.jpg)
Posts
By: Insanul Ahmed (Vibe Magazine; Oct./Nov. 2010; pg. 34)
Not every celeb can score loaded endorsement deals, but several are getting paid in full peddling products on Twitter. VIBE cornered Sean Rad, founder and president of Ad.ly---a leading Twitter advertising platform---for details on how our favorite stars get tipped to tweet.
Vibe (V): Celebs like Kim Kardashian have been plugging Carl's Jr. chicken salads and Reebok too eagerly on Twitter. Is your company to blame?
Sean Rad (SR): What people see as tweets, we view as fantastic content that's not being compensated. We bring advertisers into the mix and make money for influential people sending messages to their audience from a brand they believe in or associate with. We have over 60,000 influencers signed up (including Kim K., Trey Songz and Soulja Boy). A lot of times our influencers say they'd like to (promote) a certain brand, and we'll go about getting an ad.
V: Can a regular Joe be an influencer?
SR: Anyone with influence (can be considered). We have algorithms that factor in a lot of things: followers, their engagement with those followers, how often they tweet, etc.
V: Lindsay Lohan reportedly makes $10,000 per tweet. Just how much are celebs caking?
SR: We can't (disclose) prices. It ranges from $1 to five figures.
V: Can they tweet as many ads a they want to boost their earnings?
SR: There isn't a limit, but we pace it out. The price (per tweet) will decrease if you place too many ads and don't maintain a good quality stream.
V: Sounds like an easy gig, yet many stars deny their involvement.
SR: We've never experienced that. Every ad is clearly disclosed as an ad. The influencer approves every message to make sure it's in line with their audience. But there are instances where (stars) might be promoting other things they don't want to admit.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Big K.R.I.T.
By: John Kennedy (Vibe; Oct./Nov.; pg. 52)
What We Say: Justin "Big K.R.I.T." Smith was certain he'd found the formula for mainstream staying power: jingly hooks, catchy beats and all-crunk everything. In search of financial freedom, the 24-year-old Mississippian chased after a No. 1 single. But when he only saw modest traction by emulating hip-hop's status quo, K.R.I.T. (an acronym for "King Remembered in Time") questioned his dumb-it-down strategy. Feeling like he'd sacrificed much of his lyrical substance, he abandoned empty radio fodder and in May dropped the confessional 'K.R.I.T. Wuz Here', a self-produced mixtape focused on social ills, relationship woes and occasional collar-popping. The equation lined up, and the soul-sample-driven project scored him Cinematic Music Group/Def Jam paperwork. Adding grander instrumentation to his vibrant memoirs, K.R.I.T.'s still-untitled debut is the perfect blueprint---his own.
What he says: "It took me five years to really figure out my sound and get comfortable rapping about my life. In the beginning stages, you're trying to get the best club song possible, and there's nothing wrong with that. But when you focus so much energy on one avenue of music, it can hurt your creative mind frame. Seeing how Andre 3000 and Cee-Lo Green creatively did what they thought was jamming and people embraced it, I was like, Damn, that's what I wanna do. It can't just be trendy. I gotta talk about real concepts and stuff that means the world to me in order to make it timeless."
What We Say: Justin "Big K.R.I.T." Smith was certain he'd found the formula for mainstream staying power: jingly hooks, catchy beats and all-crunk everything. In search of financial freedom, the 24-year-old Mississippian chased after a No. 1 single. But when he only saw modest traction by emulating hip-hop's status quo, K.R.I.T. (an acronym for "King Remembered in Time") questioned his dumb-it-down strategy. Feeling like he'd sacrificed much of his lyrical substance, he abandoned empty radio fodder and in May dropped the confessional 'K.R.I.T. Wuz Here', a self-produced mixtape focused on social ills, relationship woes and occasional collar-popping. The equation lined up, and the soul-sample-driven project scored him Cinematic Music Group/Def Jam paperwork. Adding grander instrumentation to his vibrant memoirs, K.R.I.T.'s still-untitled debut is the perfect blueprint---his own.
What he says: "It took me five years to really figure out my sound and get comfortable rapping about my life. In the beginning stages, you're trying to get the best club song possible, and there's nothing wrong with that. But when you focus so much energy on one avenue of music, it can hurt your creative mind frame. Seeing how Andre 3000 and Cee-Lo Green creatively did what they thought was jamming and people embraced it, I was like, Damn, that's what I wanna do. It can't just be trendy. I gotta talk about real concepts and stuff that means the world to me in order to make it timeless."
