Making Money Job

If you’ve ever been to Iceland, you probably noticed that there are no old people there.  My personal theory is that they throw old people into tar pits like on The Dinosaurs. But if you ask any Icelanders where there hell everybody over 40 is, they’ll usually shrug or laugh or give some non-committal answer like “they‘re around,” mainly because they don’t actually know. Similarly, nobody knows for sure what happens seven years down the road to all the first years that started. Because even if you tally up all the farewell emails, a few of your co-workers will remain unaccounted for, in the tomb of the unknown lawyer…

id="more-41206">

A lot of your missing brethren will of course have been pushed out or stealthily laid off; but probably an equal amount will have to do other, more rewarding things, like abscond with partners from foreign offices, quit to start baked goods businesses, become legal bloggers, go back to school, hang out a shingle, hang out a shingle because they work as roofers, marry rich, find God, get pregnant, have mental breakdowns, etc. Only the spectacularly lazy can go six or seven years at a firm and not find a single more rewarding, somewhat remunerative job somewhere out there, because they’re everywhere.  For instance, The Container Store is now hiring.

What is truly ridiculous about your question is that you seem to think that lateraling out of your firm is a now-or-never bet. As if you stay one day beyond being a third year, no firm will ever take you. As if  you’re a 30-year-old blogger with a $4,000 credit limit who goes to pet lifestyle events. Luckily, you haven’t sunk that low yet. If you grow tired in a year or two – or ten – of making a crap income for slave labor at your cheap firm, you can always lateral if you’re good at your job and/or a rainmaker. There’s no point in lateraling now when you have three skills; wait until you know how to do something other than send around the dial-in. Or at least until you’ve got a higher credit limit.

Your friend,

Marin

HOMER: Wow, Mr. Burns, you’re the richest man in the world! You own everything!/> MR. BURNS: Ah, yes, but I’d give it all away to have just a little bit more.

Look brother, I understand that it can be tough living in this city unless you have money pouring out of your ears. Trust me, I get it. But come on man, you’re talking about throwing away a good, secure job and a pleasant lifestyle for a couple of extra dollars. During a recession? Why would you do that?

I’m not going to tell you that money can’t buy happiness. That’s clearly false; I don’t care how badly Cliff Lee embarrasses me on national television, I’d still trade places with Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez (or their agents) in a second.

So sure, more money might make you happier. Bur chasing money to the exclusion of all else could make you significantly more sad. I’m saying that you might easily find that you are now using your money induced happiness to replace the happiness you used to derive from: coming home at a reasonable hour, working with nice people, feeling like you are something more than a faceless cog in the machine, and having your colleagues treat you with respect. Could banging Minka Kelly make up for that? Almost certainly! But it’s not like trading up for an extra $30K a pop is going to suddenly make you (ahem) rich enough to pull those kinds of perks.

At the end of the day, you’re just going to be the same lawyer who has a little more money in your pocket.

I don’t think it’s worth it dude, but I’m also the guy who left a lot of cash on the table to start down this path. Maybe you should ask somebody who has fully sold out whether or not the extra cash fills the gaping hole where their soul used to be? I’m not exactly friends with him, but I can give you LeBron James’s phone number if you want to talk about this a little more./> – Jane Jacobs

style="text-decoration: underline;">Ed. note: Have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com.

We see you out there — the future musicians of the world, pouring coffee, mixing drinks, designing websites for shifty moving companies, all the while dreaming of making it big: signing to a label, cutting a record, reaping the benefits that only a throng of gaping groupies can herald.

While not all of you will make the proverbial “Big Time” — we can’t all be Lady Gaga, nor should we strive to be — that doesn’t mean that you can’t reap some monetary benefits for your musical labor.

Jeff Price, founder of TuneCore, recently wrote on the company blog: “More musicians are making money off their music now at any point in history… Technology has made it possible for any artist to get distribution, to get discovered, to pursue his/her dreams with no company or person out there making the editorial decision that they are not allowed ‘in.’”

We would tend to agree (with the caveat that such openness has also led to a more crowded music scene, with more bands fighting for the public’s attention — but that’s a post for another day).

If you want to start seeing some payback for all your hard work, you don’t have to wait around for a label exec to catch your jazz flute set at the local coffee shop and catapult you to stardom. There are a ton of services out there that can help you make some cash, while also gaining exposure and experience.

class='blippr-nobr'>Mashableclass="blippr-nobr">Mashable spoke with folks from a quartet of such services in order to help you, the artist, devote more time to your lute than those lattes.

Note that none of the below are get-rich-quick schemes, so it might be wise to hang onto your day job — even if it is designing graphic tees for tiny dogs.

Go Into Show Business

Service: Jingle Punks

We know, we know, the moment a song makes it into the commercial, it’s an immediate sign that a band has “sold out.” But, c’mon, guys — do you really want your favorite drummer/banjo player/keytarist working in a taco trunk in order to survive? Yeah, thin may be in when it comes to the indie scene, but musicians need to eat, after all.

That’s why services like Jingle Punks can really be a boon to bands. Jingle Punks — which is basically the Pandoraclass="blippr-nobr">Pandora of music licensing services — focuses on providing filmmakers, TV networks, media companies and ad companies with music from up-and-coming bands. Band and Punks split the earnings 50/50.

“We work in a very smart but unsexy part of the music business,” says co-founder Jared Gutstadt. “Most artists tend to spend their time focusing on the old standards of how to ‘make it.’ They’re still thinking about record deals, pub deals, merch, touring. To really stand out and compete with this type of competition you need to be thinking about launching a music career in a much more unique way.”

Why Use This Service?

According to Gutstadt, “Music in film and television is a great way for artists to get the word out there. More importantly, you can generate money to help fund the growth of a band’s musical endeavors.”

In addition, the service makes use of the democratic nature of the web to get your music into the right hands. “In the past, the way people used to pitch music for media placements is that they would mail CDs off to as many music supes or producers they could,” Gutstadt says. “We have removed the giant pile of CDs on peoples’ desks and aggregated them into a user-friendly database organized in a dynamic way.”

What’s the ROI?

According to Gutstadt, money made runs the gamut. “It can be anywhere from $250 for a web placement all the way up to $30,000 for getting music in a commercial or motion picture,” he says. “, you make money over time through royalties paid out by BMI and ASCAP, who are able to track usage. I always tell artists its not a get-rich-quick scheme as much as it is a way to make some money over time off your hard work.”  

So Who has Succeeded?

“We work with an artist named Mike Del Rio (see above) and his music was used in a rebranding effort by the History Channel.  The channel has really embraced Mike and Jingle Punks and has a couple things in the pipeline that could do great things to really help launch Mike Del Rio’s career on a more mainstream level.  

“We also work with a really great band called I Love Monsters, and their music was placed in the season premiere of Entourage. This type of exposure can be great for an up-and-coming band.”

Collaborate

Service: Indaba Music

We’ve seen instances of bands forming partnerships through Twitter and the like, but wouldn’t it be easier for y’all to have everything in one place?

I mean, it’s enough of a hassle to get all your gear into a single taxi (can’t afford two) before a gig, why add 50 social media tools into the mix? That’s where services like Indaba Music — which is like the class='blippr-nobr'>LinkedInclass="blippr-nobr">LinkedIn of music — come in.

Indaba is a platform — boasting more than 500,000 musicians — that provides musically inclined folks with a place to build a profile, promote their tunes and collaborate with other musicians from around the world.

Why Use This Service?

According to co-founder Dan Zaccagnino, “There are many ways for musicians to make money using Indaba Music. The core of the platform is about collaboration, which can be just for fun, but can also generate income for musicians through work-for-hire sessions (where a musician is paid for his/her tracks) or collaborations where songwriters share in the ownership of the song.”

In addition, Indaba features a ton of contests that “give both amateur and professional musicians a chance to collaborate with world-famous artists and in the process win cash or possibly participate in future royalties if the winners’ material is released,” Zaccagnino says.

What’s the ROI?

“There are incredible opportunities to gain experience on Indaba because the community is full of everyone from amateurs eager to learn, to music educators, to Grammy Award winners,” Zaccagnino says.

“Members learn from one another through contacting and communicating with people online, having music peer reviewed in sessions and contests, learning from master-artists through our Artist-in-Residence programs, taking online video lessons, and much more.

“Education is a big priority for us and it’s been amazing to see that organically happen because musicians are interested in helping one another.”

So Who has Succeeded?

Zaccagnino cites the following examples:

Linkin Park + NoBrain (see above)

Indaba member NoBrain’s mix was included on Linkin Park’s album A Thousand Suns and got the opportunity to collaborate directly with Linkin Park front man, Mike Shinoda, through Indaba Music.

Rivers Cuomo Producer Sessions

Rivers Cuomo of Weezer started a few sessions on IndabaMusic.com and began working with members to produce rough demos that he had written with his wife.  Rivers used Indaba’s session platform to work collaboratively, utilizing the commenting system to engage musicians and achieve exactly what he envisioned.  The producers were also paid for their work.

