J-school students, like publishers, refuse to pay

The so-called Media Diet includes 2.5 hours a day of reading/viewing the news. (Photo credit: Adam Crowe)

Here’s one of those stories that ranks high on the “duh!” factor, at least in my opinion.

Those of us addicted to our computers and smart phones have been there before. We come across an intriguing story slug or headline tagged in that familiar shade of “click-me” blue. And so, we click.

And then the frustration mounts!

“I have to pay for this?” you ask yourself. “No way!”

And so you move on.

Apparently some journalism instructors have taken to asking their students if they would pay a nominal amount of money for access to Facebook. While some agree that a buck a month might be acceptable, none of the students were willing to pay any amount of money for access to news media sites. I’m the same way. The quickest way to send me in another direction is to demand I pay to read an online newspaper.

But why? After all, if I want the print version of a newspaper I know full well that I’m going to have to pay something. Or maybe it’s that I’m not willing to pay at all for any version of the news.

Who pays for what?

There’s a grand irony as I see it, and it’s contained in the quote attributed to a newspaper publisher in the story linked to above. Apparently the newspaper publisher incredulously believes that he doesn’t need readers, certainly not the college-educated, upwardly-mobile reader with a disposable income. Pssst! Don’t tell that to his advertisers or shareholders!

Even more telling is how this attitude will become painfully apparent to these budding journalists when they discover that their paychecks don’t have the disposable income sufficient to cover the cost of the online subscriptions they already refuse to pay, especially once they learn the reality of economics and discover that the rent is due before they eat! The sad fact throughout this 20-year long discussion within media circles regarding the shift towards electronic publishing is that the very people tasked with writing the stories that are supposed to engage and attract readers have seen their pay increase less, on a percentage basis, than has the federal minimum wage, during this same period of time.

Yet this arrogance seems to be popular with publishers and even some editors. Oh, they won’t say that, but it’s apparent in the “just get it out the door” attitude of newspaper publishing. Who cares what’s in the newspaper, as long as the sales staff is relatively successful?

Content… Content… Content

The problem with this attitude is the reader (you know, those people who advertisers hope see their printed sales pitch in the morning newspaper) are leaving in droves, taking with them the advertisers that pay the bills. While to a certain extent it seems that the newfound lack of income must be made up somewhere, publishers seem dumfounded at the unwillingness of readers to subsidize what for more than a century has been subsidized by the advertiser. Lost in this incredulity is the notion that the free market will simply not support something that has no intrinsic value.

As a reader and a consumer (and a J-school grad), I’ve long-since lost the willingness to pay for information that I can find for free in so many places. Moreover, I refuse to pay subscription rates for information, even that information that I can’t seem to find elsewhere, simply because I have determined that it ultimately has no value to my life. I’ve even stopped watching television news programs in part because I don’t trust them to provide me with useful, and in many cases, truthful information.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a service or a tangible product, consumers want to feel as if they’re getting something of value when they elect to exchange their hard-earned money for something, whether it be a piece of electronic gadgetry, a new car, or a form of media.

Amazing as it is, people are still willing to part with their income. One need look no farther than Apple, Inc. to see a shining example of how one company has found a way to create value and extract large sums of money from consumers. Newspaper publishers could do well to learn this if they expect to revive their dying publications.

Related articles

• Global Newspaper Publishing industry: Forecast to generate revenue of $170.5b in 2012 (nextlevelofnews.com)
• Will The Newspaper Industry Save Itself By Reinventing Online Advertising? (adpulp.com)
• As newspapers cut, analysts ask if readers will remain (nextlevelofnews.com)

The rise of Conservative media and the web it weaves

I had a question posed to me the other day that got me to thinking. I’ll expand the question somewhat to fill in some of the thoughts that ran through my mind as my friend and I talked about this.

Where are all the loud and avowed Conservative artists and how do we support them? The question really comes from a lament by a friend of mine that people might not be supporting Conservative artists as they do those who seem to loudly proclaim their Liberal ideals.

Take some of the more popular musical artists over the past 20-30 years. I’m sure some of us have been to concerts where at some point the great music stops and the tirades start regarding the latest political issue of the day. Sting did this in the late 80’s at a concert I was at. I wanted to yell, “shut up and sing!” I wasn’t there to hear his rant on why he thought Conservatives are simply the doormen at the Gates of Hell, I was there to hear him sing.

So maybe I shouldn’t have been there, but I liked his music, so I went.

