Jul 18 2010

Why I cancelled my XM subscription

On September 25, 2001, XM Satellite Radio (XM) launched a service to provide paying subscribers with radio that they would traditionally receive free of charge. With in hand an $80 million Federal Communications Commission license to broadcast its signals via satellite rather than through a network of ground-based transmitters, XM had raised $1.1 billion to launch two Boeing-made satellites and to build a 60,000 square-foot broadcasting headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Colker T1). XM also secured deals with electronics manufacturers and auto-makers to make certain the public can buy XM-ready receivers, and by pouring $100 million into a preliminary advertising campaign, it made sure the public would know about this new, “revolutionary” technology (Taub G1). What was supposed to be revolutionary was that this new conception of radio would financially support its 100, genre-specific channels with almost no advertising within their programming (see appendix for full channel listing). Instead, the commercial-free programming is funded directly by the listener through subscription fees.

The opening paragraph of my Wake Forest honors thesis just begins to hint at my enthusiasm, at the time, for the new medium of satellite radio. Indeed, at that time, I was still furious about the loss of my beloved 90.1 FM WDCU jazz station three years before—as a high schooler, I had written something of a precursor, citing Eric Boehlert’s Rolling Stone article “Radio Land Rush” warning about the dire effects on music quality and diversity of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which eliminated ownership restrictions on radio stations under the forward-looking but narrow logic that the public would soon be getting their music and information from sources other than radio, that radio needed to homogenize to survive. (Boehlert’s piece isn’t online, but he made a similar argument in “One Big Happy Channel?” for Salon.com in 2001.)

I hated those effects of the Telecom Act. WDCU went under (my friend Jon arrived at school, agitated, and told me the station, at midnight the night before, during a Miles Davis solo, had fallen to static). 99.1 WHFS, the alt-rock station that introduced me to Pearl Jam and Ted Leo, become a shell of itself, and in a few years, following the market, became a Spanish-language station. The Telecom Act allowed media companies to buy up many stations and program music from a single central list, rebroadcasted identically throughout the country. Except in the preposterously upped number of local furniture company ads, radio no longer had any connection to geographic communities.

But I was optimistic about satellite radio when it came along in 2001, after nearly two decades in the works. It had some of the same limitations…XM was broadcast entirely out of its DC headquarters, for example. But it had no ads, meaning the only way to make money was to play music the subscribers wanted, including new music the DJs thought their listeners would really like. And as the tone of my thesis can attest, I loved it. By 2004, XM had a 100% commercial-free lineup, had struck a deal with Major League Baseball to broadcast all their games nationwide, and, thanks to savvy deals with automakers, ended the year with over 3 million subscribers.

Despite this, it wasn’t long before the landscape around satellite radio changed enough that “playing music the subscribers wanted” became nonsensical. You no longer needed to subscribe to anything to get what you wanted; you had your iPod and your music sharing services and, more recently, social media and online recommendation engines that, to many, made the DJ role obsolete.

It was a few years later, in 2007, that XM and Sirius, pushed by their investors and a bad economy, decided to merge and were able to make a compelling case to the government it this wasn’t an anti-competitive move. Yes, these were the only two satellite music companies and had gotten a lot of what they wanted by dint of a promise that they’d never merge. But now they were up against traditional radio, web feeds, podcasts, iTunes, concert footage on YouTube, radio on cable TV, legal file sharing, illegal file sharing, and dozens of other distribution networks for music and information.

The government approved the merger, and on July 29, 2008, when the merger was completed, satellite radio officially began to suck.

DJs were laid off on stations like XMU—Sirius-XM’s alt-rock station—destroying the last human connection between listener and company. This is the primary reason I had decided to cancel my subscription. In the past year, though, Sirius-XM began to charge for listening on the web, even to existing subscribers, and the overall monthly cost continued to increase ahead of inflation. It got harder to justify paying more for so much less of a product.

From a business perspective, Sirius-XM weathered the recession with relative aplomb, avoiding a bankruptcy that was seen as all but certain after its shares fell to $0.05. But from a music-lover’s perspective, the service is, like terrestrial radio in 2001, a shell of itself. I recently listened to the station RealJazz, for example, and heard entire blocks of music repeated during one afternoon, reinforcing the fact that I was no longer listening to a radio station staffed by fellow music lovers. I was listening to a computer program run by Wall Street investors.

I get it. I do. I know it’s a business and Sirius-XM has to do what it can to survive and thrive financially. But like the changes made by conglomerates the wake of the ’96 Telecom Act, these changes feel more like a betrayal to a community than forgivable good business sense.

Anyway. So I made the call yesterday. After only a little well-trained pushback from the person at the other end of the phone, my XM radio, for the first time since 2001, fell to static.