David Minnick/PBS The Music Instinct

PBS ran a contest to source music for an upcoming show about music and the brain. It found the winner, David Minnick, to be so talented that it hired him to arrange music for another show.

Toshi Osawa and Pikes Peak Ringers – Yo-Yo Ma Collaboration Winners

Yo-Yo Ma was so impressed by the quality of musical collaborations that he picked two winners, an 18-piece hand bell choir from Denver and a speed-Metal guitarist from Canada. Yo-Yo invited them into the studio to record with him in a truly unique collaboration — both tracks were later released as bonus tracks to Yo-Yo Ma’s holiday album, Songs of Joy & Peace.

Partner Up

Service: YouTube’s Musicians Wanted Program

At last year’s SXSW, YouTubeclass="blippr-nobr">YouTube launched a partner program for up-and-coming musicians, and, just recently, the program went from U.S.-only to international.

If you have a YouTube channel, and you’re pumping out the music vids like an A-V nerd on a sugar high, you should apply for this program post haste. Basically, it allows you to make some extra cash by adding ads to your videos and garners you more exposure from YouTube with prime placement.

Why Use This Service?

It’s all about getting your name out there, and getting your music heard, right? So go where the people are. Every day, YouTube racks up more than 2 billion video views. That’s a lot of eyes. Still, every minute, the site sees 24 hours of video uploaded, which means your genius work could get lost in the shuffle. That’s why the partner program is a must — you get the YouTube stamp of approval, which brings more attention to your work.

What’s the ROI?

YouTube couldn’t tell us how much money you can earn from the program, but they did tell us that artists get the majority share of the revenue — not to mention access to those millions of viewers. You need to be consistent with your channel, though, and really focus on putting out lots of original content. So if you’re only down to make one vid, this might not be the option for you. In order to see ROI, you have to put in the time and effort.

So Who has Succeeded?

YouTube has helped launch the careers of score of performers — from Justin Bieber to Pomplamoose./> Kina Grannis is one such artist. “I joined YouTube three years ago when I was in a contest called Doritos Crash The Super Bowl,” Grannis told us. “I needed to get people to vote for me every day in order to get my music video played during the Super Bowl (which it did, woo!), so the hope was that by agreeing to post a new video every day, people, in exchange, would come back and vote daily. This run of putting up a video every day lasted about two months in total, and while it made me crazy and sleep deprived, it was also fun and exciting and very helpful in growing my viewers.

“Post with consistency if possible,” Grannis advises artists. “Be genuine, talk to your supporters, be grateful.”

If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them

Service: BitTorrent Featured Artist Program

OK, we know what you’re thinking — you hear the word “BitTorrent” and you’re about ready to rage, am I right? File sharing is the monster under the bed for many an artist. It connotes theft, basically. Still, the model — when used correctly — can really be a boon to lesser-known artists.

We spoke to Trent Reznor — who is well-known for having released his music via torrent sites in the past — who told us: “I felt furious when the record I’d worked on for a year, that my heart and soul’s gone into, . I’m pissed off at people that are listening to it. I’m mad that they’re snubbing me — by what? By being excited about hearing my music? And that’s wrong. I shouldn’t be mad at these people. I should be glad that people are interested.”

“Easy for you to say, Trent Reznor,” you might scoff, “You’re already famous.” Well — there’s the rub, right? You’re not famous. And you want to be. Or, at the very least, you want someone other than your roommate to come to your gig — and perhaps buy a T-shirt or two. And how do you do that? By getting the attention of the masses, of course.

Last month, BitTorrent launched a Featured Artist pilot program in an effort to give musicians more exposure. Some likened such an endeavor to getting in bed with the devil, but when you really think about it, what’s the difference between applying for the program and putting your music on class='blippr-nobr'>MySpaceclass="blippr-nobr">MySpace or SoundCloud or any other music-sharing site? Well, that would be BitTorrent’s 80 million users.

We’re not saying that file sharing is totally copacetic or anything (there are a lot of pirates in them waters), but it’s not like BitTorrent is out to ruin your career, either. “In many ways, Trent Reznor’s work inspired a lot of our work,” says CEO Eric Klinker. “We really do want to riff on a lot of what he’s done. He’s in an experimentation phase, as are we.”

Why Use This Service?

“The Featured Artists pilot program encourages musicians and filmmakers to submit creative works for the chance to be spotlighted to millions of BitTorrent users around the world,” Klinker says. “For a lot of artists it is about creating a sustainable business model that will allow them to continue their creative works. So, we are interested in working with artists to experiment with various business models that play to the strengths of the class='blippr-nobr'>Internetclass="blippr-nobr">Internet while allowing them to tune into the distribution potential of BitTorrent to reach millions of consumers.”

What’s the ROI?

“In today’s digital age, the traditional model does not serve artists in the same way it used to, and instead forces them all down the same funnel where only a select few ultimately receive distribution,” Klinker says. “With BitTorrent’s Featured Artist Pilot Program, artists can tap into online communities and reach millions of people who might otherwise be inaccessible. These communities are powerful and provide intrinsic value for emerging artists trying to build a fan base. In doing so, these are fans that will invariably attend shows, purchase merchandise and become invested in future works.”/>  /> So Who has Succeeded?

Since the service just launched last month, there aren’t any featured artists yet, but the site has seen some success with the musician PAZ (see above), who has been working with BitTorrent.

“Most recently, in August 2010, BitTorrent released PAZ’s debut mix tape, Young Broke and Fameless,” Klinker says. “On the first day alone the release saw over 100,000 downloads, and as a result has increased his fan base and following.”

More Social Music Resources from Mashable:

- Top 10 Twitter Tips for Bands, By Bands/> - 5 Great Ways to Find Music That Suits Your Mood/> - 5 Free Ways to Identify that Song Stuck in Your Head/> - HOW TO: Turn Your Android Phone Into a Killer MP3 Player/> - 10 Amazing Musical Instrument iPhone Apps

Image courtesy of iStockphotoclass="blippr-nobr">iStockphoto, shulz

For more Entertainment coverage:

class="f-el">class="cov-twit">Follow Mashable Entertainmentclass="s-el">class="cov-rss">Subscribe to the Entertainment channelclass="f-el">class="cov-fb">Become a Fan on Facebookclass="s-el">class="cov-apple">Download our free apps for iPhone and iPad

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

If you’ve ever been to Iceland, you probably noticed that there are no old people there.  My personal theory is that they throw old people into tar pits like on The Dinosaurs. But if you ask any Icelanders where there hell everybody over 40 is, they’ll usually shrug or laugh or give some non-committal answer like “they‘re around,” mainly because they don’t actually know. Similarly, nobody knows for sure what happens seven years down the road to all the first years that started. Because even if you tally up all the farewell emails, a few of your co-workers will remain unaccounted for, in the tomb of the unknown lawyer…

id="more-41206">

A lot of your missing brethren will of course have been pushed out or stealthily laid off; but probably an equal amount will have to do other, more rewarding things, like abscond with partners from foreign offices, quit to start baked goods businesses, become legal bloggers, go back to school, hang out a shingle, hang out a shingle because they work as roofers, marry rich, find God, get pregnant, have mental breakdowns, etc. Only the spectacularly lazy can go six or seven years at a firm and not find a single more rewarding, somewhat remunerative job somewhere out there, because they’re everywhere.  For instance, The Container Store is now hiring.

What is truly ridiculous about your question is that you seem to think that lateraling out of your firm is a now-or-never bet. As if you stay one day beyond being a third year, no firm will ever take you. As if  you’re a 30-year-old blogger with a $4,000 credit limit who goes to pet lifestyle events. Luckily, you haven’t sunk that low yet. If you grow tired in a year or two – or ten – of making a crap income for slave labor at your cheap firm, you can always lateral if you’re good at your job and/or a rainmaker. There’s no point in lateraling now when you have three skills; wait until you know how to do something other than send around the dial-in. Or at least until you’ve got a higher credit limit.

Your friend,

Marin

HOMER: Wow, Mr. Burns, you’re the richest man in the world! You own everything!/> MR. BURNS: Ah, yes, but I’d give it all away to have just a little bit more.

Look brother, I understand that it can be tough living in this city unless you have money pouring out of your ears. Trust me, I get it. But come on man, you’re talking about throwing away a good, secure job and a pleasant lifestyle for a couple of extra dollars. During a recession? Why would you do that?

I’m not going to tell you that money can’t buy happiness. That’s clearly false; I don’t care how badly Cliff Lee embarrasses me on national television, I’d still trade places with Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez (or their agents) in a second.

So sure, more money might make you happier. Bur chasing money to the exclusion of all else could make you significantly more sad. I’m saying that you might easily find that you are now using your money induced happiness to replace the happiness you used to derive from: coming home at a reasonable hour, working with nice people, feeling like you are something more than a faceless cog in the machine, and having your colleagues treat you with respect. Could banging Minka Kelly make up for that? Almost certainly! But it’s not like trading up for an extra $30K a pop is going to suddenly make you (ahem) rich enough to pull those kinds of perks.

At the end of the day, you’re just going to be the same lawyer who has a little more money in your pocket.