I think this helps illuminate the main question: Where are the Conservative artists out there and what can we do to support them? After all, they seem to speak for many more Americans than do the Liberal artists who’s cause du jour has nothing to do with making America a better place to live and work. Just look at the rise of conservatism on social media, the Internet and through large events such as the Tea Party movement. There’s a groundswell of conservatism going on out there that can’t be ignored.

I came across one such artist recently who, in my own opinion, seems to have captured the sense of the rising anger in America: a righteous indignation over the principles and morals of a depraved Liberal society that believes people who work hard for what they have ought to be stripped of what they’ve earned so those who’ve sat on the proverbial couch and ate from the Liberal tray of chips can have more chips because somehow it’s not right to require them to work for a living so they can buy their own food, health care, houses and other things.

A visit to http://www.joedanmedia.com/ doesn’t take one long to discover that the Liberal mindset is one worthy of scorn, ridicule and contempt, if not simply an ideal who’s only worth is to spur laughter. It’s this mindset that has helped plunge the American economy into a massive recession. Certainly the similar Liberal policies that have plagued Europe for decades is the reason why the economy of Greece collapsed recently, and will likely be the cause of America’s ultimate collapse in the very near future if we can’t wrestle away the control of Congress from those who’s spending-spree attitude is nothing short of evil.

Many of these short video spots — the shortest is a 39-second spot that decries the desire of Liberals to confer US citizenship rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield, rather than dish out the appropriate punishment via our military — call attention to the utter degradation of America under Liberal rule. The site’s owner, Joe Dan Gorman, simply uses the statements of and facts surrounding those Liberal politicians who’s sole purpose is to remake America into their own fiefdom where the controlling authority is not democratic but authoritarian.

Such video messages can be very powerful if done right. Consider the “Daisy Girl” television ad, which ran one time on Sept. 7, 1964 during the NBC Movie. The advertisement was very likely the reason why Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater lost in a 44-state landslide to incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson. It certainly helped cement the Liberal mindset that Goldwater was an extremist who would destroy America, when a careful study of his ideas suggests that had he succeeded, the Vietnam War might not have drug on for another decade like it did.

While it’s easy to agree with television producer and former Nixon campaign consultant Roger Ailes when he said: “Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it,” I find myself somewhat agreeing, if somewhat nostalgically, with Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, who in 1956, said: “The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.”

Nevertheless, mass media being what it is, especially today, means that candidates will continue to be defined by sound bytes and notable video spots, whether on television in the form of slick commercials, or on the Internet via YouTube or some other yet-to-be-invented medium. Personally, I think the Internet is the future of political advertising and marketing.

That’s why I like what I see coming out of the Conservative movement in America, and why I think that these talented media artists need to be supported, financially and otherwise, for their efforts. Folks with a flair for media or the ingenuity to capitalize on social media and other forms of Internet media are taking advantage of the Internet in ways that will forever change the political marketing landscape in America. I just wish I had a great idea for how to create the business model that turns this passion into profit. I’m hopeful that this change will be good as the stranglehold that the mainstream television networks have had on American politics for decades is forever broken, dismantled and defunded.

California’s golden luster tarnished by business exodus

Vacancy rates in many California cities continue to climb as businesses fold and the industry that once supported the service-based economy of most cities leaves for more hospitable business climates.

It’s no secret: California is not business friendly. The state that was once the 5th largest economy in the world and had more revenue coming in than even the most artful Liberal could spend, squander or steal is virtually bankrupt.

Taxes here in the “Tarnished State” (no longer can we rightfully call California “The Golden State”) are higher than most other states, regulations are onerous and the permitting process necessary to build a business here — well, let’s just say that the best laid marketing efforts of states like Nevada and Arizona couldn’t do better to coax California businesses away.

This didn’t just start yesterday. A 1993 article in Nation’s Business reports of a Southern California business that took its 68 employees and $15 million in annual sales to the neighboring Silver State and set up shop in Carson City.

The Orange County Register earlier this year highlighted a host of businesses, many with original ties to Orange County, that have permanently vacated California for a more business friendly climate. Even Apple Computer, an icon of California’s Silicon Valley, has opted to make a $1 billion expansion elsewhere.

I’ve personally spoken to business owners here in California who have partially or fully vacated California. A cheese manufacturer looking to expand to where the milk is once considered Tulare County because of the bountiful milk supply in this region of Central California. After discovering Tulare County’s double-digit energy costs — the tiered per-kilowatt hour (kWH) price of electricity at the time started at 12 cents and ran as high as 22 cents per kWH — the chairman of the board told me that the company was taking its plans and its money to the Texas panhandle, where residential electric rates were reportedly around 4 cents per kWH and commercial rates even lower.

