Fox News Dumps Sarah Palin

Fox News Dumps Sarah Palin, Upgrades to a Furby with a Wig on It

 Lindy West

Well, Sarah Palin's three-year contract as a contributor at Fox News is finally up, and, strangely enough, they've decided not to re-up. Palin is out. I honestly have no idea why—is it their stringent adherence to journalistic ethics? Their disdain for self-aggrandizing liars? Their reluctance to heap airtime upon lunatic anti-gay bigots? LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOOOLOLLLOLOLL. No. It certainly cannot be any of those things. So, I guess, they just didn't like that jerk.

The onetime Republican vice-presidential candidate will not be returning to the cable network as a contributor, a role she first landed in January 2010 after stepping down as governor of Alaska.

"We have thoroughly enjoyed our association with Governor Palin," Bill Shine, an executive vice president at Fox, said in a statement Friday. "We wish her the best in her future endeavors."

Her contract had ended this month and her last appearance on the network was in mid-December.

Palin, 48, received mixed reviews as a pundit, mainly along partisan lines, but she continues to be lightning rod for conversation no matter what she does. For instance, she's spent months in the Hollywood spotlight in absentia thanks to the success of the HBO movie Game Change.

When reached for comment, Poo-chai, the beige Furby who will be taking over Palin's slot, was guarded and humble in his remarks: "Dah a-loh nah bah," he said, "Dah doo-ay. Dah lee-koo koo-wah! Hey boo loo-loo. A-loh doo? Dah noh-lah. Doo-moh may-lah kah!" Doo-moh may-lah kah indeed, Poo-chai. Doo-moh may-lah kah indeed

StarMedia Television

Harry Styles Dumped Taylor Swift Because She’s an Asexual Antiques Enthusiast

By Anna Breslaw

A probably fake, albeit hilarious new report has emerged that Harry Styles dumped Taylor Swift because she's "asexual" and "constantly talked about antiques." A rather Regina George-y sounding friend of Taylor's says that America's Unicorn Sweetheart doesn't realize that she's constantly being dumped because she's a "prude" who "doesn't put out."

"While it was clear she obviously had a thing for Harry, Taylor didn't want to put out as often as he would've liked. Harry is a young boy, with ladies throwing themselves at him and has had a string of relationships with older women. It's no secret he's sexually active and is enjoying his fame at the moment. But Taylor just wasn't up for it as much as he is. They were sexually incompatible."

I love your bracelet, where did you get it?!

The source adds that a clean and wholesome reputation is very important to Taylor, and Harry found her "a little sexually uninterested" for his taste: "Harry wants to go out to fancy bars and clubs and enjoy being young – but Taylor's more of a homebody and all she would talk about was antiques!"

Dude, hang out on the futon, watch a marathon of Antiques Roadshow and once those circa-1780 German silvered repousse candlesticks really get her going, make your move. Problem solved. [Radar Online]

How record labels are learning to make money from YouTube

Rather than getting unauthorised versions of videos taken down, labels are monetising them through YouTube's ad partnerships

By  Heliene Lindvall

Shortly before Christmas the Gangnam Style official video broke a YouTube record by clocking up a billion views. How much Psy will pocket for these views depends, of course, on what his record deal stipulates, but the Guardian can now at least reveal what some of the biggest independent labels make. Recently Martin Mills, founder and chairman of the Beggars Group (home to artists such as Adele, Jack White and The xx), told me that last year 22% of the label group's digital revenues came from streaming – and that the majority of its artists earn more now from track streams than track downloads.


Though it's not required to do so, Beggars Group currently pays artists 50% of streaming revenue, as Mills "thinks it's the right thing to do in this nascent stage of the market". This is not, by any means, an industry standard. Robbie Williams's co-manager Tim Clark says that not many labels pay that much: "I believe some record companies are paying some artists that rate – Universal among them."


Mills says the highest unit revenue for streaming comes from Spotify – a significant multiple of what Beggars makes from YouTube, though the number of streams on the latter is greater.


Anyone who has ever tried to get unauthorised versions and videos of their music off YouTube knows that filing takedown notices is like playing Whac-a-Mole, as new versions pop up almost immediately. But now, with YouTube's ad partnerships, record labels are discovering a better solution: monetising them.


Martin Goldschmidt, founder and managing director of Cooking Vinyl – whose roster includes the Prodigy, the Enemy and Ron Sexsmith – says the record label can make an average of $5,000 per million views, under certain circumstances. The highest rate being paid is for non-skippable pre-roll ads, but even that rate varies and can be higher, depending on how badly the advertiser wants its ads to be used. Conversely, not all YouTube streams are monetised, as it depends on where the viewer is based. YouTube exists in 120 countries, but is only monetised in 26 of them. Often this is due to local songwriters' collection societies being dissatisfied with the much lower rate they're offered.


Some indie labels say about 30% of YouTube ad revenue goes to it and owner Google (though the site told the Dead Kennedys that it takes 45%) and 40% goes to the owner of the recording (usually the record label). The label gets another 20% of the ad revenue if it can claim ownership of the video, that is it's an "official video" and not a video of someone dancing to the track. And last – and least – the songwriters/publishers get to share the remaining 10% between them.


