| Home
Power Play Radio
Power Play Promos
and Videos
Power Play Digital
Power Play
Syndicated
Programs
What's Going On
@ Power Play
Who's Been
to Power Play
Archives
Words of Wisdom
from Greg Furgason
Power Play Aircharts
Billboard Report
Power Play Links
Power Play
Logos & Banners
Contact Us !
Affiliate Relations
Investor Relations
Disclaimer
You need Real Audio
to view the clips
|
Words of Wisdom from
Greg Furgason, of Power Play
Entertainment is art. Art comes from human creativity. And creativity
is inspiration ... the vision of "what could be that is not
yet"
Until the 20th century, the arts and entertainment were an entirely
different sphere of human activity. The so-called "fine arts"
were the province of the cultured and elite; and entertainment for
the masses was on the level of circuses, minstrel shows, the old
fashioned music halls, or vaudeville and burlesque houses. But in
the present century, that has changed drastically, giving rise to
something unheard-of even a generation ago: "The Entertainment
Industry".
It is no longer necessary to compel patrons to come to a place
of entertainment. It has become possible to bring the entertainment
to the patrons in vast numbers. As technology has advanced, so has
the means of providing mass entertainment; the phonograph, motion
pictures, radio, television, tape recording, the long-playing album...
on up to such recent innovations as the compact disc, satellite
and cable broadcast technology, and home video. But there remains
one immutable constant in all this: entertainment depends on the
creativity of the entertainer.
Imagine a pyramid. Turn it upside down so that it rests on it's
point. That represents the entertainment industry as we know it.
At the top (the wide end), we have the end users of the product:
the audience. Below them, in descending order, we find all the people
whose livelihood depends on the industry: producers, technicians,
engineers, manufacturers, clerical staff, and even market researchers.
At the very bottom, supporting the whole structure of the pyramid,
is the creative artist. The artist is, literally and figuratively,
the point of the whole structure. Everything rests on the talent
and creativity of the individual.
Consider what we are marketing: entertainment. This is a highly
individualized product. One person's idea of great entertainment
is the next person's idea of a bomb. And of course, by definition,
every artist strives for originality, strives to be different, to
incorporate something unique, something of himself into his performance.
Yet, at the same time, we are seeing a reliance on research and
numbers that reduces the end product to a commodity that can be
packaged and sold like so many boxes of corn flakes.
And so we have a peculiar bifurcation. The entertainment industry
is just that: an industry, relying on one of the basic tools of
industry to sell it's wares - "market research and demographics".
The problem lies in the fact that we are selling a product which
is, by it's very nature, difficult to categorize, quantify, or even
define. Consequently, we tend to fall back on market research and
demographics as a thing-in-itself. A great many people have ceased
to use research as a tool; rather, they use it as a crutch. They
use the measure of a single success as a universal standard, and
strive to emulate it insofar as is possible.
An outstanding example of this process took place in television
programming in the 1960s. One of the most popular shows of that
era was "The Beverly Hillbillies", which concerned a family
of rural folks who suddenly found themselves living in an urban
environment. Shortly thereafter, a "new" program made
it's debut on the same network: "Green Acres", which concerned
a family of urban folk who suddenly found themselves living in a
rural environment. In other words, they took a successful idea,
turned it inside out, and packaged it again. It was less a creative
process than a copy-cat process. Similar parallels may be drawn
with any number of television programs of the day (i.e.: "The
Munsters" and "The Addams Family", "I Dream
Of Jeannie" and "Bewitched"). Even now, we find some
of these same TV shows being recycled for feature film presentation.
The programs in question were indeed generally successful ... but
when they were continually subjected to this copy-cat process, they
lost their impact in a fairly short time. Consider the case of "The
Beverly Hillbillies" again. Within a few seasons, there were
a number of sitcoms with similar rural (or rural vs. urban) themes.