For a more expansive posting of businesses leaving California, check out Joseph Vranich’s The Business Relocation Coach blog. It reads like a Forbes list and ought to serve as a criminal indictment of California’s inept Legislature.

A story in the Bakersfield Californian recently illustrated the greed of the politically-connected in the “Tarnished State.” The newspaper reported that one of the main utility providers here, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, or PG&E, wants to escalate its tiered system to where the highest tier users pay 40 cents per kWH. These rates must be approved by a state commission (political appointees).

Currently PG&E is the sole funding mechanism for a state ballot initiative, Proposition 16, which the energy giant claims is a pro-consumer type of initiative. It’s really nothing more than a power-grab by the public utility as it seeks to shut out municipal energy companies, which provide electricity to their customers at much reduced rates when compared to PG&E.

Meanwhile, California’s largest city — Los Angeles — is out of money, the state itself is $20 billion in the red and the state unemployment level is running well ahead of the national average. In some counties in California, the percentage of unemployed residents exceeds 40%. Some of this has to do with California’s convoluted and ridiculous environmental regulations that favor critters and non-edible plants over the food grown here. Last summer, for instance, roughly 65,000 acres of prime agricultural land was taken out of production because water that once irrigated a vast section of California’s Central Valley was confiscated by an act of Congress in order to protect a species of fish that is nothing more than bait for larger predatory fish.

To cap this tale of a broken state, in 2003 Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in a special election after voters here fired Governor Gray Davis in a recall election. At that time voters were angry at the severe run-up of electricity rates and the common rolling brown-outs that were plaguing much of California. At the time Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said business as usual was going to change in California. Little did we realize that two terms later we were better off before we fired a governor than we are now with Conan the Incompetent.

PR: Where farms and consumers meet to eat

Before the food we eat winds up served here, top photo, it starts in farm fields such as these in California's fertile San Joaquin Valley, below.

For all that American agriculture provides those who live in California, particularly here in the Central Valley, you’d think that people would be less ignorant about it. Then again there’s little wonder why Americans are so detached from their supply of food and fiber. It’s easy to go to the grocery store and pick through a dozen different brands of the same thing; fruits and vegetables are in plentiful supply, the dairy case is consistently stocked and the remaining shelves and bins have even more choices.

Add to that the ever-decreasing list of people who make their living producing our food and fiber and it becomes a simple issue of numbers. The farmer does what he does in near anonymity. While you may know this farmer from church or your local school sports team where your children play together, there remains a large disconnect between you and the farmer because you don’t buy your groceries from the farmer. He sells his produce, dairy products, meat, vegetables, etc. to someone who processes the raw commodities; that person likely sells them one more time before hiring someone to transport the finished product to the grocery store where they’re neatly stacked on shelves for you to buy.

Then again in today’s global economy you might not even buy the food produced locally. Check the labels of the fruit and vegetables (if you can find a label) on the fresh produce you buy at the grocery store. Avocados and melons from Mexico might sit a bin or two down from the fruit grown in Chile. What kind of phytosanitary rules governed the production of those fruits and vegetables before being imported into the United States?

That’s likely the root of the problem: farmers don’t sell their goods to the consumer. That’s not necessarily bad, it simply illustrates a hurdle that the ag industry must overcome if it’s going to better promote itself. While it may be interesting to some, and useful in a sense for agriculture to promote itself in terms of dollars and jobs, the vast majority of the public likely doesn’t care much that American agriculture accounts for about 4 percent of the nominal gross domestic product, according the US Department of Agriculture, or that in California’s Central Valley alone, agriculture’s total economic impact is over $50 billions dollars.

While farmers have worked to educate themselves, have made strides in becoming more efficient in their practices, and have even joined forces to lobby their elected representatives, they’ve done little at best to educate customers about just what it is they do, how they do it, and why what they do is so important.

With the advent of social media some farmers are doing what they can to impress upon the public their importance. Web sites, blogs, twitter feeds and Facebook pages such as:

• http://twitter.com/JeffFowle
• http://www.keepcaliforniafarming.com/
• http://www.advocatesforag.com/
• http://www.ilovefarmers.org/about.html
• http://dairygoddess.wordpress.com/

are doing what they can to educate folks about the importance of American agriculture.

For a long time Farm Bureau has promoted American agricultural products as the best and safest, but even then we still have legitimate issues and concerns of food safety in America with tainted beef and tainted vegetables causing food borne illness and death. But unless you’re involved with Farm Bureau in some way you wouldn’t know that. Somehow that “best and safest” argument has not permeated American culture. We hear nothing until another outbreak of Salmonella or e-coli breaks out then all of American agriculture is painted in the same negative brush strokes by the drive-by media.