I don’t think it’s worth it dude, but I’m also the guy who left a lot of cash on the table to start down this path. Maybe you should ask somebody who has fully sold out whether or not the extra cash fills the gaping hole where their soul used to be? I’m not exactly friends with him, but I can give you LeBron James’s phone number if you want to talk about this a little more./> – Jane Jacobs

style="text-decoration: underline;">Ed. note: Have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com.

We see you out there — the future musicians of the world, pouring coffee, mixing drinks, designing websites for shifty moving companies, all the while dreaming of making it big: signing to a label, cutting a record, reaping the benefits that only a throng of gaping groupies can herald.

While not all of you will make the proverbial “Big Time” — we can’t all be Lady Gaga, nor should we strive to be — that doesn’t mean that you can’t reap some monetary benefits for your musical labor.

Jeff Price, founder of TuneCore, recently wrote on the company blog: “More musicians are making money off their music now at any point in history… Technology has made it possible for any artist to get distribution, to get discovered, to pursue his/her dreams with no company or person out there making the editorial decision that they are not allowed ‘in.’”

We would tend to agree (with the caveat that such openness has also led to a more crowded music scene, with more bands fighting for the public’s attention — but that’s a post for another day).

If you want to start seeing some payback for all your hard work, you don’t have to wait around for a label exec to catch your jazz flute set at the local coffee shop and catapult you to stardom. There are a ton of services out there that can help you make some cash, while also gaining exposure and experience.

class='blippr-nobr'>Mashableclass="blippr-nobr">Mashable spoke with folks from a quartet of such services in order to help you, the artist, devote more time to your lute than those lattes.

Note that none of the below are get-rich-quick schemes, so it might be wise to hang onto your day job — even if it is designing graphic tees for tiny dogs.

Go Into Show Business

Service: Jingle Punks

We know, we know, the moment a song makes it into the commercial, it’s an immediate sign that a band has “sold out.” But, c’mon, guys — do you really want your favorite drummer/banjo player/keytarist working in a taco trunk in order to survive? Yeah, thin may be in when it comes to the indie scene, but musicians need to eat, after all.

That’s why services like Jingle Punks can really be a boon to bands. Jingle Punks — which is basically the Pandoraclass="blippr-nobr">Pandora of music licensing services — focuses on providing filmmakers, TV networks, media companies and ad companies with music from up-and-coming bands. Band and Punks split the earnings 50/50.

“We work in a very smart but unsexy part of the music business,” says co-founder Jared Gutstadt. “Most artists tend to spend their time focusing on the old standards of how to ‘make it.’ They’re still thinking about record deals, pub deals, merch, touring. To really stand out and compete with this type of competition you need to be thinking about launching a music career in a much more unique way.”

Why Use This Service?

According to Gutstadt, “Music in film and television is a great way for artists to get the word out there. More importantly, you can generate money to help fund the growth of a band’s musical endeavors.”

In addition, the service makes use of the democratic nature of the web to get your music into the right hands. “In the past, the way people used to pitch music for media placements is that they would mail CDs off to as many music supes or producers they could,” Gutstadt says. “We have removed the giant pile of CDs on peoples’ desks and aggregated them into a user-friendly database organized in a dynamic way.”

What’s the ROI?

According to Gutstadt, money made runs the gamut. “It can be anywhere from $250 for a web placement all the way up to $30,000 for getting music in a commercial or motion picture,” he says. “, you make money over time through royalties paid out by BMI and ASCAP, who are able to track usage. I always tell artists its not a get-rich-quick scheme as much as it is a way to make some money over time off your hard work.”  

So Who has Succeeded?

“We work with an artist named Mike Del Rio (see above) and his music was used in a rebranding effort by the History Channel.  The channel has really embraced Mike and Jingle Punks and has a couple things in the pipeline that could do great things to really help launch Mike Del Rio’s career on a more mainstream level.  

“We also work with a really great band called I Love Monsters, and their music was placed in the season premiere of Entourage. This type of exposure can be great for an up-and-coming band.”

Collaborate

Service: Indaba Music

We’ve seen instances of bands forming partnerships through Twitter and the like, but wouldn’t it be easier for y’all to have everything in one place?

I mean, it’s enough of a hassle to get all your gear into a single taxi (can’t afford two) before a gig, why add 50 social media tools into the mix? That’s where services like Indaba Music — which is like the class='blippr-nobr'>LinkedInclass="blippr-nobr">LinkedIn of music — come in.

Indaba is a platform — boasting more than 500,000 musicians — that provides musically inclined folks with a place to build a profile, promote their tunes and collaborate with other musicians from around the world.

Why Use This Service?

According to co-founder Dan Zaccagnino, “There are many ways for musicians to make money using Indaba Music. The core of the platform is about collaboration, which can be just for fun, but can also generate income for musicians through work-for-hire sessions (where a musician is paid for his/her tracks) or collaborations where songwriters share in the ownership of the song.”

In addition, Indaba features a ton of contests that “give both amateur and professional musicians a chance to collaborate with world-famous artists and in the process win cash or possibly participate in future royalties if the winners’ material is released,” Zaccagnino says.

What’s the ROI?

“There are incredible opportunities to gain experience on Indaba because the community is full of everyone from amateurs eager to learn, to music educators, to Grammy Award winners,” Zaccagnino says.

“Members learn from one another through contacting and communicating with people online, having music peer reviewed in sessions and contests, learning from master-artists through our Artist-in-Residence programs, taking online video lessons, and much more.

“Education is a big priority for us and it’s been amazing to see that organically happen because musicians are interested in helping one another.”

So Who has Succeeded?

Zaccagnino cites the following examples:

Linkin Park + NoBrain (see above)

Indaba member NoBrain’s mix was included on Linkin Park’s album A Thousand Suns and got the opportunity to collaborate directly with Linkin Park front man, Mike Shinoda, through Indaba Music.

Rivers Cuomo Producer Sessions

Rivers Cuomo of Weezer started a few sessions on IndabaMusic.com and began working with members to produce rough demos that he had written with his wife.  Rivers used Indaba’s session platform to work collaboratively, utilizing the commenting system to engage musicians and achieve exactly what he envisioned.  The producers were also paid for their work.

David Minnick/PBS The Music Instinct

PBS ran a contest to source music for an upcoming show about music and the brain. It found the winner, David Minnick, to be so talented that it hired him to arrange music for another show.

Toshi Osawa and Pikes Peak Ringers – Yo-Yo Ma Collaboration Winners

Yo-Yo Ma was so impressed by the quality of musical collaborations that he picked two winners, an 18-piece hand bell choir from Denver and a speed-Metal guitarist from Canada. Yo-Yo invited them into the studio to record with him in a truly unique collaboration — both tracks were later released as bonus tracks to Yo-Yo Ma’s holiday album, Songs of Joy & Peace.

Partner Up

Service: YouTube’s Musicians Wanted Program

At last year’s SXSW, YouTubeclass="blippr-nobr">YouTube launched a partner program for up-and-coming musicians, and, just recently, the program went from U.S.-only to international.

If you have a YouTube channel, and you’re pumping out the music vids like an A-V nerd on a sugar high, you should apply for this program post haste. Basically, it allows you to make some extra cash by adding ads to your videos and garners you more exposure from YouTube with prime placement.

Why Use This Service?

It’s all about getting your name out there, and getting your music heard, right? So go where the people are. Every day, YouTube racks up more than 2 billion video views. That’s a lot of eyes. Still, every minute, the site sees 24 hours of video uploaded, which means your genius work could get lost in the shuffle. That’s why the partner program is a must — you get the YouTube stamp of approval, which brings more attention to your work.

What’s the ROI?

YouTube couldn’t tell us how much money you can earn from the program, but they did tell us that artists get the majority share of the revenue — not to mention access to those millions of viewers. You need to be consistent with your channel, though, and really focus on putting out lots of original content. So if you’re only down to make one vid, this might not be the option for you. In order to see ROI, you have to put in the time and effort.

So Who has Succeeded?

YouTube has helped launch the careers of score of performers — from Justin Bieber to Pomplamoose./> Kina Grannis is one such artist. “I joined YouTube three years ago when I was in a contest called Doritos Crash The Super Bowl,” Grannis told us. “I needed to get people to vote for me every day in order to get my music video played during the Super Bowl (which it did, woo!), so the hope was that by agreeing to post a new video every day, people, in exchange, would come back and vote daily. This run of putting up a video every day lasted about two months in total, and while it made me crazy and sleep deprived, it was also fun and exciting and very helpful in growing my viewers.

“Post with consistency if possible,” Grannis advises artists. “Be genuine, talk to your supporters, be grateful.”

If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them

Service: BitTorrent Featured Artist Program

OK, we know what you’re thinking — you hear the word “BitTorrent” and you’re about ready to rage, am I right? File sharing is the monster under the bed for many an artist. It connotes theft, basically. Still, the model — when used correctly — can really be a boon to lesser-known artists.

