Layout present

LAYOUTEXAMPLES

CONTENTS

SECTION ONETHE AMERICAN DREAM

Dark Secrets 22

Values of Yesteryear 28

Technology and the Family Dynamic 35

Modern Family 43

Becoming an Individual 48

Dark Secrets 25


CASE STUDIES

SECTION TWOCONSUMERISM & CONSUMPTION

Binge & Purge 59

Music 75

Prescribe Me 79

Can’t Get No Satisfaction 53

Binge & Purge 57

Sexualization 65

Media as Education 74

Prescribe Me 78

CASE STUDIES

SECTION THREEFUTURE

Binge & Purge 88

Music 100

Prescribe Me 124

Dark Secrets 81



Modern Family 106


CASE STUDIES

CONTENTS

SECTION ONETHE AMERICAN DREAM

Dark Secrets 22



Modern Family 43


Dark Secrets 25


CASE STUDIES

SECTION TWOCONSUMERISM & CONSUMPTION

Binge & Purge 59

Music 75

Prescribe Me 79


Binge & Purge 57

Sexualization 65


Prescribe Me 78

CASE STUDIES

CONSUMERISM & CONSUMPTION

Binge & Purge 59

Music 75

Prescribe Me 79


Binge & Purge 57

Sexualization 65


Prescribe Me 78

SECTION THREEFUTURE

Binge & Purge 88

Music 100

Prescribe Me 124

Dark Secrets 81



Modern Family 106


CASE STUDIES

SECTION TWO

CONSUMERISM & CONSUMPTION

The rise of the iPod and iTunes made it harder for labels to pack long-playing albums with subpar “filler” tracks. It also made it easier for music fans to fall for a hit single for the low price of 99 cents, arguably exacerbating the tendency of artists to impress a fan for only long enough for them to click “buy.”

That landscape is changing.

As proposed, this legislation would have lowered the amount of music artist royalties that Internet radio and music streaming services such as Pandora and I Heart Radio currently pay to copyright owners of the songs and sound recordings that form the basis for their businesses. According to Pandora and other Internet radio providers, the current royalty rates make their business models unprofitable.

Expanding the market by reducing music artists’ royalties?

In a nutshell, Pandora and their coalition of Internet radio supporters argue that artists will ultimately benefit by allowing reduced Internet radio royalties, since this will allow Internet radio companies to become profit-able and continue to build the audience for music that often cannot get airtime on ter-restrial radio. While there is no denying the Internet has done a lot to level the playing field for indie artists, Pandora is a public-ly traded company with more than 100

million registered users. In November 2012, Pandora cited data that it accounted for 7% of all US radio listening, with 62.4 million active listeners that month. It has also just launched the service in Australia and New Zealand. Should artists and labels take a hit on their royalty rates to help Pandora con-tinue to grow in size and profitability?According to CNET’s Greg Sandoval, that’s exactly the pitch Pandora co-founder Tim Westergren used to make the case for the IFRA. Sandoval stated, “[Westergren’s] argument to the music industry boiled down to this: we need to slash the money we pay you in order to help you.” Sando-val’s point emphasizes that while Pandora is an effective platform to encourage music discovery for consumers and lesser known bands, just being “discovered” doesn’t pay the bills for a struggling artist. Payments for streaming or downloading their music will help pay the bills.

At the November 28, 2012 hearings, Pan-dora CEO Joe Kennedy lobbied Congres-

Late last year, at the urging of Pandora radio and other tech industry players, Congre- ssman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) co-sponsored the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA). The bill got such a late start that it failed to make it out of committee during the 2012 Congressional year. It also fared poorly at a Congressional hearing in late November 2012, but sources such as Billboard warn that the bill isn’t dead so much as “hibernating.”

LET’S PAY MUSIC ARTISTS LESS

73

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

sional Representatives stating that Internet radio providers should be paying the same compulsory rates that cable and satellite ra-dio networks receive (more on that below). On its FAQ page encouraging support for the IRFA, Pandora cites that “satellite pays about 7.5% of revenues and cable about 15%, while Pandora pays more than 50% in royalties.” Arguing its case based on rev-enues is clearly self-serving, however, as the business models are totally different.

XM/Sirius radio and cable require a monthly subscription payment before lis-teners can access any music, while Pandora operates on a “freemium” model, meaning that there is no monthly subscription fee for its basic service (ads are inserted into the music streams). Pandora’s no-cost mod-el has been the key driver of its dramatic growth – which is why a percent-to-reve-nue comparison is inherently biased.