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
What are our Artists saying today?
*Rollingout "Theories & Suspicions" Section
Vol. 11, #22 (May 27,2010)
Gil Scott-Heron wrote the celebrated, militant poem "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." The title, which has become a popular mantra, means that thinking is paramount and, unfortunately, not a common practice. Featured on his 1971 album, "Pieces of Man," the lyrical poem describes how media transformed into a medium that keeps individuals, especially African-Americans, from thinking. Although Scott-Heron's piece focused on television, his concept also applies to radio.
As a child growing up in Memphis, TN, music was one of the most socially responsible mediums for communication, political and social activism. This was even applicable to R&B music. Although it was one of the most expressive vehicles for transferring the amorous feelings of love; during the Civil Rights era, the music was used to give voice to important social commentary reflective of the needs of the African-American community. In fact, most popular artists consistently used their music for this purpose, producing some of the greatest love songs known to this genre. Whether it was Aretha Franklin's "Respect," which spoke of equality for black women, Marvin Gaye's protest of the Vietnam War in "What's Going On," or James Brown's "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud," music tended to reflect the needs of the community and collective more than the selfish avarice of the individual.
Today, there are few such artists with a focus and dedication that would allow them to sing for the betterment of the African-American community. Instead of Marvin Gaye, James Brown and Sam Cooke, there are The Dream, Pleasure P, Chris Brown & Trey Songz. These individuals - albeit talented -lack substance and often sing about the same topics.
Looking at Trey Songz, it appears that most of his songs are about sex as suggested by the clear messages in the songs: "Sex for Yo Stereo," "No Clothes On," "Make Love Tonight," "Just Wanna Cut," "Neighbors Know My Name," & "I Invented Sex." One would imagine that a conscientious and responsible adult would be able to sing about subjects beyond sex, and I am certain that he could if he tried, however, his focus may be elswhere. Perhaps he doesn't know the history of the music that's representative of the community from which it originates.
Throughout history, we African-Americans have used music as a tool to tackle prejudice and racism. It appears that this practice is no longer perceived as vital and may even be considered by some to be unappealing or unimportant. The question is, will music ever continue the legacy of Marvin Gayes' "Make Me Wanna Holler" or Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gonna Come?" I cannot answer that, for it seems that most current artists in hip-hop and R&B are more interested in being carbon copies, content with "out ignorating" each other.
It is obvious that the revolution will not be on the radio either ...
Vol. 11, #22 (May 27,2010)
Gil Scott-Heron wrote the celebrated, militant poem "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." The title, which has become a popular mantra, means that thinking is paramount and, unfortunately, not a common practice. Featured on his 1971 album, "Pieces of Man," the lyrical poem describes how media transformed into a medium that keeps individuals, especially African-Americans, from thinking. Although Scott-Heron's piece focused on television, his concept also applies to radio.
As a child growing up in Memphis, TN, music was one of the most socially responsible mediums for communication, political and social activism. This was even applicable to R&B music. Although it was one of the most expressive vehicles for transferring the amorous feelings of love; during the Civil Rights era, the music was used to give voice to important social commentary reflective of the needs of the African-American community. In fact, most popular artists consistently used their music for this purpose, producing some of the greatest love songs known to this genre. Whether it was Aretha Franklin's "Respect," which spoke of equality for black women, Marvin Gaye's protest of the Vietnam War in "What's Going On," or James Brown's "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud," music tended to reflect the needs of the community and collective more than the selfish avarice of the individual.
Today, there are few such artists with a focus and dedication that would allow them to sing for the betterment of the African-American community. Instead of Marvin Gaye, James Brown and Sam Cooke, there are The Dream, Pleasure P, Chris Brown & Trey Songz. These individuals - albeit talented -lack substance and often sing about the same topics.
Looking at Trey Songz, it appears that most of his songs are about sex as suggested by the clear messages in the songs: "Sex for Yo Stereo," "No Clothes On," "Make Love Tonight," "Just Wanna Cut," "Neighbors Know My Name," & "I Invented Sex." One would imagine that a conscientious and responsible adult would be able to sing about subjects beyond sex, and I am certain that he could if he tried, however, his focus may be elswhere. Perhaps he doesn't know the history of the music that's representative of the community from which it originates.