In some cases those outbreaks can be directly traced to imported food — think tainted frozen strawberries from Mexico several years ago that illegally made its way into the USDA school lunch program. Still, other outbreaks may very well have come from U.S. produced food, such as more recent headlines that blamed spinach, lettuce and tomatoes for illness and death across America. It is still suspected that the Salinas Valley farms involved in growing these commodities also use treated effluent water (think sewage sludge). That in and of itself is a whole other issue of monumental proportions.

As detrimental to health and safety that those issues were, they are more the exception than the rule. Even so, this makes an even stronger case for a more concerted effort of education and promotion by the American agriculture industry, along with a fervent drive for improved food safety standards in America.

Our national sovereignty rests on our ability to feed and clothe ourselves with what we produce, and to be able to export another large part of this production. A cursory look at America’s failed energy policy illustrates this point. How many more imported barrels of oil will it take before we completely forfeit our sovereignty? If we cede our food production to other nations, we will lose more than a safe and ample food supply.

Record companies want Congress to tax radio

In a move destined to pull the plug on music radio, Congress is currently being asked by record companies to consider imposing a new fee on radio stations for playing the music that we currently enjoy. As if businesses aren’t already taxed enough, this will cause more jobs to evaporate in America.

The ramifications will be far-reaching. We’ve already seen proposals for Congress to further regulate talk radio, now Congress is being asked to tax music radio.

Consider the for-profit radio stations that you listen to while commuting (for those who still have jobs to commute to). Paying a tax on the music they play will either force stations to stop playing music altogether or attempt to pass those taxes off to their advertisers in the form of higher advertising rates. This double-whammy on businesses big and small, who too are struggling to make ends meet and have themselves cut their marketing budgets as a means to free up cash flow, will not stop there as the effects will continue to ripple through the economy. Ironically, a well-placed and well-established marketing plan (whether in print or broadcast) is essential for businesses to reach new customers. What business is going to be able to afford to market themselves on radio, the one medium with significant reach throughout America, if the rates they have to pay are taxed by Congress?

This plan will have an even greater impact on the listener-supported Christian radio stations that millions of us across America listen to on a daily basis. Christian radio supports and uplifts so many people and has been credited with saving marriages, preventing suicides, and simply providing folks with a hope in something greater than themselves. The songs played on Christian radio are responsible for the rise in popularity of countless musical artists, which accounts for a large number of jobs and vast economic impacts throughout the United States.

According to KLOVE radio’s Web site, “imposing a new performance fee will force many stations across the country to stop playing music. The irony is this new fee that is being proposed in order to help struggling artists will actually send half of this proposed fee to the record companies, many of whom are owned by foreign corporations, and not to the artists that they claim it will help.

“For decades, radio stations have played and promoted music from artists and record labels. Radio stations have always had the liberty of playing music free of charge, and meanwhile artists and record labels have taken advantage of this free promotion. Most importantly, listeners all over the United States have enjoyed listening to music from a variety of radio stations and genres.”

The very idea that Congress is being asked to raise taxes on a segment of the American economy in a time where the economic foundation of America continues to crumble is at best egregious. Who in their right mind, when they see someone down and struggling to get up kicks them or shoves their head toward the ground instead of offering a helping hand? Yet daily we read of and hear more examples of Congress doing just that to regular Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.

According to KLOVE, this will not help the “struggling artists” who have their music played for free on radio stations across America. Much of this money will wind up in the pockets of the companies that claim to represent the artists, companies that make their money on the backs of the artists and the intellectual property they create. But given the idea that you can’t tax a company into success, these regressive taxes will simply cause more of America’s economy to falter and fail in a time when Congress should be doing all it can to get out of the way and encourage the free enterprise system to work and flourish.

The unintended consequences of such a move will be, as KLOVE reports, to force radio stations to stop playing music because they won’t be able to cover the additional taxes through higher advertising rates. For the non-profit radio station this will be the last nail in the coffin. Once this happens how will the artists, and more specifically the recording companies supporting this move, make their money when the rest of us have no way of discovering the artists these recording companies represent? This will not only severely impact current artists, who’s work we are familiar with, but will kill any opportunity for new artists, who will have no way of having their work featured. And, getting back to the idea of marketing, how will the consumer become aware of artist projects, concerts, etc. without the very radio stations that regularly feature new and popular artists? It’s like the business owner who never advertises but expects the public to walk through his doors and buy his products simply because he has a door that opens onto the public street.