Dec 20 2008

Vote of confidence on Rwandan coffee shop trying to fill the old Marino's restaurant

A first-in-the-U.S. Rwandan coffeeshop is set to take over a long-vacant space on Mass Ave. in North Cambridge:


View Larger Map

“We had to treat this coffee like fine wine,” he said, describing the taste as “mouth-bursting” with an extreme heavy body rich with notes of floral, jasmine and cocoa flavor.

If allowed in Cambridge, Bourbon Rwanda would be the first coffee shop of its kind in the country.

Karuletwa was born in Uganda and grew up as a refugee, fleeing to Kenya and then to Rwanda in 1994 after the war subsided. He moved to California in 1996 on a basketball scholarship, went back to work in Rwanda for six years, before ending up in Cambridge where he now lives.

Karuletwa said he wants to be sure people know where his coffee comes from. The café would include tracing technology that allows customer to get a virtual tour of how their beverage went from “crop to cup” with testimony from farmers, map locations and delivery facts.

According to the Cambridge Chronicle, the Cambridge Licensing Board will meet January 20th to decide whether to transfer the building’s license to Karuletwa.

Sounds like a welcome addition to me.


Sep 10 2006

What's in a name, over time?

One chooses a particular company name both to describe that one’s company’s business and to inspire confidence in its legitimacy and efficacy.

But as the list of four names above cherry-pickingly illustrates, company naming conventions have changed over time. The world’s most powerful joint-stock company, the British East India Company, which literally ruled India for parts of three centuries, existed in what we can call the “descriptive era” of company names. A lack of electronic media—and a lack of competition—meant there was no need to differentiate or spiffify a name: the company was named what it was. In this case, it was British, it had a mandate for India, and it was a company.

Later, two naming trends developed in parallel. One we’ll call the “modern descriptive,” simple (or simplified) semantic names applied to unfathomably complicated enterprises: Alcoa, Aramco, Bethlehem Steel, American Telephone and Telegraph. The other, the “nominative,” took a person’s name for the company name—Merrill Lynch, Bell, Johnson & Johnson. Neither convention was new in of itself, but they had never been applied to organizations so, well, big. Seeing “Johnson & Johnson” on a shingle outside a shop in a small 18th century town probably looked unassuming; Seeing “Johnson & Johnson” on a thousand different 21st century products in tens of thousands of different stores assumes a lot. It assumes that consumers will access the small-town part of their linguistic memory when they see a Johnson & Johnson product and not the chemical engineering and international marketing part. Imagine if J & J were called the American International Topical Cream Manufacturing and Distribution Company. You’d wonder if Baby Powder was, you know, powdered babies.

Then came the ultra-modern or post-modern ridiculousness that the Simpsons parodied as “CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet,” the “company” Homer created at the end of the dot-com boom. CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet naming is naming-by-committee, trying to cobble together a word from bits of other words in order to create a company name that vaguely invokes whatever feeling it is that that company wants to invoke—without actually naming it anything. From the Wikipedia article linked above:

Accenture—Accent on the Future. Greater-than ‘accent’ over the logo’s t points forward towards the future. The name Accenture was proposed by a company employee in Norway as part of an internal name finding process (BrandStorming). Prior to January 1, 2001 the company was called Andersen Consulting.

Novell—Novell, Inc. was earlier Novell Data Systems co-founded by George Canova. The name was suggested by George’s wife who mistakenly thought that “Novell” meant new in French. (Nouvelle is the feminine form of the French adjective ‘Nouveau’. Nouvelle as a noun in French is ‘news’.)

Comcast—from communications and broadcast.

Genius.

Except for the first descriptive era, my family was close to a company that passed through the latter three phases in the span of eighteen years. It’s a simple illustration of how company names get worse whenever a company renames itself as a result of growth. It went:

Peat Marwick (1870-1987). Nice name, if a little wooden. Peaty even.
KPMG (1987-2001). Still kind of O.K., but big blocky letters are nearly as threatening as TIAA-CREF, as just as descriptive.
BearingPoint (2001-present). They’re making masts and spinnakers now?

But at least BearingPoint was unrelated to KPMG’s corporate anthem (link to audio)(link to “Teutonic Master mix”):

chorus
KPMG, we’re strong as can be
A team of power and energy
We go for the gold
Together we hold onto our vision of global strategy.

KPMG, we’re strong as can be
A dream of power and energy
We go for the gold
Together we hold onto our vision of global strategy.

verse one
We create, we innovate
We pass the ones that are la-a-ate.
A global team, this is our dream of success that we create.
We’ll be number one, with effort and fun
Together each of us will run for gold that shines like the sun in our eyes

chorus
KPMG, we’re strong as can be
A team of power and energy
We go for the gold
Together we hold onto our vision of global strategy.