Throughout history, we African-Americans have used music as a tool to tackle prejudice and racism. It appears that this practice is no longer perceived as vital and may even be considered by some to be unappealing or unimportant. The question is, will music ever continue the legacy of Marvin Gayes' "Make Me Wanna Holler" or Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gonna Come?" I cannot answer that, for it seems that most current artists in hip-hop and R&B are more interested in being carbon copies, content with "out ignorating" each other.
It is obvious that the revolution will not be on the radio either ...
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
How People use "Nielsen Data" to hurt musicians.
January 21, 2010
How people use Nielsen to hurt musicians.
Written by: Jeff Core
I read an article today at Digital Music News about comments by Tommy Silverman - founder of Tommy Boy and the New Music Seminar.
With all due respect, his information is wrong. But worse, the conclusions he reaches from this faulty information could be damaging to artists.
Some highlights include statements like:
Silverman counted 105,575 new album releases that year, and found that just 225 of those were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time. Of that, just 14 were do-it-yourself artists, unaffiliated with a major, indie, or other entity."
and
"What does this say about the Chris Anderson 'Long Tail' promise?" Silverman blogged in Musician Coaching. "Clearly the ease of making and distributing music does not benefit 'breaking' music. Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both. I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true."
I wrote a response to the editor of the blog where the article appeared, I do not know if he will post it, but I feel so strongly about making certain word gets out, I am re-posting my response to Tommy's statements here
------------
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing you in response to Tommy's information and posting - the good news, he is dead wrong. The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutly helped more great artists and bands rise to the top.
The Nielsen data cited is not only incomplete, but also provides a false analysis.
Let me provide you some hard stats to back this up:
According to Nielsen and Tommy there were:
"...106,000 new (music) releases in 2008"
In 2008, TuneCore released approximately 90,000 newly recorded releases
This means, according to Nielsen and Tommy, almost every single new music release in 2008 was distributed via TuneCore.
I know this simply not to be true - the base assumption that Tommy is making is as dead wrong as his other statistics.
Another example, Tommy states:
" just 225 of those (the new releases) were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time. "
This is an empirically false statement for a few reasons.
First, in order for Nielsen to accurately track sales, the UPCs for those albums must be pre-registered in their database. If the UPC is not registered in its database, Nielsen can not match the sales data to an album (or song). For example, if a digital store tells Nielsen it sold 100 copies of UPC # 123456789, and Nielsen has no idea what UPC # 123456789 is, it can not report the sales.
Next, the majority of the 90,000 releases via TuneCore in 2009 were not registered with Soundscan therefore making it impossible for them to track or report on the sales.
But these two points are actually kind of moot. Music is no longer bought by the album, it is bought by the song across an artist's catalog. Tracking album sales as the sole indicator to determine if something is "breaking" is analogous to tracking only vinyl album sales to determine if something is "breaking"
Some examples:
When they were unsigned, the following TuneCore artists sold the following quantities of songs across their releases:
Kelly sold over 2,000,000 million tracks
William Fitzsimmons sold over 150,000 tracks
Soulja Boy sold over 200,000 tracks
Boyce Avenue sold over 1,200,000 tracks
Ron Pope sold over 250,000 tracks
Colt Ford sold over 300,000 tracks
Secondhand Serenade sold over 250,000 tracks
Tapes N Tapes sold over 200,000 tracks
Nevershoutnever sold over 1,000,000 tracks
Drake sold over 300,000 tracks
MGMT sold over 225,000 tracks
The Medic Droid sold over 150,00 tracks
Nickasaur sold over 150,000 tracks
Harry and the Potters sold over 200,000 tracks
This is just a very quick partial list that goes on and on and on
Under Tommy's model, none of these artist sales count as they are not "album" sales.
With all due respect, Tommy might discount selling over 1,000,000 songs by an "unsigned" artist as not "breaking", but I do.
On a macro level, in 2009 alone, the internet allowed the "long tail" unsigned artists that used TuneCore to generate over $32,000,000 in music sales by selling over 42,000,000 songs - this is more than one song a second selling by a TuneCore Artist on iTunes. This "long tail" catalog that TuneCore's Artists represent is now one of the most valuable music catalogs in the world. And this all happened due to the net, social networking and access to the media outlets (like YouTube).
"Breaking" is not just about selling albums or even just the music - it is about generating revenue off of fame. This is done via merch, gig, publishing, music sales, ad revenue and more. Nevershoutnever sold over 35,000 t-shirts in a number of months via a regional sales program with Hot Topic. Surely Tommy does not mean to discount these sales and revenue simply because the artist is selling merch? How about if the band sold no music but consistently sold out 1,000 venue clubs and made $15,000 a night? Why does Tommy discredit bands for their success if they are not selling "albums"?