We spoke to Trent Reznor — who is well-known for having released his music via torrent sites in the past — who told us: “I felt furious when the record I’d worked on for a year, that my heart and soul’s gone into, . I’m pissed off at people that are listening to it. I’m mad that they’re snubbing me — by what? By being excited about hearing my music? And that’s wrong. I shouldn’t be mad at these people. I should be glad that people are interested.”

“Easy for you to say, Trent Reznor,” you might scoff, “You’re already famous.” Well — there’s the rub, right? You’re not famous. And you want to be. Or, at the very least, you want someone other than your roommate to come to your gig — and perhaps buy a T-shirt or two. And how do you do that? By getting the attention of the masses, of course.

Last month, BitTorrent launched a Featured Artist pilot program in an effort to give musicians more exposure. Some likened such an endeavor to getting in bed with the devil, but when you really think about it, what’s the difference between applying for the program and putting your music on class='blippr-nobr'>MySpaceclass="blippr-nobr">MySpace or SoundCloud or any other music-sharing site? Well, that would be BitTorrent’s 80 million users.

We’re not saying that file sharing is totally copacetic or anything (there are a lot of pirates in them waters), but it’s not like BitTorrent is out to ruin your career, either. “In many ways, Trent Reznor’s work inspired a lot of our work,” says CEO Eric Klinker. “We really do want to riff on a lot of what he’s done. He’s in an experimentation phase, as are we.”

Why Use This Service?

“The Featured Artists pilot program encourages musicians and filmmakers to submit creative works for the chance to be spotlighted to millions of BitTorrent users around the world,” Klinker says. “For a lot of artists it is about creating a sustainable business model that will allow them to continue their creative works. So, we are interested in working with artists to experiment with various business models that play to the strengths of the class='blippr-nobr'>Internetclass="blippr-nobr">Internet while allowing them to tune into the distribution potential of BitTorrent to reach millions of consumers.”

What’s the ROI?

“In today’s digital age, the traditional model does not serve artists in the same way it used to, and instead forces them all down the same funnel where only a select few ultimately receive distribution,” Klinker says. “With BitTorrent’s Featured Artist Pilot Program, artists can tap into online communities and reach millions of people who might otherwise be inaccessible. These communities are powerful and provide intrinsic value for emerging artists trying to build a fan base. In doing so, these are fans that will invariably attend shows, purchase merchandise and become invested in future works.”/>  /> So Who has Succeeded?

Since the service just launched last month, there aren’t any featured artists yet, but the site has seen some success with the musician PAZ (see above), who has been working with BitTorrent.

“Most recently, in August 2010, BitTorrent released PAZ’s debut mix tape, Young Broke and Fameless,” Klinker says. “On the first day alone the release saw over 100,000 downloads, and as a result has increased his fan base and following.”

More Social Music Resources from Mashable:

- Top 10 Twitter Tips for Bands, By Bands/> - 5 Great Ways to Find Music That Suits Your Mood/> - 5 Free Ways to Identify that Song Stuck in Your Head/> - HOW TO: Turn Your Android Phone Into a Killer MP3 Player/> - 10 Amazing Musical Instrument iPhone Apps

Image courtesy of iStockphotoclass="blippr-nobr">iStockphoto, shulz

For more Entertainment coverage:

class="f-el">class="cov-twit">Follow Mashable Entertainmentclass="s-el">class="cov-rss">Subscribe to the Entertainment channelclass="f-el">class="cov-fb">Become a Fan on Facebookclass="s-el">class="cov-apple">Download our free apps for iPhone and iPad

bench craft company complaints

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo Wii <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our Wii news of Greenpeace dumps on Nintendo.

Exclusive: Yahoo Courts Former <b>News</b> Corp. Digital Exec Ross <b>...</b>

He's baaaaaack. Former Fox Interactive Media President Ross Levinsohn, that is, who is the top candidate to replace Hilary Schneider as Yahoo's US head, according to several sources close to the situation.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Making Money on the Internet

Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'

from the debunker's-forum dept

I've been meaning to start to put together a series of posts that debunk the common "criticisms" we get that are all too often based on logical fallacies. I end up spending way too much time in the comments responding to people posting those same logical fallacies over and over again, and it would be nice to be able to point to posts that "answer" the complaints quickly. I'm still not sure if I'll ever really get around to it, but sometimes someone else does such a nice job of it, that I might as well highlight it with a post here.



In this case, it's the commonly claimed fallacy that all these new business models don't really matter because of two things: (1) so much money is still going to the "big players," and (2) there are only a "few" examples of these models working, so they're outliers.



One example of this kind of thinking was seen in the comments to our recent post about the developer of the game Minecraft making $100,000 per day, without any distribution or retail deals or really any outside help. Yet, one of our commenters said this was nothing, because Halo made $200 million on its first day. Of course, that's a pure apples to oranges comparison. Halo is from Microsoft, and involves a giant team, a huge budget, massive advertising and distribution deals. I would guess that if you compared the two in terms of profitability per developer, Minecraft would win by a wide, wide margin.



Anyway, it's a meaningless comparison. Setting an artificial level as determining what counts as a "success" makes no sense. What we're interested in when we're looking at new business models and new strategies is how these compare to how a similar person would have done without those models. Without the internet and the ability to distribute Minecraft the way Markus Persson is doing so, he wouldn't be making anywhere near $100,000 per day. More likely is that he'd be working for a much larger gaming company, one piece in a cog, and bringing in something closer to $100,000 for the year, and not working on projects nearly as interesting.



Another example of this occurred earlier this year, when a Billboard reporter, Anthony Bruno, attacked the concept of "CwF+RtB" by arguing that I've only "cherry picked" the success stories, and many who have tried it failed to become successful. But, that makes no sense. No one guaranteed that using a smart business model automatically makes your band a huge success. What we said is that if you do it right, it's likely you'd be more successful than otherwise -- but that still might involve only a minor improvement if under the old system you wouldn't be successful at all. And if the CwF+RtB concept doesn't matter because some artists who have used it haven't become big stars, then wouldn't that mean that the "traditional" model of big record label/sell CDs has always been a dreadful failure since so few artists become successful that way? After all, pointing to the success of Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or the Beatles under the old model, is certainly pointing to the cherry-picked "exceptions."



Andrew Dubber points us to a fantastic blog post by Rich Huxley, of the band Hope & Social, who ran into this sort of "criticism" after writing a blog post (similar to many we've written) reminding everyone that the big record labels are not the "music industry." In the comments, a guy named Tim London challenged that by claiming that since the big record labels still take in a ton of money (in aggregate), and many of these new business models appear to be artists making much smaller amounts, the record labels still are the industry. One sentence from his comment should give you the general summary:

I know you're wrong because the music industry as represented by the majors is still coining it and the music industry as rep'd by you is getting by, struggling, working part time or making music as a hobby.

There's that apples and oranges comparison again. Thankfully, Huxley decided to write an entire (brilliant) blog post debunking the idea that the total amount of money some record labels make is indicative of the overall value of a particular model. First, he goes through some basics to show how many musicians there are out there, and points out that money made isn't always an indicator of quality ("That Van Gogh was a penniless artists does not diminish the greatness of his work.")



But then comes the real point, explained eloquently. The critics like this highlight the huge earners in the existing industry, but ignore that the overwhelming majority of the folks who try to go the old route end up making $0. They mock the person embracing new business models for "only" making a decent living, ignoring the fact that so many who went the way they prefer were drummed out of the industry making no living at all. Here's the way Huxley explains it:

Less than 10% of signed artists recoup. Take Maximo Park for example. They have by their own admission never made a penny from record sales and make their money from DJ sets in the main. An example I have first hand knowledge of, Embrace, have sold millions of albums, they were a genuinely massive band; they performed from Glastonbury main-stage to Top Of The Pops and everywhere in-between. When they split from Virgin, they owed their label three quarters of a million pounds. I guess my point is that if we promote the Trad Music Biz's model as "The model" then the message we'd be sending is:

• less than one percent of musical artists are part of the music business


• only a tenth of those will recoup and make money from their record sales, and that's good


• an artist should be saddled with debt, the rate at which they pay that back is equivalent to a credit card with a 900% interest rate

Basically, the problem is that those who cherry pick just the biggest artists ignore all the ones who made nothing at all from a record label deal, thanks to the fun of RIAA accounting. In other words, those artists are the true "exceptions." They're the ones who got the winning lottery ticket, but you can't ignore all those who got nothing. If you were to put all of the musicians who went the "traditional" route into a set, and all of the musicians going the "new" route into a set, and took the median, I'd guarantee that it would be higher in the new set. And that's the point. Embracing the new ways makes it much more likely that you'll make some money. It improves your chance of being able to make money making music. And that seems like a good thing, right?



