music, media & other random musings

Shuffler.fm

Not exactly clear how these guys found me, but I got an email yesterday and clicked through. It's all together possible I saw something about it, submitted my email, and summarily forgot - as I do that often. Either way, glad I got the email. 

As I found out, Shuffler.fm was developed by a bunch of guys in Amsterdam, through their company called tone.fm, an interactive media & entertainment agency focused on developing products and services for web & mobile. My kind of company...  Looks like the site has been up and running for about a year or so, so I'm a bit late to the party. But as they say, better late than never. I've only started playing with Shuffler, but I've already started integrating it into my music listening/discovering routine. 

The general concept: Shuffler.fm aggregates audio from thousands of music blogs and organizes by genres. The genres are essentially radio channels. When you click on a channel, you are directed to a blog post which streams one of the songs mentioned in that post. Whereas hype.fm integrates music, Shuffler adds the context by landing right on the post it came from. The music plays through their own player at the top of the screen. If you click through to the next track, the screen also moves to the next blog site the music is being hosted on. Or when the song ends, it does the same. It's all pretty smooth.

In addition to it being a great discovery engine, with great mixes, the site is integrated with Tumblr.  If you decide you want to follow the blog you're on, just hit the + sign in the player and you're set. So while finding cool new music, I'm finding new blogs and growing my Tumblr follows. You can also tweet track, "like" via Facebook, add to Google+, StumbleUpon or email.  And it's also integrated with Last.fm, so you can turn on scrobbling. 

Another nice feature is the ability to play a favorite blog as a continuous mix and the ability to "fave" tracks - both features ex.fm already does really well. The fave feature is awesome - I use it so when I'm working, so I can quickly tag a track and then go back and listen to more of that artist when I have the time. Also Shuffler has a nice search engine to find blogs and/or artists. And the iPad app works pretty much the same as the site, a little more streamlined. All well integrated. 

Shuffler is a cross between hype.fm, ex.fm, We Are Hunted and Flipboard. 

The one big feature missing is the social component. I can follow a blog, but can't follow (or find) any friends who are doing the same. I assume if their user base grows, these features will be added. 

One little bug.. I was listening to a track and decided to check out another genre from the pulldown menu and was taken back to the home page. But I hadn't psued the music and the music was still playing - yet the player is gone. Doesn't stay persistent on the home page. I had all these browsers open, and the music streaming through Sonos speakers, and couldn't figure out where the music was coming from. Had to close all the shuffler.fm tabs and start again. Minor issue…

Overall, fun new toy. 

Maurice Sendak

Maurice Sendak seems to be in the news these days. Or maybe just on my radar. New book maybe? Not sure. Last month I watched a great video about him from the Tate series, TateShots. Super interesting guy. And last night, he was on Colbert. Utterly entertaining. His comments on Gingrinch alone are worth the time investment to watch. 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Grim Colberty Tales with Maurice Sendak Pt. 1
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Romney or Newt?

For the last four months, I've been absolutely convinced it's Romney all the way. It seemed pretty obvious that Gingrich isn't electable, and the percentage of people who don't like him - his unfavorable rating - seemed just too high to overcome. And the prevailing attitude about Romney among Republican loyalists seemed to echo this sentiment. They may not really like Romney, but he's theirs, and they'll vote for him. Resigned acceptance. Even up to just three days ago, I sat with my brother-in-law and nephew providing the absolute scenario that Romney's victory was inevitable. But based on Romney's recent performances, I've changed my mind. Newt might just have a shot.

Occupy Wall Street may not be occuping much actual space anymore, and their supporters may never have completely coalesced around specific demands. But what they were able to articulate incredibly well, and quite succinctly in their "We are the 99%" is the unfairness of income inequality in this country. And this looming issue has deep hooks in the campaign. Although Romney has tried on the campaign trail to tell people he's one of them, one of the 99%, it's a tough argument to continue to make when we all know he is actually a super rich guy, whose tax rate is the same as someone who goes to work everyday making $80k. 