In addition to "Green Acres", there were "The Andy
Griffith Show", "Petticoat Junction", "Mayberry
RFD", and "Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C.". Characters were
crossing over from one series to another, spinning off into their
own series, and so forth. And the end result? The market became
over saturated with all this, and all these shows died at about
the same time. They were simply unable to maintain an audience in
the face of so many similarities.
Compare that with the case of the 'Red Skelton Show", wherein
Mr. Skelton's comedic ability was the show. He used a stock cast
of characters, to be sure, but he also used his own genius to keep
these characters consistently fresh. And therein is an important
difference - while the aforementioned shows relied on a single idea
with many variations, the Skelton show relied on one man with many
ideas. And the result? Red Skelton ran for more than 20 years on
network TV ... and when he was canceled by one network, he was immediately
picked up by a rival network for several more seasons before being
canceled again. In both cases, his show was high in the ratings
when it was dropped ... and, in spite of the ratings, he was canceled
because market research revealed that he was reaching an audience
that was "too old for our target demographics". This is
to say that in spite of his unquestioned position in the ratings
(and the resulting revenue), he was not reaching the "correct"
audience according to the market research and demographics.
Thus, the market research viewpoint may be seen to be accepted
as if it were the words from some holy book ... and the creative
person on whom the entire industry depends is relegated to second
place. The numbers become more important than the activity that
is generating the numbers in the first place. And while many of
us in the industry have heard members of the general public praise
or criticize a particular program or entertainer. I would venture
to say that few, if any, of us have ever heard that same general
public say 'Well, it got big numbers ... so it must be good".
The audience doesn't care about the numbers - they are only concerned
with the quality of the entertainment.
Entertainment is not an academic exercise or an intellectual process;
it is a highly emotional act ... an appeal for an emotional response
on the part of the audience. But in spite of this obvious fact,
we find ourselves in a situation where even the finest creative
talents are, in effect, employees of the number crunchers and bean
counters. Programmers in radio and television alike have lost sight
of the importance of the art itself, and are only seeing numbers.
Technology has subsumed emotion. We are becoming slaves to cybernetics.
Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in the field of radio,
where music programming has been enslaved by demographics for more
than two decades. We find ourselves in a situation where programmers
and consultants are indulging in seemingly endless "copy-cat-ism",
regardless of the internal contradictions involved, at the expense
of creativity.
This is especially evident in the New York City market. New York
City offers the widest possible diversity in music for live audiences
- on any given night it is possible to hear virtually any style
of 'Music known to man, from the traditional music of India to experimental
jazz ... but you would hardly know it by listening to the offerings
of the commercial radio stations of the city. Music radio programming
in New York has been engaged in trench warfare for years, and examples
of "copy-cat-ism" and self-contradiction abound.
For instance, I recently had a talk with a member of the staff
of an AOR station serving the New York/New Jersey market. His station
has occasionally programmed the music of James Taylor and Warren
Zevon. Both of whom belong to the "category" of artist
called "singer/songwriter'. Now, market research tells us that
in order to maintain numbers, one's presentation must reflect what
the market is currently buying. I asked him which "singer/songwriter"
has sold more recordings in the past ten years: James Taylor, Warren
Zevon, or Prince? The answer, of course, is Prince. Why, then, is
his station not programming Prince? His reply was to the effect
that it was a rock station, and Prince "isn't rock 'n' roll'.
Therefore, this station is being programmed by someone who has created
a definition of "rock 'n' roll" that somehow includes
James Taylor and excludes Prince. To the average music fan, that
is patent nonsense - but to a consultant, who defines 'rock 'n'
roll" as the music that appeals to a specific and narrow demographic,
it somehow makes sense. Regardless of this scientific approach,
Prince still sells more than the other fellows ... to a wide audience
that isn't as concerned with narrow categorizations.
And let us consider a more recent development. There is a 'new'
station serving the New York market, offering what they call a "modern
rock" format: heavy metal and 'alternative' rock (which is
itself another meaningless term). This station is presently enjoying
a strong position in the ratings. Another, older station, has experienced
a slip in their ratings as a result, and have announced a format
change in order to attempt to regain listeners. The new format?