As a part of that, of course, is that all of the costs have gone down with the new ways of doing things. The reason why people needed the old gatekeepers to fund stuff in the past was because there were no cheaper options. The only way to actually get this stuff done was to go through them. But these days, everything is cheaper. As Huxley notes with his band:

Hope and Social believe in and benefit from Pay What You Want. We go on about this here, but also... As musicians, we all have the ability to take advantage of the same channels that H&S have:

• dramatically reduced costs of recording



• a zero cost of distribution (should we choose to make mp3s available on the internet then there's no cost to us. This is miles away from the Trad model where the cost of recording and manufacture made it nigh on impossible to record and release independently)


• reduced cost of promotion (CD's don't need to be sent to reviewers, press etc at the cost of a quid per CD, and half again on postage)


• and by building relationships with people, they become our PRs, our evangelists (to coin another religious term, man I've got to stop doing that)

Also, there is a value in making your music available for free. If someone downloads an album of ours and shares it with a friend, copies the CD, plays it at a party, then that's how we share and have our music heard by more people. This results in:

• higher gig attendances


• better paid shows


• more sales of our music


• more sales on other merchandise and art that we, and our fans make.

Finally, I'll make one final debunking point that Huxley didn't cover: London seems to have confused absolute revenue with the change in revenue (delta). If you look at those embracing new models, it may be smaller (now), but it's growing quite quickly. If you look at the big record labels, they're declining in size. Which trend is a better bet? It's really a version of the Innovator's Dilemma where the new growth trend is ignored because it's not "as big" as the legacy business. Ignoring the deltas is dangerous.



And there we go. If you're claiming these new model success stories are the "exception," then it's only fair to admit that those who succeed under the traditional models you claim are so good were actually much bigger "exceptions." Can we now consider this argument debunked, and just link back to this post any time people bring up an argument like this?

276 Comments | Leave a Comment..

I’m sure you’ve heard about the Juan Williams/NPR debacle. You may also know that Senator Jim DeMint has vowed to introduce legislation that will deprive NPR, as well as public television, of taxpayer funds. It seems that in this political climate, asking a candidate where they stand on funding public broadcasting or the arts has become the new litmus test, replacing questions about abortion and gay rights.

In other words, it’s Christmas everyday for Libertarians.

There seem to be three consistent arguments in favor of tax dollars being spent on public broadcasting and government subsidies for “art,” First, the defenders question the amount of money actually on the table. After all, these programs are but a teeny-tiny piece of our ever expanding government. Secondly, dispensing taxpayer cash on media is “in the public interest.” In the unholy pursuit of “profits,” private broadcasters and artists often compromise their work to make money. Private news organizations like FOX and MSNBC sensationalize the news and have become hyper-partisan in order to increase ratings and advertising dollars. We need outlets that are free from the restraints of the free market. And, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which in this case is a giant yellow bird. “Sesame Street.”

What kind of Islamophobic, racist, evil, baby-blood-drinking fascist wants to send Elmo to the unemployment line?

The first argument is simply ridiculous. We’ve all had to, at one point or another, examine our household budgets and look for spending cuts. We write down a list of our expenses, organizing them in order of both cost and importance. At the top is stuff like rent/mortgages, utilities, car payments etc. Towards the bottom is the fun stuff like vacations, extra cable channels, and faster internet. Everybody always starts at the bottom. Nobody starts at the top. “Hey, let’s ditch the house and keep our annual trip to the Wisconsin Dells?”  My girlfriend always likes to try and sneak cigarettes and scotch into the non-essential category. Nice try. I always push for more mac and cheese in order to keep my subsidies of R.J. Reynolds and Pernod Ricard intact. But I digress.

The money we spend on arts and media at the federal level is never too small to ignore. I think most taxpayers would trade a free movie ticket once a year for all the Bill Moyers specials, Nina Totenberg insight, and jars of pee and crucifixes that our federal government can buy. Public broadcasting and the arts are but two of a myriad of programs with similar “insignificant” funding. You start nuking all of them and before you know it, that free ticket to AMC becomes a down payment on a car. It is the height of arrogance to imply that waste and questionable costs at any level are acceptable or insignificant. To make this argument reveals that the person making it has a grotesque understanding of the relationship between government and tax payer.

The second argument is disingenuous, but not for the reasons that you may think. There is a real and tangible value to news and media that is free from a personal or corporate bias. A news organization or television network whose motto was a Jack Webb quote would actually serve the public. Unfortunately, the CPB has failed their mission.

And what about the educational and quality entertainment like “Sesame Street”? Surely, even a miserly old curmudgeon like me can see the value in allowing quality programming to be financed without the tinkering of executives or the pressure of ratings? The answer is, without a doubt, yes. Unfortunately for you, my statist apologist advisories, all of the shows that have come from public broadcasting that are a “value to the public” have also demonstrated financial solvency in the free market. “Sesame Street” is worth more than a Dr. Evil ransom. “Austin City Limits” makes money from the live performance venues (charging admission) and from selling recordings on sites like itunes in addition to generating revenue from ads on websites like youtube.

The point is that it is up to the producers of these shows to protect the integrity of their work. There is great value in alternative financing structures, through sponsorships, donations, and merchandising. That is without question.

“Sesame Street” makes enough money through merchandising to PURCHASE air time from private networks. No need for Elmo and Co. to sell out the quality or educational value of their show. The ancillary incomes from the “Sesame Street” empire would allow the producers to make the show any way they wanted. If they stuck to their principles, it wouldn’t matter if they were on PBS or ABC Family. However, the recent Katy Perry “incident” suggests to me that even with public financing the current people behind the show may be slipping a bit. I’ve included the Katy Perry video below, purely for informational purposes. I’ve watched it 72 times to accurately shape my opinion.

—–

The free market value of shows that used to be PBS type stuff is rather apparent. The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic channel exclusively air programming that was once solid PBS territory. As a kid growing up, I used to watch “Dr. Who” on PBS. You know, the same show that you now watch on BBC America, Syfy, or on demand on Netflix. And it’s TLC, not PBS, that has greenlit a series that showcases the wonders of Alaska as seen through the eyes of a popular American figure.

This whole debate and kurfuffle exposes a much larger truth. The bone of contention isn’t so much whether or not this type of funding, in it’s stated form, has value to our society. The problem is the human factor. On paper, we can say that these public institutions are above the fray of the free market and bias, but they aren’t. The mission of an NPR is a noble one. It is the execution that is flawed. The CPB gives us government versions of MSNBC and Air America that don’t have to worry about crappy ratings. Our tax dollars immunize partisans and people of questionable on-air talent from the grim realties of cancellation.

But isn’t that the way it always is? We are constantly lectured about the value of “public” institutions and programs vs. the evil private industries that provide the same services. But, at their root, when you introduce the human element, these “public” entities function in exactly the same way as their private counterparts, minus the checks and balances of the free market. Where are, as Milton Friedman once asked Phil Donahue, these “angels” who will manage these public programs for us?

—–

Where are they indeed, Milton.

Shouldn’t ideologues be willing to take the hit personally? Shouldn’t any organization that relies, in any part, on forcibly confiscated citizen funds be held to incredibly high standards? If someone is going to ask for all of us to pitch in, shouldn’t they lead the way, donating their blood, sweat and tears to what they believe in? It is rather egregious that NPR personalities and executives have competitive, and in some cases superior, compensation to their private industry counterparts. If you don’t like the money, can’t afford to do it, then, in the words of Chris Christie, don’t do it. On top of that, the people who work in these public sectors must themselves be above the fray, putting their own bias and ideology on the back burner to serve the greater good.

For Public Broadcasting or arts financing to have any hope of working and actually living up to their oft defended and declared mission statements, radical changes are needed. Nobody should plan on becoming rich and famous from a career in public broadcasting. Volunteer, balanced advisory boards must be created to ensure that public funds do actually serve the public, and not a small minority of small minded leftists. I’m sure Leigh Scott, John Nolte, Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart would volunteer some time to review PBS programming schedules and NEA submissions.

But nobody’s asking us. The notion of a “public interest” is undermined by the very people who champion it.  It shouldn’t be up to me, a capitalist slime ball who makes movies featuring mutants and flying monsters to be obsessed with the integrity and bias of the CPB, NEH, or NEA. It should be the obsession of the people who have dedicated their lives to these organizations and their mission statements.

But it isn’t.  So, these public programs have become the extra cable channels and Disneyland trips of the federal budget. Time to tighten our belts.  Sorry, but they gotta go.

RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

Er, great <b>news</b>: George Lucas may be planning new “Star Wars <b>...</b>

My instinct is to shudder; most of you, I suspect, will react the same way. And let's pause here to appreciate how amazing that is. So reviled are the prequels that news of new entries in the greatest sci-fi franchise in movie history ...

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

bench craft company complaints
bench craft company complaints

RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

Er, great <b>news</b>: George Lucas may be planning new “Star Wars <b>...</b>

My instinct is to shudder; most of you, I suspect, will react the same way. And let's pause here to appreciate how amazing that is. So reviled are the prequels that news of new entries in the greatest sci-fi franchise in movie history ...

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'

from the debunker's-forum dept

I've been meaning to start to put together a series of posts that debunk the common "criticisms" we get that are all too often based on logical fallacies. I end up spending way too much time in the comments responding to people posting those same logical fallacies over and over again, and it would be nice to be able to point to posts that "answer" the complaints quickly. I'm still not sure if I'll ever really get around to it, but sometimes someone else does such a nice job of it, that I might as well highlight it with a post here.