This proposal will kill listener-supported Christian radio in America and will severely and forever change how for-profit radio is run in America. Congress needs to stay out of the pockets of businesses in America and get back to the very limited Constitutional roll they have in providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare. Contact your local Congressman and encourage him or her to oppose this business-killing idea.

Committing econnomic suicide

While I’ve not really followed the whole Glenn Beck fiasco — apparently some advertisers have pulled their ads from his national talk radio program for something he apparently said — the idea that businesses in this age of economic recession are reducing ANY of their advertising is economic suicide!

During the Great Depression the two biggest cereal companies, Post and Kellogg’s, competed for market share. Post severely cut back its advertising while Kellogg’s pressed on. Years later when America’s economy picked up, Kellogg’s was positioned to succeed by beating out Post for market share. This market share superiority continues today.

In today’s marketplace, pulling advertising from national Conservative talk radio shows is especially detrimental because of the large listener base that Conservative talk radio provides.

People today are smart enough to know why certain companies are doing this. While this news might provide a bit of free advertising for some of these companies, consumers will ultimately vote with their wallets and find other companies to spend their money on.

If I were a company competing against those that have made it known that they’re pulling their advertising from some of these programs I’d be jumping for joy and would be lining up to fill the space they vacated. The chance to promote my goods and services on Conservative talk radio would be most welcome, particularly if my competition is electing to spend their money on less-effective media.

Farmers need better PR

For all that American agriculture provides those who live here, particularly in the Central Valley, you’d think that people would be less ignorant about it. Then again there’s little wonder why Americans are so detached from their supply of food and fiber. After all, it’s so easy to go to the grocery store and pick through a dozen different brands of the same thing; fruits and vegetables are in plentiful supply, the dairy case is consistently stocked with a growing list of items and the remaining shelves and bins have even more choices.

Add to that the ever-decreasing list of people who make their living producing our food and fiber and it becomes a simple issue of numbers. The farmer does what he does in near anonymity. You may even know this farmer; you might go to church with him and his family, or you might shop the same local grocery store, but even then there’s a large disconnect between you and the farmer because you don’t buy your groceries from the farmer. He sells his produce, dairy products, meat, vegetables, etc. to someone who processes the raw commodities; that person likely sells them one more time before hiring someone to transport the finished product to the grocery store where they’re neatly stacked on shelves for you to buy.

That’s likely the root of the problem: farmers don’t sell their goods to the end-user; they don’t have the connection with the end user. That’s not necessarily bad, it simply illustrates a hurdle that the ag industry must overcome if it’s going to better promote itself. While it may be interesting to some, and useful in a sense for agriculture to promote itself in terms of dollars and jobs, the vast majority of the public likely doesn’t care much that American agriculture accounts for about 4 percent of the nominal gross domestic product, according the US Department of Agriculture, or that in California’s Central Valley, agriculture’s economic impact is recorded in the tens of billions of dollars.

While farmers have worked to educate themselves, have made strides in becoming more efficient in their practices, and have even joined forces to lobby their elected representatives, they’ve done little at best to educate their customers — the American public — about just what it is they do, how they do it, and why what they do is so important.

Farm Bureau promotes American agricultural products as the best and safest, but unless you’re involved with Farm Bureau in some way, you wouldn’t know that. Somehow that “best and safest” argument has not permeated American culture. Still it’s taken for granted until an outbreak of disease-causing bacteria makes headlines and evening news broadcasts. In some cases those outbreaks can be directly traced to imported food — think tainted frozen strawberries from Mexico several years ago that made it into USDA school lunch programs. Still, other outbreaks may very well have come from U.S. produced food, such as more recent headlines that blamed spinach, lettuce and tomatoes. As detrimental to health and safety that those issues were, instances such as those are more the exception than the rule. Even so, issues such as this make an even stronger case for a more concerted effort of education and promotion by the American agriculture industry.

As cities continue to push their boundaries and pave over farmland and interest groups work to further legislate and restrict farming practices at the ballot box, we’re in danger of pushing our food production across the border and overseas. The end result will be the total abdication of our food production to nations that don’t have our best interests at heart. We have a tremendous land grant college system that puts university research on farms and ranches, helping American agriculture provide the best and safest food of any nation on Earth.

Our national sovereignty rests on our ability to feed and clothe ourselves with what we produce and export another large part of this production. A cursory look at America’s failed energy policy illustrates this point. How many more imported barrels of oil will it take before we completely forfeit our sovereignty? If we cede our food production to other nations, we will lose more than a safe and ample food supply.

American agriculture has a lot going for it. Instead of complaining that the public simply doesn’t understand, help us understand what you do, why you do it that way, and how those practices provide me with a safe and bountiful supply of food.