Why, "modern rock" of course That is to say, rather than
come up with something fresh and exciting on their own, they elected
to copy what the other party is doing and thereby divide and conquer
the audience.
But perhaps the most glaring problem with all this is the simple
fact that while research is an invaluable tool for examining what
is, and occasionally for predicting what the trend will be, it doesn't
take into account the simple fact that not every trend develops
in the full light of day ... and an over-reliance on sheer research
and numbers often causes programmers to miss trends in the earliest
stages of their development. This is itself a contradiction of the
marketing dictum regarding "getting in the ground floor of
new developments" in order to maximize profit.
Again, let us consider an example from the recent past in the field
of music. In the 1970s, the dominant musical trend was disco. Disco
began it's rise about 1974, with the release of singles such as
"Rock The Boat" and "Rock Your Baby" (curiously
enough, both these songs had the word 'rock' in the title). There
was a period of several years when disco seemed to be the only thing
on the market, culminating in several disco-oriented films, such
as "Saturday Night Fever". But by 1979, the field was
saturated. The music lost it's freshness and rebellious aspect.
Disco was incorporated into television commercials, and the genre
degenerated into self-parody. The formerly scandalous disco group
'The Village People' appeared on a Bob Hope TV special. Disco had
become "family entertainment"...and the core audience
abandoned it in droves. Thus, we see that disco rose and fell in
a five year span.
Now, what else was happening musically during the same five year
period? Well, for one thing, the so-called "New Wave"
was emerging in London and New York ... which gave rise to the "Alternative
Rock" of the present day. For another thing, these years saw
the release of the early, ground breaking records by Bruce Springsteen,
Tom Petty, Prince, and George Thorogood - all of whom became major
attractions by the close of the decade. There were also the seminal
releases by Cool Herc and Eek-A-Mouse, which presaged the rap and
dance hall styles that are so dominant today. The remarkable fact
is not that there were so many important developments in music at
the same time; but rather that none of these emerging trends - including
Springsteen and Prince - received the attention from programmers
that they were giving to disco during the same time frame! By fixing
their focus on one genre, most programmers (who are supposed to
be able to set trends as well as follow them) missed the boat on
major developments in other genres. And these were the developments
that would become mainstays of their own future playlists.
Or, to put it another way: by riding one trend until it had utterly
perished, by failing to experiment, by yielding to "cybernetic
Hitlerism" and the research/marketing Czars, most programmers
missed the opportunity to get in on the early stages of several
important genres and major artists while simultaneously killing
another genre by saturation over a five year period.
Research was intended to be an aid to, not a substitute for, creativity.
When broadcasters first used research to test the effectiveness
of their ideas, it was precisely what it was supposed to be: an
exceedingly useful tool of the trade. But an infatuation with research
began, the essential difference between research and inventiveness
was obfuscated - and the broadcast and entertainment industries
entered the research dominated era.
Research can only examine what is. By it's very nature, it cannot
take the creative leap of inspiration to add an element which makes
something new. It cannot give birth; it can only factor and recombine
... and that is the weakness of so much of the programming spawned
in the research-oriented era.
Another part of the reason for the wave of reliance on research
is the fear of gambling in a broadcast era where every project requires
considerable start-up and promotion costs. Most purveyors of program
materials and services today tend toward copying a (currently) working
formula instead of venturing beyond it to develop the next rage.
They prefer to follow the current rage and take second best money
in safety rather than attempt to go for the bigger score by following
their creative instincts. There was a time when most broadcasters
and programmers were creative, visionary people who relied on their
instincts to guide them ... but that era has apparently passed with
the increased financial risks, and gave way to the present policy
of "play it safe copy-cat-ism" so pervasive now.