In this case, it's the commonly claimed fallacy that all these new business models don't really matter because of two things: (1) so much money is still going to the "big players," and (2) there are only a "few" examples of these models working, so they're outliers.



One example of this kind of thinking was seen in the comments to our recent post about the developer of the game Minecraft making $100,000 per day, without any distribution or retail deals or really any outside help. Yet, one of our commenters said this was nothing, because Halo made $200 million on its first day. Of course, that's a pure apples to oranges comparison. Halo is from Microsoft, and involves a giant team, a huge budget, massive advertising and distribution deals. I would guess that if you compared the two in terms of profitability per developer, Minecraft would win by a wide, wide margin.



Anyway, it's a meaningless comparison. Setting an artificial level as determining what counts as a "success" makes no sense. What we're interested in when we're looking at new business models and new strategies is how these compare to how a similar person would have done without those models. Without the internet and the ability to distribute Minecraft the way Markus Persson is doing so, he wouldn't be making anywhere near $100,000 per day. More likely is that he'd be working for a much larger gaming company, one piece in a cog, and bringing in something closer to $100,000 for the year, and not working on projects nearly as interesting.



Another example of this occurred earlier this year, when a Billboard reporter, Anthony Bruno, attacked the concept of "CwF+RtB" by arguing that I've only "cherry picked" the success stories, and many who have tried it failed to become successful. But, that makes no sense. No one guaranteed that using a smart business model automatically makes your band a huge success. What we said is that if you do it right, it's likely you'd be more successful than otherwise -- but that still might involve only a minor improvement if under the old system you wouldn't be successful at all. And if the CwF+RtB concept doesn't matter because some artists who have used it haven't become big stars, then wouldn't that mean that the "traditional" model of big record label/sell CDs has always been a dreadful failure since so few artists become successful that way? After all, pointing to the success of Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or the Beatles under the old model, is certainly pointing to the cherry-picked "exceptions."



Andrew Dubber points us to a fantastic blog post by Rich Huxley, of the band Hope & Social, who ran into this sort of "criticism" after writing a blog post (similar to many we've written) reminding everyone that the big record labels are not the "music industry." In the comments, a guy named Tim London challenged that by claiming that since the big record labels still take in a ton of money (in aggregate), and many of these new business models appear to be artists making much smaller amounts, the record labels still are the industry. One sentence from his comment should give you the general summary:

I know you're wrong because the music industry as represented by the majors is still coining it and the music industry as rep'd by you is getting by, struggling, working part time or making music as a hobby.

There's that apples and oranges comparison again. Thankfully, Huxley decided to write an entire (brilliant) blog post debunking the idea that the total amount of money some record labels make is indicative of the overall value of a particular model. First, he goes through some basics to show how many musicians there are out there, and points out that money made isn't always an indicator of quality ("That Van Gogh was a penniless artists does not diminish the greatness of his work.")



But then comes the real point, explained eloquently. The critics like this highlight the huge earners in the existing industry, but ignore that the overwhelming majority of the folks who try to go the old route end up making $0. They mock the person embracing new business models for "only" making a decent living, ignoring the fact that so many who went the way they prefer were drummed out of the industry making no living at all. Here's the way Huxley explains it:

Less than 10% of signed artists recoup. Take Maximo Park for example. They have by their own admission never made a penny from record sales and make their money from DJ sets in the main. An example I have first hand knowledge of, Embrace, have sold millions of albums, they were a genuinely massive band; they performed from Glastonbury main-stage to Top Of The Pops and everywhere in-between. When they split from Virgin, they owed their label three quarters of a million pounds. I guess my point is that if we promote the Trad Music Biz's model as "The model" then the message we'd be sending is:

• less than one percent of musical artists are part of the music business


• only a tenth of those will recoup and make money from their record sales, and that's good


• an artist should be saddled with debt, the rate at which they pay that back is equivalent to a credit card with a 900% interest rate

Basically, the problem is that those who cherry pick just the biggest artists ignore all the ones who made nothing at all from a record label deal, thanks to the fun of RIAA accounting. In other words, those artists are the true "exceptions." They're the ones who got the winning lottery ticket, but you can't ignore all those who got nothing. If you were to put all of the musicians who went the "traditional" route into a set, and all of the musicians going the "new" route into a set, and took the median, I'd guarantee that it would be higher in the new set. And that's the point. Embracing the new ways makes it much more likely that you'll make some money. It improves your chance of being able to make money making music. And that seems like a good thing, right?



As a part of that, of course, is that all of the costs have gone down with the new ways of doing things. The reason why people needed the old gatekeepers to fund stuff in the past was because there were no cheaper options. The only way to actually get this stuff done was to go through them. But these days, everything is cheaper. As Huxley notes with his band:

Hope and Social believe in and benefit from Pay What You Want. We go on about this here, but also... As musicians, we all have the ability to take advantage of the same channels that H&S have:

• dramatically reduced costs of recording



• a zero cost of distribution (should we choose to make mp3s available on the internet then there's no cost to us. This is miles away from the Trad model where the cost of recording and manufacture made it nigh on impossible to record and release independently)


• reduced cost of promotion (CD's don't need to be sent to reviewers, press etc at the cost of a quid per CD, and half again on postage)


• and by building relationships with people, they become our PRs, our evangelists (to coin another religious term, man I've got to stop doing that)

Also, there is a value in making your music available for free. If someone downloads an album of ours and shares it with a friend, copies the CD, plays it at a party, then that's how we share and have our music heard by more people. This results in:

• higher gig attendances


• better paid shows


• more sales of our music


• more sales on other merchandise and art that we, and our fans make.

Finally, I'll make one final debunking point that Huxley didn't cover: London seems to have confused absolute revenue with the change in revenue (delta). If you look at those embracing new models, it may be smaller (now), but it's growing quite quickly. If you look at the big record labels, they're declining in size. Which trend is a better bet? It's really a version of the Innovator's Dilemma where the new growth trend is ignored because it's not "as big" as the legacy business. Ignoring the deltas is dangerous.



And there we go. If you're claiming these new model success stories are the "exception," then it's only fair to admit that those who succeed under the traditional models you claim are so good were actually much bigger "exceptions." Can we now consider this argument debunked, and just link back to this post any time people bring up an argument like this?

276 Comments | Leave a Comment..

I’m sure you’ve heard about the Juan Williams/NPR debacle. You may also know that Senator Jim DeMint has vowed to introduce legislation that will deprive NPR, as well as public television, of taxpayer funds. It seems that in this political climate, asking a candidate where they stand on funding public broadcasting or the arts has become the new litmus test, replacing questions about abortion and gay rights.

In other words, it’s Christmas everyday for Libertarians.

There seem to be three consistent arguments in favor of tax dollars being spent on public broadcasting and government subsidies for “art,” First, the defenders question the amount of money actually on the table. After all, these programs are but a teeny-tiny piece of our ever expanding government. Secondly, dispensing taxpayer cash on media is “in the public interest.” In the unholy pursuit of “profits,” private broadcasters and artists often compromise their work to make money. Private news organizations like FOX and MSNBC sensationalize the news and have become hyper-partisan in order to increase ratings and advertising dollars. We need outlets that are free from the restraints of the free market. And, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which in this case is a giant yellow bird. “Sesame Street.”

What kind of Islamophobic, racist, evil, baby-blood-drinking fascist wants to send Elmo to the unemployment line?

The first argument is simply ridiculous. We’ve all had to, at one point or another, examine our household budgets and look for spending cuts. We write down a list of our expenses, organizing them in order of both cost and importance. At the top is stuff like rent/mortgages, utilities, car payments etc. Towards the bottom is the fun stuff like vacations, extra cable channels, and faster internet. Everybody always starts at the bottom. Nobody starts at the top. “Hey, let’s ditch the house and keep our annual trip to the Wisconsin Dells?”  My girlfriend always likes to try and sneak cigarettes and scotch into the non-essential category. Nice try. I always push for more mac and cheese in order to keep my subsidies of R.J. Reynolds and Pernod Ricard intact. But I digress.

The money we spend on arts and media at the federal level is never too small to ignore. I think most taxpayers would trade a free movie ticket once a year for all the Bill Moyers specials, Nina Totenberg insight, and jars of pee and crucifixes that our federal government can buy. Public broadcasting and the arts are but two of a myriad of programs with similar “insignificant” funding. You start nuking all of them and before you know it, that free ticket to AMC becomes a down payment on a car. It is the height of arrogance to imply that waste and questionable costs at any level are acceptable or insignificant. To make this argument reveals that the person making it has a grotesque understanding of the relationship between government and tax payer.

The second argument is disingenuous, but not for the reasons that you may think. There is a real and tangible value to news and media that is free from a personal or corporate bias. A news organization or television network whose motto was a Jack Webb quote would actually serve the public. Unfortunately, the CPB has failed their mission.

And what about the educational and quality entertainment like “Sesame Street”? Surely, even a miserly old curmudgeon like me can see the value in allowing quality programming to be financed without the tinkering of executives or the pressure of ratings? The answer is, without a doubt, yes. Unfortunately for you, my statist apologist advisories, all of the shows that have come from public broadcasting that are a “value to the public” have also demonstrated financial solvency in the free market. “Sesame Street” is worth more than a Dr. Evil ransom. “Austin City Limits” makes money from the live performance venues (charging admission) and from selling recordings on sites like itunes in addition to generating revenue from ads on websites like youtube.