Another distributing and incorrect point suggested by Tommy is that music sales are down due to the fact that there is more music available to buy, share and discover.
As a matter of fact, its quite the opposite
In the late 90's - also known as the "golden age" of market share and revenue for the music industry - more music was being released and bought than ever before (as an example, Warner was releasing one new release a day). Despite this increase of releases, sales (not just revenue) went up, not down.
Or from a pure logic perspective, if iTunes had 2,000,000 less songs, would an artist that is not selling now as no one likes their music magically start selling. Or to flip it around, I would suggest more music on the virtual shelf causes more music to sell as it allows the music buyer to discover music via the digital stores own recommendation association engines.
Tommy's goes on to state:
"Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both."
This statement is also dead wrong - and he knows it based on is own experiences at Tommy Boy.
Historically, in the music industry, 98% of what the record labels distributed, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on to market and promote and get played on commercial radio and MTV did not "break". If "breaking" simply "required mass exposure", there would have been a 98% success rate, not failure rate. But music is not a math equation, and therein lies the problem with Tommy's statement. Yes, to break you need exposure, but that by no means guarantees success. The music has to cause reaction. For example, if "Smells Like Teen Spirit' was not a song that people liked, it would not have mattered how much money was spent on getting you to hear it.
And that's the excitement and beauty of the internet. The masses now have direct access to the media and "music discovery" social networking outlets. - i.e. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Pandora, Jango and more. These new social networking and media vehicles allow mass communication in an instantaneous fashion at a click of button. Suddenly one person's opinion does matter and can can impact a bottom line. Even the digital stores themselves provide a vehicle to market and promote yourself off off (i.e. iTunes iMixes or recommendations of other music to buy). Through these vehicles the internet has delivered the ability for anyone to "break", and they actually are. The masses now have access to the media outlets to get heard. The problem is the old school view that "breaking" is simply defined by selling albums. This could not be farther from the truth.
Tommy also goes onto say:
"I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true."
It might be a bold statement by Tommy to help get headlines, but it's also false (and kind of silly). The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutely helped more great artists and bands rise to the top.
The distressing part for me about this is based on Tommy's statements, if an artists' release is not counted by Nielsen than it is not actually released. If music does not sell as an album then it has not sold. In effect, he is de-legitimizing artists.
With all due respect, I believe an artist's release should "count" even if not recognized by Nielsen as this de-recognition closes off possible opportunities based on the perception that a release is not "real"
I also find it distressing that the media, and other outlets, turn to Nielsen as the definitive source to determine what is occurring in this industry thereby decreasing the opportunities for musicians and artists that are not part of this old school system.
The reality is the majority of music is now being created, released and sold outside of the traditional system. Ad agencies, music supervisors, video game manufacturers, radio programmers etc turn to Nielsen for information to discover music in an attempt to use/license it. They need to understand that the Nielsen information is an incomplete and an inaccurate portrayal of reality. This inaccurate perception is holding back opportunity and validation for others. Tommy needs to stop propagating this false perception as it hurts artists.
It's important that an accurate picture of what is occurring be presented to fans and businesses to provide additional choice and opportunity for musicians. They work hard enough as it is, the last thing we need to do is propagate a false reality to hurt them. Tommy's heart is in the right place, we are here to help musicians, but let's start with a more accurate description as opposed to a "bold" but false statement that helps promote an agenda.
Posted by JeffCore at 08:28 PM in Jeff's Postings | Permalink
How people use Nielsen to hurt musicians.
Written by: Jeff Core
I read an article today at Digital Music News about comments by Tommy Silverman - founder of Tommy Boy and the New Music Seminar.
With all due respect, his information is wrong. But worse, the conclusions he reaches from this faulty information could be damaging to artists.
Some highlights include statements like:
Silverman counted 105,575 new album releases that year, and found that just 225 of those were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time. Of that, just 14 were do-it-yourself artists, unaffiliated with a major, indie, or other entity."
and
"What does this say about the Chris Anderson 'Long Tail' promise?" Silverman blogged in Musician Coaching. "Clearly the ease of making and distributing music does not benefit 'breaking' music. Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both. I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true."
I wrote a response to the editor of the blog where the article appeared, I do not know if he will post it, but I feel so strongly about making certain word gets out, I am re-posting my response to Tommy's statements here
------------
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing you in response to Tommy's information and posting - the good news, he is dead wrong. The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutly helped more great artists and bands rise to the top.