Appearing in opposition to the IRFA before the November 28, 2012 hearing, the National Music Publishers Associa-tion invited a few songwriter members, including Desmond Child and Linda Perry, to each perform one of their songs in the halls of Congress. Perry performed her song, “Beautiful,” a mega-hit for Christina Aguilera, which she explained was streamed 12.7 million times on Pandora in the first quarter of 2012. These listens amounted to only $349 in songwriter royalties. Child led an impromptu sing along of his hit “Livin’ on a Prayer,” which he co-wrote for Bon Jovi.

Producer Jimmy Jam testified, arguing that

74

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

MUSIC DOWNLOADS

CASE STUDY

27

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

The rise of the iPod and iTunes made it harder for labels to pack long-playing albums with subpar “filler” tracks. It also made it easier for music fans to fall for a hit single for the low price of 99 cents, arguably exacerbating the tendency of artists to impress a fan for only long enough for them to click “buy.”

That landscape is changing.

28

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

57

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

I think art should reflect what is going on in the real world. I’ve never wanted to be a distant, elitist artist and I’ve always felt that drive to tackle controversial issues. Toward the end of my studies at the National Art Academy, I had this thought that if I’ve spent so many years learning how to speak with my art, I should use that skill to say something meaningful and truth-ful, no matter the consequences. I guess this is a simple idea but it is relevant to me to this day.

LUBA LUKOVA


Expanding the market by reducing music artists’ royalties?

In a nutshell, Pandora and their coalition of Internet radio supporters argue that artists will ultimately benefit by allowing reduced Internet radio royalties, since this will allow Internet radio companies to become profit-able and continue to build the audience for music that often cannot get airtime on ter-restrial radio. While there is no denying the Internet has done a lot to level the playing field for indie artists, Pandora is a public-ly traded company with more than 100 million registered users. In November 2012, Pandora cited data that it accounted for 7% of all US radio listening, with 62.4 million active listeners that month. It has also just launched the service in Australia and New Zealand. Should artists and labels take a hit on their royalty rates to help Pandora con-tinue to grow in size and profitability?According to CNET’s Greg Sandoval, that’s exactly the pitch Pandora co-founder Tim Westergren used to make the case for the IFRA. Sandoval stated, “[Westergren’s] argument to the music industry boiled down to this: we need to slash the money we pay you in order to help you.” Sando-

val’s point emphasizes that while Pandora is an effective platform to encourage music discovery for consumers and lesser known bands, just being “discovered” doesn’t pay the bills for a struggling artist. Payments for streaming or downloading their music will help pay the bills.

At the November 28, 2012 hearings, Pan-dora CEO Joe Kennedy lobbied Congres-sional Representatives stating that Internet radio providers should be paying the same compulsory rates that cable and satellite ra-dio networks receive (more on that below). On its FAQ page encouraging support for the IRFA, Pandora cites that “satellite pays about 7.5% of revenues and cable about 15%, while Pandora pays more than 50% in royalties.” Arguing its case based on rev-enues is clearly self-serving, however, as the business models are totally different.

XM/Sirius radio and cable require a monthly subscription payment before lis-teners can access any music, while Pandora operates on a “freemium” model, meaning that there is no monthly subscription fee for its basic service (ads are inserted into the music streams). Pandora’s no-cost mod-el has been the key driver of its dramatic growth – which is why a percent-to-reve-nue comparison is inherently biased.

58

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

“Expanding the market by reducing music artists’ royalties?”

57

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION


Expanding the market by reducing music artists’ royalties?In a nutshell, Pandora and their coalition of Internet radio supporters argue that artists will ultimately benefit by allowing reduced Internet radio royalties, since this will allow Internet radio companies to become profitable and continue to build the audience for music that often cannot get airtime on terrestrial radio. While there is no denying the In-ternet has done a lot to level the playing field for indie artists, Pandora is a publicly traded company with more than 100 million registered users. In November 2012, Pandora cited data that it accounted for 7% of all US radio listening, with 62.4 million active listeners that month. It has also just launched the service in Australia and New Zealand. Should artists and labels take a hit on their royalty rates to help Pandora continue to grow in size and profitability?

According to CNET’s Greg Sandoval, that’s exactly the pitch Pandora co-founder Tim Westergren used to make the case for the IFRA. Sandoval stated, “[Westergren’s] argument to the music industry boiled down to this: we need to slash the money we pay you in or-

“Expanding the market by reducing music artists’ royalties?”

58

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

In a nutshell, Pandora and their coalition of Internet radio supporters argue that artists will ultimately benefit by allowing reduced Internet radio royalties, since this will allow Internet radio companies to become profitable and continue to build the audience for music that often cannot get airtime on terrestrial radio. While there is no denying the Internet has done a lot to level the playing field for indie artists, Pandora is a publicly traded company with more than 100 million registered users. In November 2012, Pandora cited data that it accounted for 7% of all US radio listening, with 62.4 million active listeners that month. It has also just launched the service in Australia and New Zealand. Should artists and labels take a hit on their royalty rates to help Pandora continue to grow in size and profitability?