The point is that it is up to the producers of these shows to protect the integrity of their work. There is great value in alternative financing structures, through sponsorships, donations, and merchandising. That is without question.

“Sesame Street” makes enough money through merchandising to PURCHASE air time from private networks. No need for Elmo and Co. to sell out the quality or educational value of their show. The ancillary incomes from the “Sesame Street” empire would allow the producers to make the show any way they wanted. If they stuck to their principles, it wouldn’t matter if they were on PBS or ABC Family. However, the recent Katy Perry “incident” suggests to me that even with public financing the current people behind the show may be slipping a bit. I’ve included the Katy Perry video below, purely for informational purposes. I’ve watched it 72 times to accurately shape my opinion.

—–

The free market value of shows that used to be PBS type stuff is rather apparent. The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic channel exclusively air programming that was once solid PBS territory. As a kid growing up, I used to watch “Dr. Who” on PBS. You know, the same show that you now watch on BBC America, Syfy, or on demand on Netflix. And it’s TLC, not PBS, that has greenlit a series that showcases the wonders of Alaska as seen through the eyes of a popular American figure.

This whole debate and kurfuffle exposes a much larger truth. The bone of contention isn’t so much whether or not this type of funding, in it’s stated form, has value to our society. The problem is the human factor. On paper, we can say that these public institutions are above the fray of the free market and bias, but they aren’t. The mission of an NPR is a noble one. It is the execution that is flawed. The CPB gives us government versions of MSNBC and Air America that don’t have to worry about crappy ratings. Our tax dollars immunize partisans and people of questionable on-air talent from the grim realties of cancellation.

But isn’t that the way it always is? We are constantly lectured about the value of “public” institutions and programs vs. the evil private industries that provide the same services. But, at their root, when you introduce the human element, these “public” entities function in exactly the same way as their private counterparts, minus the checks and balances of the free market. Where are, as Milton Friedman once asked Phil Donahue, these “angels” who will manage these public programs for us?

—–

Where are they indeed, Milton.

Shouldn’t ideologues be willing to take the hit personally? Shouldn’t any organization that relies, in any part, on forcibly confiscated citizen funds be held to incredibly high standards? If someone is going to ask for all of us to pitch in, shouldn’t they lead the way, donating their blood, sweat and tears to what they believe in? It is rather egregious that NPR personalities and executives have competitive, and in some cases superior, compensation to their private industry counterparts. If you don’t like the money, can’t afford to do it, then, in the words of Chris Christie, don’t do it. On top of that, the people who work in these public sectors must themselves be above the fray, putting their own bias and ideology on the back burner to serve the greater good.

For Public Broadcasting or arts financing to have any hope of working and actually living up to their oft defended and declared mission statements, radical changes are needed. Nobody should plan on becoming rich and famous from a career in public broadcasting. Volunteer, balanced advisory boards must be created to ensure that public funds do actually serve the public, and not a small minority of small minded leftists. I’m sure Leigh Scott, John Nolte, Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart would volunteer some time to review PBS programming schedules and NEA submissions.

But nobody’s asking us. The notion of a “public interest” is undermined by the very people who champion it.  It shouldn’t be up to me, a capitalist slime ball who makes movies featuring mutants and flying monsters to be obsessed with the integrity and bias of the CPB, NEH, or NEA. It should be the obsession of the people who have dedicated their lives to these organizations and their mission statements.

But it isn’t.  So, these public programs have become the extra cable channels and Disneyland trips of the federal budget. Time to tighten our belts.  Sorry, but they gotta go.

bench craft company complaints

RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

Er, great <b>news</b>: George Lucas may be planning new “Star Wars <b>...</b>

My instinct is to shudder; most of you, I suspect, will react the same way. And let's pause here to appreciate how amazing that is. So reviled are the prequels that news of new entries in the greatest sci-fi franchise in movie history ...

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

Er, great <b>news</b>: George Lucas may be planning new “Star Wars <b>...</b>

My instinct is to shudder; most of you, I suspect, will react the same way. And let's pause here to appreciate how amazing that is. So reviled are the prequels that news of new entries in the greatest sci-fi franchise in movie history ...

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

RDR standalone DLC disc dated <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Read our news of RDR standalone DLC disc dated. ... Red Dead Redemption Review . Latest Videos. RDR: Undead Nightmare trailer 1 October, 2010. RDR: Legends & Killers DLC 6 August, 2010. Latest News ...

Er, great <b>news</b>: George Lucas may be planning new “Star Wars <b>...</b>

My instinct is to shudder; most of you, I suspect, will react the same way. And let's pause here to appreciate how amazing that is. So reviled are the prequels that news of new entries in the greatest sci-fi franchise in movie history ...

Google donates $5 million for <b>news</b> innovation to Knight Foundation <b>...</b>

Google and news organizations have had a rocky time of it. To overdramatize the situation only slightly: Google insists that it cares about journalism as a.

bench craft company complaints bench craft company complaints

People Making Money Online

Dr. Rado Kotorov is chief innovation officer at Information Builders, and is responsible for emerging reporting, analytic and visualization technologies. He has developed analytic models and applications for the pharmaceutical, retail, CPG, financial and automotive industries.

You’ve likely been experiencing a deluge of online information coming at you in recent years — an overwhelming number of status updates, e-mails, tagged images and so forth. You’ve probably also seen, and potentially been alarmed by, the growing accuracy of targeted advertisements — “People You May Know,” and other “offers” online.

As the quantity of irrelevant information has exploded online, so too has the market for the delivery of targeted offers and information. Social networks, in theory and in practice, expose many people to contact and influence. Without precise models, people will continue to be bombarded with ineffective offers and other irrelevant information. Predictive analytics, a branch of data mining concerned with predicting future probabilities and trends, applies a filter to users’ online interactions with the aim of delivering more value from a sea of irrelevance.

With increased value comes the potential for social networks to make money as well. Here’s a look at some specific ways in which predictive analytics will make social networks money.

Recruiting

Many recruiting sites out there on the web, from LinkedIn to SelectMinds to Monster, promise to be able to match candidates with job requirements in unique and increasingly accurate ways. Predictive analytics is at the core of their business model, as it automates the process of making these matches.

When a recruiter posts a job description, a predictive algorithm runs through candidates and calculates compatibility. The technology is, in many cases, embedded in search applications. The most accurate and efficient of these analytics will deliver the most value and see the greatest adoption over time. Those recruiting and talent acquisition sites that allow businesses to leverage the existing social networks of their current and former employees are the best positioned to monetize their users’ employment data in new ways. Businesses can get value from these existing networks without the time and resource commitment it takes to build their own.

Sentiment Analysis

As sites like Twitter and Facebook gain value to the business world, many companies have cropped up to analyze and establish what the sentiment is of the collective online intelligence and also to identify individuals with influence and authority. Companies including Klout, ViralHeat and Radian6 all scan blogs and other social media channels with predictive models to determine if the content surrounding a brand or person is negative, positive or neutral. As this information becomes increasingly valuable to businesses of all sizes, these sentiment analysis companies are expected to grow rapidly.

Market Fluctuation

Social media channels are open to everyone. Day traders, retail investors and analysts are cruising around on Twitter and Facebook. What these types of people say and do online is not insignificant in an era when [Flash Crashes and Fat Fingers] are being closely scrutinized and regulated. New models are cropping up to predict stock fluctuations based on Twitter posts. Similar to sentiment analysis, these companies are able to look at the total number of tweets, as well as positive and negative comments to predict whether a stock price will go up or down. These types of companies will become a hot commodity as investors begin to rely on the wisdom of crowds.

Recommendation Engines

No one likes to be bombarded with irrelevant offers and content while using their favorite social network. But the more active you are online, the more effectively predictive analytics can work to deliver targeted and relevant offers.

Sometimes it feels like Facebook knows you better than you know yourself. RSVPed “Yes” to that big gala? You may see a discount offer for Saks. [Are you a woman between the ages of 18 and 34? A Facebook ad may tell you how you can lose those extra inches around your waist.] These offers are no longer random and are therefore increasingly effective. Leveraging the existing data from your previous activity to predict what will happen in the future is becoming, rightly, more prevalent and valuable to social networks that can sell this promise to businesses and intermediaries.

Location-Based Marketing

Do you walk down the same street at dinner time every day? Wish restaurants on that street would compete in real-time for your business?

As social networks add in more location-aware features like Facebook Places and whole new businesses are built on the promise of geo-location including SCVNGR and ShopKick, predictive analytics deliver insights into where groups and individuals will be and when, not to mention what their interests may be. For businesses, there is big money to be spent on location-based advertising in the coming years. As a result, social networks can run their existing location data through predictive models to provide companies with future insights into where to allocate their marketing and advertising budgets for the biggest returns.