It's not that making a lot of money is a bad thing. Americans are okay with wealth, they aspire to it, and in fact have always been okay with uber rich presidential candidates. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan - all had a lot of money. But those candidates made people feel they cared about the middle class. Even after Romney released his tax returns, revealing he made close to 24 million last year, and paid a tax rate of less than 14%, he might have been alright - if he had been able to handle the issue well in the media. But he didn't. He fumbled at every juncture. He is awkward, clearly uncomfortable about the topic, doesn't come off as relaxed or warm - or human - and because of the way he "flip flopped" on whether or not he was even going to release his returns, or release years farther back than 2010, it makes everyone figure that he's got something bigger to hide. 

When Romney tells a roomful of unemployed people he's unemployed like them, or makes a 10k bet with Perry in a debate, or says 360k, his earnings from appearances, isn't a lot of money, it's the same as when Bush Sr. went to the grocery store and was dumbounded by how a scanner worked. It shows he's out of touch - and absolutely not part of the 99%. 

Romney's inability to handle this issue leaves him vulnerable on two fronts.The first is electability. Obama's big theme in the campaign will be about fairness. Making sure everyone gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share and plays by the same rules. It's beyond fairness in tax code - it will translate into fairness about entitlements, investment, education, etc. And there sits Romney who embodies the picture of unfairness. He is the poster child illustrating that the burden isn't being shared equally, that the system is inherently unfair. With Romney, Obama couldn't have a better opponent to help paint the picture so vividly. It's one thing to make a shitload of money off of your money - and not work - it's the American dream. It's another thing to make that money and say it's fair just because it happens to be legal. Beyond his tax returns, he'll have an even harder time handling this issue when it is pounded in the media that when a bi-partisan Congress tried to change the laws and repeal carried interest only 15%, Romney and Bain fought it big with lots of money and lots of lobbyists. Electability is one of the most important things to Republicans. If this issue becomes too big, one that leaves Romney too vulnerable, one that Obama can slam dunk, Republicans will start thinking maybe Gingrich is more electable. And they wouldn't necessarily be wrong.  

The second, is that Romney clearly can't handle the stress. When he was running a laid back campaign, watching the "non-Romney" candidates rise and fall, he inched along just fine. But when pushed, when he has to play offense, he fumbles the ball every time. No one wants to vote for a guy who can't close the deal. And that is now Romney. He comes off as phoney, inauthentic and on this issue, nervous and untrusting. Those qualities are not qualities that get you elected in a national election. And with these flaws, it will be too easy for Obama to position Romney just where he wants him. 

National elections are long, some say too long. But they do separate the boys from the men. The candidates live through extreme pressure on the campaign trail. Watching them live daily through that, handling the inbound and the outbound messaging, managing themselves and their staff, handling - and manipulating the media, proving their ability to build and lead an organized, well run campaign. Huge pressures. And if you crack on the campaign trail, it's a pretty sure sign you'll crack in the White House - if you actually make it there. Great line from Ryan Gossling in the Ides of March. "This is the big leagues. It's mean. When you make a mistake, you lose the right to play."

I'm not saying that Newt still doesn't have the ability and the time to make some monumental gaffe that would deliver the nomination to Romney. But while even a few days ago I was absolutely certain Romeny was the inevitable choice, I'm now thinking Gingrinch just might be able to pull it off. Another day, another 24 hour news cycle, I may change my mind again. But today, I'm at 60/40, giving Romney a slight edge. Time will tell.

Music 2011

I've been incredibly slow moving into 2012. Not sure what the cut off date is to wish someone you haven't seen since December a Happy New Year, or when a top 10 list for the previous year is old news. I imagine the expiration date has passed on both. But as I said, I've been moving slow... Might be because I've been busy reading/listening to everyone else's 'best of' lists from last year. Late or not, here's my "what I was liking in 2011" list - in no particular order. 

Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues

The Decemberists - King Is Dead

Beirut - The Rip Tide

M83 - Hurry Up We're Dreaming

Girls - Father, Son, Holy Ghost

Real Estate - Days

Youth Lagoon - The Year Of Hibernation

J. Mascis - Several Shades of Why

James Vincent McMorrow - Early in the Morning

Yuck - Yuck

Blind Pilot - We Are The Tide

Cults - Cults

Wiz Khalifa - Rolling Papers

Why I Love Television

Growing up, my brother and I loved television. And we watched a lot of it. In some ways, looking back, I think we were studying the medium even back then - debating the characters, the shows, the plots. On Saturday mornings, I would torture Jerry (brother) by telling him Crusader Rabbit was my favorite cartoon - which is wasn't - just to get him riled, to then have the real debate about which really was the best.

At 10, I had dream that I had to tell Jerry about. In it, someone asked me what television shows I watched. And with a bit of arrogance, I recall responding with "the good ones." Even back then, I was somehow confident I knew what good TV was. Regardless of whether that fact is true or not, television has always been part of my world, and something I am passionate - and opinionated - about. 

Only in the last 10-15 years, when cable networks multiplied and evolved, has television become respected. Before then, if you worked in TV or was an actor on a show instead of a feature film, you were looked down upon. HBO, being the leader in innovative television programming, changed this. Now, not only is television acceptable, it is sometimes preferred. Yet I continue to have an on-going debate on this topic with my friend, Jason, who doesn't understand the appeal - either on an emotional or artistic level. I've never really swayed him - which is okay with me. (As naturally, I know I'm right.) 

Last night I happened upon America in Primetime, a four-hour series, part of PBS' American Experience. I caught hours 2 and 3 - Man of the House and the Misfits. (Both, quite well done - plan on watching parts 1 and 4.) In the first, Ron Howard gives a description of television that stayed with me. I went looking for the clip or the quote this morning, and found PBS thought it was worth highlighting too. I'm no Ron Howard, but essentially here's what I have been trying to share with Jason through the years. (Quote below, full length video here.)

"Television is a writer’s medium and an actor’s medium. You know, directors, executives, they make a difference. But it's really about developing those characters. And when it's really well done, it provides the most kind of depth. They used to say it's because those characters are coming into your living room. And, I never believed that, even as a kid. I always felt it’s because, week after week, hour after hour, really feeling like you're connecting with those characters and seeing them cope with things - that, whatever the tone, whatever the outcomes, whatever the choices the characters make, you really start to feel like you just know them." - RON HOWARD, Director

That pretty much says it all. Television provides a platform, a palette, to dive deeply into a character, to reveal nuances of their motivations and behavior slowly, as life happens. (The medium also provides "socialness" - the watercooler talk about these characters evolutions week after week, even in the DVR age, when we aren't really watching in sync - which is also what I find to be part of television's appeal and staying power.) Film is at its best when a character (and a story) can be fully realized in 2 hours, when in that time, the audience fully understands and empathsizes with the characters. In television, it's a slower build. And if done really well - like in the case of The Sopranos (Tony Soprano: arguably the best television character, ever), or Mad Men, or Six Feet Under or even Curb Your Enthusiasm - the impact is equal to, if not greater, than the finest film on the big screen. 

Other than the fact that film and television are both platforms for story telling, it is really hard to compare television to film. I love film too, but I'm probably a better student of television. And I see it the way Ron Howard does, in that I don't believe our connection to TV characters is about them coming into our homes, but more about how often we hang out with them. The very best television creators (along the lines of Lynch, Bochco, Ball, Chase, Lear) develop shows and characters that keep us interested for years - and in the case of cable, sometimes keep us waiting that long just for a new season. But it's those shows, the ones beautifully crafted to reveal characters and plot lines slowly, strongly and authentically - and the ones I'll wait for with anticipation - that keep me loving television. 

Books on Video

I haven't read the book - and probably wouldn't have even thought about putting it on my list. But after watching this, I absolutley want to. Sadly, not available for immediate download on the Kindle - and may forget about it by the time I walk into a bookstore. Either way, I think this little promo is what they call good advertising. John Hodgman, as always, is briliant. 

I Love Bill

Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Division from President Bill Clinton

Evolving Marketing Landscape

I was reading Thomas Friedman's Sunday's Op-Ed "One Country, Two Revolutions" and loved this portion, which described Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce.com, definition of the social world we now live in. 

Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce.com, a cloud-based software provider, describes this phase of the I.T. revolution with the acronym SOCIAL. S, he says, is for speed — everything is now happening faster. O, he says, stands for open. If you don’t have an open environment inside your company or country, these new tools will blow you wide open. C is for collaboration because this revolution enables people to organize themselves within companies and societies into loosely coupled teams to take on any kind of challenges — from designing a new product to taking down a government. I is for individuals, who are able to reach around the globe to start something or collaborate on something farther, faster, deeper, cheaper than ever before — as individuals.

A is for alignment. “There has never been a more important time to have all your ships sailing in the same direction,” said Benioff. “The power of social media is that it is easier than ever to both articulate, and reinforce, the vision and values that create and inspire alignment.” And L is for the leadership that does that. Leadership in a SOCIAL world has to be a mix of bottom-up and top-down. Leaders need to inspire, enable and empower everything coming up from below in a company or a social movement and then edit and sculpt it with a vision from above into a final product.

What I find most compelling is that this description is true for all industries and all companies. Whether you're a consumer brand company, a retailer, a traditional agency, a media company, a communications company, a content developer or an agency (traditional or digital), the digital revolution has directly impacted your business in some way or another. 

Brands are struggling to figure out how to connect with their consumers - the convergence of social media, the proliferation of mobile devices, the ability to access content and information quickly, seamlessly and easily through "the clouds." They're struggling how to create products, services and experiences (and communication strategies) that provide value, that are relevant to their consumers' daily and busy lives. And agencies are (or should be if they aren't already) figuring out how to support the brands (their clients) in their efforts. On both sides, it takes an understanding of the new technology realities, the connected experience that these new devices and content provide, the changing consumer and shopper behavior. It also takes companies that are transparent, innovative and design driven. It takes companies that "think like consumers." It takes companies that understand the convergence of brand, experience, design and technology. And it takes leadership that inspires all of this. 

Apple is held up (and rightly so) as being one of the very best in delivering a consistently, authentic consumer experience - and there is no brand out there that wouldn't do anything to create the kind of brand loyalty that Apple has engineered. But it takes more than cracking the code of developing loyalty. It takes innovation - and leadership. (Whether you have a Steve Jobs at the helm or not.) Something I read from The Designful Company: How to build a culture of nonstop innovation by Marty Neumeier: 

What if you focused on designing great customer experiences. That’s exactly what Apple has been doing, and the company’s stock price has risen 1,273% over a ten-year period, beating the averages of any given tech market. When The Wall Street Journal asked CEO Steve Jobs how Apple will stay on that trajectory, he replied, “We intend to keep innovating.” Apple can keep innovating because it has a CULTURE of innovation.

Clearly, not all brands can or will be Apple - but there's nothing wrong with aspiring for the ideal. So while brands strive to evolve by instilling a culture of innovation and more "design thinking" into their organization - some succeeding more than others - I wonder whether agencies are doing the same thing. And if they're not (and I don't think many are) - why not? Will an agency that doesn't inspire a culture of innovation be relevant - or even around - in 5, 10 or 15 years?

As is obviously clear, the world is changing at a rapid pace. And the faster it moves forward, the harder it will be to catch up. In the agency world, this is especially true for the traditional agencies who offer "commodity services," those that don't truly understand (or haven't embraced) the digital landscape and how this affects consumers' perception of brand, their decision to purchase a brand, their reason to choose to wear (or not) the "badge of brand" on their sleeve - or facebook page, as it may be. These same agencies that haven't embraced these new realities, or incorporated new services to reflect their clients evolving needs, seem to be the same ones that aren't creating a culture of curiosity, creativity or innovation. I think it goes hand in hand. 

The agency landscape has been shifting for years, and in many ways it is still a land grab as agencies try to offer the new services that brands require to compete. As innovation, collaboration, design thinking and transparency have become the new realities for brands, I believe they also need to become the new realities for agencies, if they are to survive to the next phase of the digital revolution.