According to CNET’s Greg Sandoval, that’s exactly the pitch Pandora co-founder Tim Westergren used to make the case for the IFRA. Sandoval stated, “[Westergren’s] argument to the music industry boiled down to this: we need to slash the money we pay you in order to help you.” Sandoval’s point emphasizes that while Pandora is an effective platform to encourage music discovery for consumers and lesser known bands, just being “discovered” doesn’t pay the bills for a struggling artist. Payments for streaming or downloading their music will help pay the bills.

At the November 28, 2012 hearings, Pandora CEO Joe Kennedy lobbied Congressional Representatives stating that Internet radio providers should be paying the same compulso-ry rates that cable and satellite radio networks receive (more on that below). On its FAQ

57

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION


Expanding the market by reducing music artists’ royalties?In a nutshell, Pandora and their coalition of Internet radio supporters argue that artists will ultimately benefit by allowing reduced Internet radio royalties, since this will allow Internet radio companies to become profitable and continue to build the audience for music that often cannot get airtime on terrestrial radio. While there is no denying the In-ternet has done a lot to level the playing field for indie artists, Pandora is a publicly traded company with more than 100 million registered users. In November 2012, Pandora cited data that it accounted for 7% of all US radio listening, with 62.4 million active listeners that month. It has also just launched the service in Australia and New Zealand. Should artists and labels take a hit on their royalty rates to help Pandora continue to grow in size and profitability?

According to CNET’s Greg Sandoval, that’s exactly the pitch Pandora co-founder Tim Westergren used to make the case for the IFRA. Sandoval stated, “[Westergren’s] argument to the music industry boiled down to this: we need to slash the money we pay you in or-

I think art should reflect what is going on in the real world. I’ve never wanted to be a distant, elitist artist and I’ve always felt that drive to tackle controversial issues. Toward the end of my studies at the National Art Academy, I had this thought that if I’ve spent so many years learning how to speak with my art, I should use that skill to say something meaningful and truth-ful, no matter the consequences. I guess this is a simple idea but it is relevant to me to this day.

LUBA LUKOVA

58

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

57

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION


Expanding the market by reducing music artists’ royalties?In a nutshell, Pandora and their coalition of Internet radio supporters argue that artists will ultimately benefit by allowing reduced Internet radio royalties, since this will allow Internet radio companies to become profit-able and continue to build the audience for music that often cannot get airtime on ter-restrial radio. While there is no denying the Internet has done a lot to level the playing field for indie artists, Pandora is a public-ly traded company with more than 100 million registered users. In November 2012, Pandora cited data that it accounted for 7% of all US radio listening, with 62.4 million active listeners that month. It has also just launched the service in Australia and New Zealand. Should artists and labels take a hit on their royalty rates to help Pandora con-tinue to grow in size and profitability?

According to CNET’s Greg Sandoval, that’s exactly the pitch Pandora co-founder Tim Westergren used to make the case for the IFRA. Sandoval stated, “[Westergren’s] argument to the music industry boiled down to this: we need to slash the money we pay you in order to help you.” Sando-val’s point emphasizes that while Pandora is

“Current royalty rates make their business models unprofitable.”58

CON

SUM

ERISM &

CON

SUM

PTION

an effective platform to encourage music discovery for consumers and lesser known bands, just being “discovered” doesn’t pay the bills for a struggling artist. Payments for streaming or downloading their music will help pay the bills.

At the November 28, 2012 hearings, Pandora CEO Joe Kennedy lobbied Congressional Representatives stating that Internet radio providers should be paying the same compulso-ry rates that cable and satellite radio networks receive (more on that below). On its FAQ page encouraging support for the IRFA, Pandora cites that “satellite pays about 7.5% of revenues and cable about 15%, while Pandora pays more than 50% in royalties.” Arguing its case based on revenues is clearly self-serving, however, as the business models are totally different.

XM/Sirius radio and cable require a monthly subscription payment before listeners can access any music, while Pandora operates on a “freemium” model, meaning that there is no monthly subscription fee for its basic service (ads are inserted into the music streams). Pandora’s no-cost model has been the key driver of its dramatic growth – which is why a percent-to-revenue comparison is inherently biased.

As proposed, this legislation would have lowered the amount of music artist royalties that Internet radio and music streaming services such as Pandora and I Heart Radio currently pay to copyright owners of the songs and sound recordings that form the basis for their

Documents

Layout present