More Business Resources from Mashable:

- How Companies Can Use Sentiment Analysis to Improve Their Business/> - HOW TO: Earn Some Inexpensive Online Exposure for Your Small Business/> - HOW TO: Accept Credit Card Payments on Mobile Devices/> - 6 Tips on Starting a Digital Business from the Founder of Pandora/> - 5 Big Social Media Questions from Small Business Owners

Images courtesy of iStockphoto, Nikada, AUDINDesign

For more Business coverage:

class="f-el">class="cov-twit">Follow Mashable Businessclass="s-el">class="cov-rss">Subscribe to the Business channelclass="f-el">class="cov-fb">Become a Fan on Facebookclass="s-el">class="cov-apple">Download our free apps for iPhone and iPad

“The long-simmering feud between Democrats and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has erupted into a full-scale war…

“‘Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations,’ Obama said at a Thursday rally for Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. ‘So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comes from.’

“R. Bruce Josten, the chamber’s executive vice president for government affairs, said in an interview Friday that the group ‘has never and will never’ use dues collected from overseas business councils, known as ‘AmChams,’ for U.S. political activities. He said the chamber is the victim of ‘a smear campaign’ orchestrated with the involvement of the White House.

“‘This is an outlandish act of desperation from people who are not able to run on their record,’ Josten said. ‘They have stooped to smear campaigns.’”

***

“But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents…

“Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.

“In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service…

“Richard L. Hasen, an election-law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said there were legitimate questions about whether foreign money could be making its way into campaigns, particularly because many groups are not required to disclose their donors. But he added, ‘I’ve seen no proof of the chamber funneling a penny of foreign money into U.S. elections.’”

***

“Obama’s ‘foreign money’ claims are bogus. They’re also pretty rich, considering how his 2008 campaign handled foreign credit cards. From that National Journal story: ‘The lack of a computerized address-verification system would allow the Obama campaign’s computers to accept online donations from U.S. citizens above legal limits, and to accept donations from foreigners who are barred by law from contributing at all.’ Perhaps its time to remind people of that issue again. Oh, wait, I just did!”

***

Fox <b>News</b> Gives Juan Williams $2 Million Contract | 89.3 KPCC

NPR has been sharply criticized for terminating the contract of news analyst Juan Williams for remarks he made about Muslims. Williams appeared on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" Thursday night to respond to NPR's decision.

autosport.com - F1 <b>News</b>: Tweaks to be made to Korean track

Korean Grand Prix organisers are making minor modifications to the new Formula 1 track on Friday night following complaints from drivers about potential trouble spots on the new Yeongam circuit.

BillBoard - Blogs - The Buffalo <b>News</b>

The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.

eric seiger eric seiger

Dr. Rado Kotorov is chief innovation officer at Information Builders, and is responsible for emerging reporting, analytic and visualization technologies. He has developed analytic models and applications for the pharmaceutical, retail, CPG, financial and automotive industries.

You’ve likely been experiencing a deluge of online information coming at you in recent years — an overwhelming number of status updates, e-mails, tagged images and so forth. You’ve probably also seen, and potentially been alarmed by, the growing accuracy of targeted advertisements — “People You May Know,” and other “offers” online.

As the quantity of irrelevant information has exploded online, so too has the market for the delivery of targeted offers and information. Social networks, in theory and in practice, expose many people to contact and influence. Without precise models, people will continue to be bombarded with ineffective offers and other irrelevant information. Predictive analytics, a branch of data mining concerned with predicting future probabilities and trends, applies a filter to users’ online interactions with the aim of delivering more value from a sea of irrelevance.

With increased value comes the potential for social networks to make money as well. Here’s a look at some specific ways in which predictive analytics will make social networks money.

Recruiting

Many recruiting sites out there on the web, from LinkedIn to SelectMinds to Monster, promise to be able to match candidates with job requirements in unique and increasingly accurate ways. Predictive analytics is at the core of their business model, as it automates the process of making these matches.

When a recruiter posts a job description, a predictive algorithm runs through candidates and calculates compatibility. The technology is, in many cases, embedded in search applications. The most accurate and efficient of these analytics will deliver the most value and see the greatest adoption over time. Those recruiting and talent acquisition sites that allow businesses to leverage the existing social networks of their current and former employees are the best positioned to monetize their users’ employment data in new ways. Businesses can get value from these existing networks without the time and resource commitment it takes to build their own.

Sentiment Analysis

As sites like Twitter and Facebook gain value to the business world, many companies have cropped up to analyze and establish what the sentiment is of the collective online intelligence and also to identify individuals with influence and authority. Companies including Klout, ViralHeat and Radian6 all scan blogs and other social media channels with predictive models to determine if the content surrounding a brand or person is negative, positive or neutral. As this information becomes increasingly valuable to businesses of all sizes, these sentiment analysis companies are expected to grow rapidly.

Market Fluctuation

Social media channels are open to everyone. Day traders, retail investors and analysts are cruising around on Twitter and Facebook. What these types of people say and do online is not insignificant in an era when [Flash Crashes and Fat Fingers] are being closely scrutinized and regulated. New models are cropping up to predict stock fluctuations based on Twitter posts. Similar to sentiment analysis, these companies are able to look at the total number of tweets, as well as positive and negative comments to predict whether a stock price will go up or down. These types of companies will become a hot commodity as investors begin to rely on the wisdom of crowds.

Recommendation Engines

No one likes to be bombarded with irrelevant offers and content while using their favorite social network. But the more active you are online, the more effectively predictive analytics can work to deliver targeted and relevant offers.

Sometimes it feels like Facebook knows you better than you know yourself. RSVPed “Yes” to that big gala? You may see a discount offer for Saks. [Are you a woman between the ages of 18 and 34? A Facebook ad may tell you how you can lose those extra inches around your waist.] These offers are no longer random and are therefore increasingly effective. Leveraging the existing data from your previous activity to predict what will happen in the future is becoming, rightly, more prevalent and valuable to social networks that can sell this promise to businesses and intermediaries.

Location-Based Marketing

Do you walk down the same street at dinner time every day? Wish restaurants on that street would compete in real-time for your business?

As social networks add in more location-aware features like Facebook Places and whole new businesses are built on the promise of geo-location including SCVNGR and ShopKick, predictive analytics deliver insights into where groups and individuals will be and when, not to mention what their interests may be. For businesses, there is big money to be spent on location-based advertising in the coming years. As a result, social networks can run their existing location data through predictive models to provide companies with future insights into where to allocate their marketing and advertising budgets for the biggest returns.

More Business Resources from Mashable:

- How Companies Can Use Sentiment Analysis to Improve Their Business/> - HOW TO: Earn Some Inexpensive Online Exposure for Your Small Business/> - HOW TO: Accept Credit Card Payments on Mobile Devices/> - 6 Tips on Starting a Digital Business from the Founder of Pandora/> - 5 Big Social Media Questions from Small Business Owners

Images courtesy of iStockphoto, Nikada, AUDINDesign

For more Business coverage:

class="f-el">class="cov-twit">Follow Mashable Businessclass="s-el">class="cov-rss">Subscribe to the Business channelclass="f-el">class="cov-fb">Become a Fan on Facebookclass="s-el">class="cov-apple">Download our free apps for iPhone and iPad

“The long-simmering feud between Democrats and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has erupted into a full-scale war…

“‘Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations,’ Obama said at a Thursday rally for Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. ‘So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comes from.’

“R. Bruce Josten, the chamber’s executive vice president for government affairs, said in an interview Friday that the group ‘has never and will never’ use dues collected from overseas business councils, known as ‘AmChams,’ for U.S. political activities. He said the chamber is the victim of ‘a smear campaign’ orchestrated with the involvement of the White House.

“‘This is an outlandish act of desperation from people who are not able to run on their record,’ Josten said. ‘They have stooped to smear campaigns.’”

***

“But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents…

“Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.

“In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service…

“Richard L. Hasen, an election-law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said there were legitimate questions about whether foreign money could be making its way into campaigns, particularly because many groups are not required to disclose their donors. But he added, ‘I’ve seen no proof of the chamber funneling a penny of foreign money into U.S. elections.’”

***

“Obama’s ‘foreign money’ claims are bogus. They’re also pretty rich, considering how his 2008 campaign handled foreign credit cards. From that National Journal story: ‘The lack of a computerized address-verification system would allow the Obama campaign’s computers to accept online donations from U.S. citizens above legal limits, and to accept donations from foreigners who are barred by law from contributing at all.’ Perhaps its time to remind people of that issue again. Oh, wait, I just did!”

***

Fox <b>News</b> Gives Juan Williams $2 Million Contract | 89.3 KPCC

NPR has been sharply criticized for terminating the contract of news analyst Juan Williams for remarks he made about Muslims. Williams appeared on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" Thursday night to respond to NPR's decision.

autosport.com - F1 <b>News</b>: Tweaks to be made to Korean track

Korean Grand Prix organisers are making minor modifications to the new Formula 1 track on Friday night following complaints from drivers about potential trouble spots on the new Yeongam circuit.

BillBoard - Blogs - The Buffalo <b>News</b>

The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.

eric seiger eric seiger