributed to creations such as those cheesy karaoke home videos that kids have created in their bedrooms.  Considering the viral nature of some of those amateur productions, this could turn into a decent little high-margin revenue stream for copyrighted content owners. 

What I like most about this concept is that it shows a media property enabling a record label to be  smarter about monetizing its content.  Rather than suing people for using its content in amateur online videos, the label will likely encourage people to use it and post their creations to YouTube where content becomes revenue. 

What would be really revolutionary is if YouTube and Warner created a little "content developer kit™ (CDK™)" library of video and music widgets for eager amateur video producers to use in their creations.  Why not go one step further and cut the producer in on the revenue too?  Give them an incentive to create something that drives traffic and ad revenues.  Now that’s making smart use of one’s digital media assets.

I’ve started hanging out at The Horseshoe on "New Music Tuesdays" lately in hopes that I might stumble on some new indie bands that I like.  Who knows, maybe I’ll even find another one that I’d like to work with.

Anyways, if you ever get a chance to see a London, Ontario band named TROLE perform live, you should not pass up the opportunity.  You can, however save your $20 and not blow it on their mediocre CD that they’re selling at the show.  Here’s my point-form assessment:

• Musicianship: 8/10 (they obviously practice together a lot.  tighter than a tightrope.)
• Songwriting: 7/10 (they play rootsy, bluesy, rock so there’s not a ton of room for creativity, but they have some good riffs and entertaining lyrics)
• Energy: 10/10 (off the charts.  this made the show.)
• Creativity: 8/10 (whenever one of the band members, in this case the lead guitarist, leaves the stage to play while walking through the crowd, it’s an automatic 8/10.)
• Cheese factor: 8/10 (ease off the fake Southern accent, and don’t be in such a hurry to take your shirts off gents.)
• Album: 4/10 (the recording they sell for $20 has all the same songs, but none of the energy.  they need a real producer and engineer.)
• Website: 2/10 (in this day and age, if you can’t afford a good website you shouldn’t have one at all.)

Overall, I give these guys a 7/10.  Better marketing and recording would bring the score up.  They should definitely be doing the Canadian university/college tour circuit this fall!

Because of this all-too-predictable annual dissapointment, I wouldn’t typically bother wasting pixels with a blog post about Canadian Idol.  However, after watching a few episodes this season and seeing the clearly unfair, unjustified favoritism displayed by the judges (and possibly even the production staff) for 28-year old Rob James, I had to vent somewhere.

First off, Rob has already been around the major label track as half of the mediocre contemporary rock duo McMaster & James.  He had a record deal, he made some money, he signed some autographs, and he fell out of style.  Welcome to the Canadian music biz.  One of the more popular McMaster & James tunes was even recorded by Canadian Idol winner (and colossal flop) Ryan Malcolm on his album.  Second of all, Rob keeps performing old McMaster & James tunes as he competes on this season’s Idol.  Hmmm…think he’s trying to sell a few more of his cheesy 6 year old records?

After his now aged voice cracks, after he sings out of tune, and after he dances on stage like someone’s 40 year old drunk uncle at a wedding, the judges practically fall all over each other for the chance to tell Rob how incredible he is, and how much of a heartthrob he is.

Sony/BMG Canada, the label that releases all Canadian Idol albums, knows Rob very well.  In fact, he has likely spent many an afternoon being schmoozed in their funky downtown offices over the years.  The McMaster & James self-titled album was released in 2000 on BMG. There is also little doubt in my mind that a number of people on the Idol staff and judges panel think that Rob has already won this competition (or have perhaps been TOLD so), even though there are still 9 other finalists still in the running. 

I wouldn’t even care if all of the other competitors were legitimately worse than Rob.  But an hour in front of the TV is all it takes to realize that he is clearly outmatched.  So please, Canada, if for no other reason than to prevent further damage to our already tortured Canadian music industry, please vote for Canadian Idol competitors that actually deserve to win…for whatever that victory is worth.

Let’s show Rob, Sony/BMG, and the Idol crew that we’re not dumb enough to fall for an entire TV series as a subversive commercial to sell the leftover copies of McMaster & James that are sitting in the record store bargain bins.

Fronted by the PR mugshot of Stephen Page, the group includes Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman (Co-founder Blue Rodeo).

They have dubbed themselves the Canadian Music Creators Coalition and they’re here to save the day.

Finally, big name Canadian artists are speaking out intelligently about the fundamental changes taking place in the music industry.  The best part is that they actually agree that their own best interests as professional music makers are very much aligned with the best interests of their customers.  Of course, this naturally puts them at odds with the stubborn, lethargic, bloated industry middlemen like major labels, collecting societies, and CRIA who think that sueing more teenagers is the answer.

I won’t bother copy-and-pasting their position here since it’s in plain, easy-to-read language on the homepage of their website.  Please take a couple of minutes to read it though, and educate yourself on the truth about how the artists really feel when it comes to digital music, downloads, copyrights, digital rights management, and most importantly building and maintaining relationships with their fan base.

These musicians understand that their fans pay the bills.  If it weren’t for a fan base, they would never make a (VERY profitable) living writing and performing music.  They understand that fostering a long term relationship with a fan is the best way to optimize the lifetime value of that fan.

To Stephen and the rest of the gang, good on you!  Don’t stop with a press release, a byline piece in the paper, and some morning show interviews.  Let’s make sure that real change happens.  Sustainable change.  Mutually beneficial change.  I think your best bet is to bring me on as Marketing and Communications Director for the Coalition.

As you might expect, this movement has garnered a lot of attention.  I came across interesting posts by D’Arcy Norman, Rob Hyndman, and Kim Siever while I was doing some digging around.

Think about it.  Now that people are wising up to BitTorrent clients and sharing bigger files at higher transfer rates than we ever did using Napster (or Kazaa or Grokster or whatever), many have actually downloaded most of the music they actually want to have by now.  I can download entire discographies in one click.  I think it has probably been years since I searched for and downloaded one single track. 

I might decide that I want to hear a new release once in a while, but I’m not opposed to paying $5-10 for that as long as it plays on all the devices and players that I use for my digital music collection.  But even if I did, even if all of us downloaded new releases that we wanted, it would be nowhere near the volume of music that was downloaded illegally between 1999 and 2004.

To be honest, I think the music industry is worrying about the problem far too late.  They’ve already ridden out the worst of the storm.  People have downloaded all the back catalog music that they want by now.  A co-worker actually said to me the the other day, "My digital music collection is pretty mature now.  I’m focusing on movies."  As for the remaining laggards, they’ll download all 40 gigs of what they want in a matter of days. 

Sure labels have taken big hit to sales, but in fairness, they also put out 5 years worth of really horrible music.  One could make the argument that music industry revenues were overinflated anyways, and P2P downloading was the tool the market used to fight the collusion and let true market demand deflate the industry’s padded pockets.

So let’s call it even and focus on making the digital media experience what it should be.  A terabyte of free unified remote media storage for everyone accessible on all devices and operating systems.  Wifi access everywhere so we can stop strapping hard drives to our belts.  And for the love of Shawn Fanning, can somebody please build an integrated mobile device that works well so I can ditch my separate PDA, phone, multimedia player, and camera and free up some pocket space once and for all???