There was an era when music radio programming was absolutely the
most exciting thing going ... when listeners were almost hesitant
to get out of their car to go into the house for fear of missing
something new and different. It was a combination of the music and
the presentation that kept audiences interested in what was happening,
and the rise of rock 'n' roll was certainly enhanced by the greater
freedom given to broadcasters and programmers of the day. Undoubtedly,
the growth of technology (such as the transistor radio) played no
small part in this, but it was the human element that was of the
utmost importance.
The first Top-40 format emerged when a station owner in the Midwest
was visiting a bar one night. He observed that patrons in the bar
tended to play the same songs on the jukebox over and over. Accordingly,
he came to the conclusion that people would accept a radio format
that amounted to the same thing: a tighter and more restricted playlist,
offering less variety and far less of the human element. What he
failed to take into account is that a jukebox can only offer a limited
number of selections to begin with, and therefore, the human element
was minimized from the beginning. This "jukebox programming"
made the machine more important than the aspect of free choice.
Thus, the Top-40 format began ... and with it, the era of cybernetic
slavery.
Cybernetic slavery in music programming really hit it's stride
with the rise of the Drake-Chenault Top-40 AM radio programming
format of the 1960s and 1970s. It was research created and research
governed in ongoing execution and revision. By looking at Top-40
radio as it was, doing "focus groups" on which elements
people liked and disliked, they created what amounts to a cybernetically
driven format - no art, but only science applied to the original
art of radio programming. Yet, even today the radio programs which
attract the largest audiences are those which fly in the face of
"conventional wisdom",the 'personality--radio' exemplified
by purely human broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern
(to cite two opposite ends of the spectrum)..
The infection of cybernetic Hitlerism soon spread to all idioms
of radio programming, and the researchers and consultants became
tyrannical rulers over all. When music television was born, it carried
the genes of this tyranny from the first. How could it be otherwise?
Music television was spawned by existing Top-40 radio formats.
But now that music television is a distinct species, the natural
creativity is going to reassert itself. The whole purpose of entertainment
is to evoke an emotional response, and the fact that human emotions
respond better to the human rather than the mechanical will inevitably
be seen shortly in the response to a new type of music television.
The human element will come back, because more than any other type
of TV, music television attracts the devoted lover of art. There
was a line from a song: "It only takes a minute from the jukebox
to your heart". The operative word is "heart", and
that summarizes the intention. No one creates art in a vacuum -
they create art to elicit a response from a human,n audience; not
merely as an exercise in generating numbers.
This reliance on sheer numbers has, in fact, recently created a
new and sinister form of "payola". The music TV outlet
known as The Box allows viewers to call a number and request specific
videos. It has been reported that certain "promoters"
have hired people for the sole purpose of repeatedly calling The
Box to request certain clips time and again, thus generating an
artificial 'interest' in the product ("It must be good; look
at the numbers"). The street term for this is "Jackin'
The Box"...and again we see the result: cybernetic slavery.
Reliance on sheer numbers gives a false result. In computer lingo,
this is called "GIGO": Garbage in, Garbage Out.
The new breed of music TV will be more humanly programmed and presented,
and the cybernetic giants (MTV, VH-1, The Box) will be the losers
... because no amount of research. However painstaking, can ever
equal the work of a good artist, and music TV is all about presenting
good artists. Not merely the tried-and-true, well-known artists,
but the up-and-coming artists of tomorrow and the artists whose
music may not be as well known to the general public, but whose
work carries with it the stamp of true art. Soon, you'll find good
artists not only on the videos, but at the helm of the program itself!
The new era of music television is coming, and we take in presenting
it's incarnation: Power Play Music Video Television (TM). It's the
new breed of music TV, the new flavor, the new style, the new look,
the new breed of music video TV. It's already here. It's operating
and making impact - and attracting advertising dollars. Shortly,
it will be going on satellite for worldwide viewing and even offering
interactive programming via the Internet.
This introduction to the ideas behind Power Play Music Video Television
is intended to greet you, and to invite to you to come along as
an investor in our growing - and soon to be burgeoning success story.
|