The Nielsen data cited is not only incomplete, but also provides a false analysis.
Let me provide you some hard stats to back this up:
According to Nielsen and Tommy there were:
"...106,000 new (music) releases in 2008"
In 2008, TuneCore released approximately 90,000 newly recorded releases
This means, according to Nielsen and Tommy, almost every single new music release in 2008 was distributed via TuneCore.
I know this simply not to be true - the base assumption that Tommy is making is as dead wrong as his other statistics.
Another example, Tommy states:
" just 225 of those (the new releases) were new artists surpassing the 10,000 unit threshold for the first time. "
This is an empirically false statement for a few reasons.
First, in order for Nielsen to accurately track sales, the UPCs for those albums must be pre-registered in their database. If the UPC is not registered in its database, Nielsen can not match the sales data to an album (or song). For example, if a digital store tells Nielsen it sold 100 copies of UPC # 123456789, and Nielsen has no idea what UPC # 123456789 is, it can not report the sales.
Next, the majority of the 90,000 releases via TuneCore in 2009 were not registered with Soundscan therefore making it impossible for them to track or report on the sales.
But these two points are actually kind of moot. Music is no longer bought by the album, it is bought by the song across an artist's catalog. Tracking album sales as the sole indicator to determine if something is "breaking" is analogous to tracking only vinyl album sales to determine if something is "breaking"
Some examples:
When they were unsigned, the following TuneCore artists sold the following quantities of songs across their releases:
Kelly sold over 2,000,000 million tracks
William Fitzsimmons sold over 150,000 tracks
Soulja Boy sold over 200,000 tracks
Boyce Avenue sold over 1,200,000 tracks
Ron Pope sold over 250,000 tracks
Colt Ford sold over 300,000 tracks
Secondhand Serenade sold over 250,000 tracks
Tapes N Tapes sold over 200,000 tracks
Nevershoutnever sold over 1,000,000 tracks
Drake sold over 300,000 tracks
MGMT sold over 225,000 tracks
The Medic Droid sold over 150,00 tracks
Nickasaur sold over 150,000 tracks
Harry and the Potters sold over 200,000 tracks
This is just a very quick partial list that goes on and on and on
Under Tommy's model, none of these artist sales count as they are not "album" sales.
With all due respect, Tommy might discount selling over 1,000,000 songs by an "unsigned" artist as not "breaking", but I do.
On a macro level, in 2009 alone, the internet allowed the "long tail" unsigned artists that used TuneCore to generate over $32,000,000 in music sales by selling over 42,000,000 songs - this is more than one song a second selling by a TuneCore Artist on iTunes. This "long tail" catalog that TuneCore's Artists represent is now one of the most valuable music catalogs in the world. And this all happened due to the net, social networking and access to the media outlets (like YouTube).
"Breaking" is not just about selling albums or even just the music - it is about generating revenue off of fame. This is done via merch, gig, publishing, music sales, ad revenue and more. Nevershoutnever sold over 35,000 t-shirts in a number of months via a regional sales program with Hot Topic. Surely Tommy does not mean to discount these sales and revenue simply because the artist is selling merch? How about if the band sold no music but consistently sold out 1,000 venue clubs and made $15,000 a night? Why does Tommy discredit bands for their success if they are not selling "albums"?
Another distributing and incorrect point suggested by Tommy is that music sales are down due to the fact that there is more music available to buy, share and discover.
As a matter of fact, its quite the opposite
In the late 90's - also known as the "golden age" of market share and revenue for the music industry - more music was being released and bought than ever before (as an example, Warner was releasing one new release a day). Despite this increase of releases, sales (not just revenue) went up, not down.
Or from a pure logic perspective, if iTunes had 2,000,000 less songs, would an artist that is not selling now as no one likes their music magically start selling. Or to flip it around, I would suggest more music on the virtual shelf causes more music to sell as it allows the music buyer to discover music via the digital stores own recommendation association engines.
Tommy's goes on to state:
"Breaking music requires mass exposure which requires luck or money or both."
This statement is also dead wrong - and he knows it based on is own experiences at Tommy Boy.
Historically, in the music industry, 98% of what the record labels distributed, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on to market and promote and get played on commercial radio and MTV did not "break". If "breaking" simply "required mass exposure", there would have been a 98% success rate, not failure rate. But music is not a math equation, and therein lies the problem with Tommy's statement. Yes, to break you need exposure, but that by no means guarantees success. The music has to cause reaction. For example, if "Smells Like Teen Spirit' was not a song that people liked, it would not have mattered how much money was spent on getting you to hear it.