The 10% figure may seem puzzling to many songwriters. As I have written previously their royalty statements are telling a different story, with a million views resulting in around $40 in royalties.


Not so the record labels. "Our revenue is growing month on month at a fantastic rate," says Richard Leach, digital distribution manager for Cooking Vinyl. "It's unhelpful to get hung up on per-stream rates, and it's better to focus on the aggregate figure, which is really healthy."


The number of views on YouTube for the label's acts doubled between February and November 2012. Meanwhile its YouTube revenue more than doubled. "It's because we've learned how to exploit those views better," Leach explains.


Ads in different territories also pay different rates, and deciding what type of ads go on which video is often decided on a case-by-case basis – and can shift after the video has been posted for a while. Putting a non-skippable pre-roll ad on a video can result in fewer views, but in certain cases that may be worth it, says Leach.


There are also third-party ad sales teams, including Vevo, that specialise in certain areas, such as music, sports or lifestyle. These teams know the demographics better than Google Ads, which has a massive inventory, and so is able to sell at a higher rate. Vevo has no user generated content (UGC), so has a better understanding of the type and quality of that content, enabling it to be more specific about what it is offering to advertisers. With Vevo there is no bargaining to be had, as it charges a flat rate per video.


"We're anticipating YouTube becoming our most important revenue stream in the future," Leach concludes.


Now, if the opacity of how the songwriters' share of ad revenue is calculated – and the issue of how the numbers currently don't seem to add up – can be resolved we may even see ad partnerships rolled out and videos monetised in the 94 countries where YouTube is accessible but unlicensed.


This resolution may come sooner rather than later. The next Plugged In will take a look at how some songwriters and self-releasing artists have figured out a way of making money from UGC – and not only from their own videos.


• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

In TV Land, the dinosaurs still rule the world

By Derek Thompson

In TV Land, the dinosaurs still rule the world

How the TV Business Got Rich Off the Thing That Was Going to the Kill It: The Internet
Reuters

Surely, you've heard the news: The cable business is broken, the end of TV is nigh, and it's only a matter of time before the Internet does to television what it's done to music and newspapers -- obliterate the old business models and leave something shiny and new in their place.

Maybe. Some day. For now, the dinosaurs still rule the world.

As David Carr explained today in the New York Times, the two industries that make up what most people think of as the TV business -- content companies (who own the shows and the channels) and cable companies (who own the infrastructure that transports the shows and channels to your TV box) -- had a smashing year in 2012. Many of them outperformed the newer and nimbler companies, such as Apple, Netflix, and Google, that are supposedly destined to displace them. They owe much of their success to the very thing that was supposed to kill them -- the Internet.

First, the numbers. The TV business had a spectacular year. Cable's heavy hitters crushed the S&P 500 average in 2012: Comcast led the pack, up 57 percent, followed Time Warner Cable (up 53 percent), and Charter (up 34 percent). Among the big media companies, News Corp, CBS, and Disney, and Time Warner all finished up over 30 percent. (Those four conglomerates account for just about all of the television I watch, since they respectively own Fox, CBS, Showtime, ABC, ESPN, and TNT.)

What's going on? The Internet was supposed to make these companies poor. Instead, the Internet is making them rich.

"We heard stories about how cable was doomed by the Internet as early as 2003," says Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. "It has finally dawned on investors that, not only was that never a realistic concern, but also, the Internet has turned out to be a boon for both distributors and content companies."

To understand why the Internet hasn't destroyed cable, ask yourself: Where do you get your Internet? It's probably from the same people selling you TV. Since 2005, total cable industry revenue is up 50% -- and two-thirds of that increase came from selling something that wasn't television. For the most part, it was Internet. Cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable sell broadband at ridiculously high margins. When you compare the total cost and profit of selling TV versus selling Internet, it's clear to Moffett that pay TV "has represented less than half of [cable's] business for more than a year."


While cable has made Internet a second business, content companies have treated the Internet as a second window. Even as they demand more money from cable operators for the right to carry their channels to households, media companies have also made a killing selling their shows to companies like Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and Apple. One paradox of online entertainment is that more Reach isn't necessarily more Revenue. Today we have access to more music and news that ever, but since we're only paying for access, the difference between listening to 10 songs and 10,000 songs (or reading 10 articles versus 10,000 articles) is often zero. But the TV industry is getting more reach and more revenue, together.

This would be a good time for me to say that just because traditional media has fended off disruptive innovation in January 2013 doesn't mean there won't be a different story to write in January 2014. Programming costs, especially for live sports, are just insane. Attention is slowly but surely flitting away from prime-time TV and some large cable networks. Cable's high-margin Internet business could get it in trouble with regulators if somebody makes the case that private companies shouldn't have that much pricing power over a basic utility like broadband.

There are many ways that government, audiences, and technology cut down the mega-goliath that is the modern TV business. But for now, Les Moonves, CEO of CBS and a mega-goliath in his own right, is correct: Everything that was supposed to be bad for the TV business has turned out to be good for the TV business.


This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/how-the-tv-business-got-rich-off-the-thing-that-was-going-to-the-kill-it-the-internet/266890/
Copyright © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.

Black Music in Memphis