KPMG, we’re strong as can be
A dream of power and energy
We go for the gold
Together we hold onto our vision of global strategy.

verse two
The time is now to lead the way
We share the same idea that may win by the end of the day
Our strength is here to stay
Identity, one energy, one strategy, with sympathy
These are the words that will lead us into our new world.

[ZDNet: IT Anthems]


Feb 23 2006

Why don't bookstores try to sell more of the books that help them sell more books?

I’ve been stalking bookstores for the last few months. While on business travel, from Long Beach to Atlanta, from Phoenix to Toronto, I’ve been stealing time to zip into Borderses and Barnes and Nobleses simply to make a list of what literary magazines each store stocks.

The results? On one hand, I’ve been impressed. The Rittenhouse Square Barnes and Noble in Philadelphia stocks a ton of lit mags, more even than my local Harvard Bookstore (often considered the country’s best independent). The Presse Internationale in Toronto’s Greektown not only sold a fantastic number of Canandian titles but also included many lesser known American ones, such as Atlanta’s Five Points.

On the other hand, the physical placement of literary magazines is dispiriting. Harvard Bookstore keeps them in a bizarre little shin-level shelf opposite their Christianity section. A Borders in Atlanta’s Buckhead neighborhood keeps its (impressive number of out-of-date) lit mags in the oddest place—in an end-cap shelf, fifteen feet away from literary glossies like Publishers Weekly and Bookforum, faced away from the rest of the room, and adjacent to a freight elevator. I couldn’t even find the shelf until my girlfriend phoned and I searched for the most out-of-the-way spot in the store to take the call. In fact, the only store I’ve ever seen that makes a point of highlighting its lit mag offerings is Trident Bookseller in Boston’s Back Bay, which sports a shelf at the end of the aisle created by the magazine racks and the long cafe bar.

So to the question I opened with. Why aren’t lit mags placed more prominently? Yes, they’re not best-sellers and they don’t earn kind of margins that blank journals, hardbacks, and remainders do. But don’t literary magazines dovetail with the Barnes and Noble ethos of creating the “literary environment”? Sure, some people go in to Barnes and Noble, sit and read, and leave without buying anything—but by virtue of sitting and reading, doesn’t that make Barnes and Noble the place you think of when you do want to buy a book? So shouldn’t the most purely bookish, most book-community-driven product in the world—the literary magazine—get to take its place at the front of the store? Moreover, isn’t it good business sense to sacrifice the sale of a few remainders if it means creating another generation of obsessive readers? It certainly worked for Starbucks, which decided long ago to sacrifice customer turnover in favor of customer zeal, and now we have a nationwide cafe culture, where none had existed before. That’s very good business!

Altogether, it makes me think of my favorite pizza place, a family-run joint in my first neighborhood in Cambridge. The owner, Armando Paolo, was asked by a reporter if business had lagged since a gourmet pizza place had opened up around the corner. “No,” he said and laughed. “We’ve had more people here than ever.” When asked why that was, Armando said, “The fancy place got people thinking even more about pizza. And when people around here think pizza, they think Armando’s.”

Bookstores, take that tip from Armando. Promote literary magazines because they promote the best of reading and writing. Shelve them front and center. It gets people excited about books—so be in on it. People want to associate that book-zeal with a particular place, a particular store. So when people think of books, make sure they think of you.


Nov 10 2005

Google Print and the problem of inventories

When folks defend the Google Print model, often they say helping people find no-longer-promoted books is win-win-win: publishers sell books they thought were dormant; authors get a few more bucks in royalties; and readers get a book that was otherwise hidden. All true, if it weren’t for the problem of inventories. . . .

These older books—where are they supposed to sit?

So long as print copies, as opposed to electronic copies, are the norm, publishers will need warehouse space, and what publisher is going to hold onto tiny stocks of a few books, taking up space and money, just in case a Google Print user stumbles across it? That user may even buy the book used, cutting the publisher and author out of the loop. (Although most 5000-print-run authors I know would much rather someone read their book than themselves receive the $2 in royalties.) A colleague of mine once said, when I asked her why our textbook company wasn’t also in the used book business, “We probably should be. But to do that, we’d have double the books to manage—and where are they going to go? Where are we going to get the million dollars to build the extention to our warehouse?” It’s something that may change, but it won’t soon.

And then another problem. Once a publisher stops actively promoting a title, it’s only a few years before the rights revert to the author. If a book published in 2000 didn’t find an audience in its first (promoted) years, the right to publish that book will likely go back to the author around 2006, and then the author has no way to print new copies or manage stock. Once a publisher sells out of its stock of a rights-reverted book, there are zero new copies left anywhere.

So while, yes, Google Print will help people find hidden books and will probably be a net positive for authors, this potential sea change will have losers, copyright debates aside. And those would-be losers are going to be fiercely defensive of their interests, as the AAP is showing with its lawsuit against Google.