And that's the excitement and beauty of the internet. The masses now have direct access to the media and "music discovery" social networking outlets. - i.e. YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Pandora, Jango and more. These new social networking and media vehicles allow mass communication in an instantaneous fashion at a click of button. Suddenly one person's opinion does matter and can can impact a bottom line. Even the digital stores themselves provide a vehicle to market and promote yourself off off (i.e. iTunes iMixes or recommendations of other music to buy). Through these vehicles the internet has delivered the ability for anyone to "break", and they actually are. The masses now have access to the media outlets to get heard. The problem is the old school view that "breaking" is simply defined by selling albums. This could not be farther from the truth.
Tommy also goes onto say:
"I can say with great authority that less new music is breaking now in America than any other time in history. Technology has not helped more great music rise to the top, it has inhibited it. I know this is a bold statement but it is true."
It might be a bold statement by Tommy to help get headlines, but it's also false (and kind of silly). The truth is more artists and bands are breaking now in America, and around the world, than at any other time in history. Technology has absolutely helped more great artists and bands rise to the top.
The distressing part for me about this is based on Tommy's statements, if an artists' release is not counted by Nielsen than it is not actually released. If music does not sell as an album then it has not sold. In effect, he is de-legitimizing artists.
With all due respect, I believe an artist's release should "count" even if not recognized by Nielsen as this de-recognition closes off possible opportunities based on the perception that a release is not "real"
I also find it distressing that the media, and other outlets, turn to Nielsen as the definitive source to determine what is occurring in this industry thereby decreasing the opportunities for musicians and artists that are not part of this old school system.
The reality is the majority of music is now being created, released and sold outside of the traditional system. Ad agencies, music supervisors, video game manufacturers, radio programmers etc turn to Nielsen for information to discover music in an attempt to use/license it. They need to understand that the Nielsen information is an incomplete and an inaccurate portrayal of reality. This inaccurate perception is holding back opportunity and validation for others. Tommy needs to stop propagating this false perception as it hurts artists.
It's important that an accurate picture of what is occurring be presented to fans and businesses to provide additional choice and opportunity for musicians. They work hard enough as it is, the last thing we need to do is propagate a false reality to hurt them. Tommy's heart is in the right place, we are here to help musicians, but let's start with a more accurate description as opposed to a "bold" but false statement that helps promote an agenda.
Posted by JeffCore at 08:28 PM in Jeff's Postings | Permalink
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
In Support of Earthquake-Torn Haiti!!!
By: B. Brown
I would like to take my hat off to the people of the United States of America!!!
We have supported Haiti in record-breaking fashion and I am very proud of that fact.
We have Wyclef's "Yele'" Organization, The Red Cross, The Clinton-Bush Fund, etc. That is what has really tripped me out, Former Presidents Clinton & Bush have united for a cause. Unbelievable! President Obama has made it clear that his administration is going to help Haiti through its tragedy and help it rebuild. As one of the strongest countries in the world even during our recession, we are still committed to helping an ailing country that desparately needs help. I am very proud of that committment!
I have personally supported Haiti by donating to Wyclef's organization and you can too by texting YELE to 501501 to donate $5.00. Let's continue to show our compassionate side and do what we would want someone to do for us.
God Bless the people of New Orleans, LA & Mississippi that experienced Hurricane Katrina and God Bless the people of Haiti and all the workers who are there helping!!!
God is good!!!
One Love!
I would like to take my hat off to the people of the United States of America!!!
We have supported Haiti in record-breaking fashion and I am very proud of that fact.
We have Wyclef's "Yele'" Organization, The Red Cross, The Clinton-Bush Fund, etc. That is what has really tripped me out, Former Presidents Clinton & Bush have united for a cause. Unbelievable! President Obama has made it clear that his administration is going to help Haiti through its tragedy and help it rebuild. As one of the strongest countries in the world even during our recession, we are still committed to helping an ailing country that desparately needs help. I am very proud of that committment!
I have personally supported Haiti by donating to Wyclef's organization and you can too by texting YELE to 501501 to donate $5.00. Let's continue to show our compassionate side and do what we would want someone to do for us.
God Bless the people of New Orleans, LA & Mississippi that experienced Hurricane Katrina and God Bless the people of Haiti and all the workers who are there helping!!!
God is good!!!
One Love!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)