independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > LA Times' Goldstein's Column Killed Apparently for Suggesting CD Giveaways
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 07/24/07 4:45pm

SCNDLS

avatar

LA Times' Goldstein's Column Killed Apparently for Suggesting CD Giveaways

Apparently, a journalist for the LA Times lost his weekly column for merely suggesting that his own newspaper consider doing a CD give away like the Mail on Sunday did with Prince. It seems that the story wasn't even printed by the Times but the suggestion was enough for the paper to let the journalist go. Isn't this interesting??? Looks like our boy is kicking up major dust stateside too. biggrin

http://www.laobserved.com...column.php


Goldstein's killed column
Kevin Roderick
The bug at the bottom of the Calendar front in today's Los Angeles Times says columnist Patrick Goldstein is on assignment. Not true. His The Big Picture column for Tuesday was killed, apparently by associate editor John Montorio. Goldstein's offense was to propose that the Times follow the lead of the U.K.'s Mail on Sunday (which distributed 2.9 million free Prince CDs) and partner with older artists to give away music in the paper. He argued it could help make the Times website a destination for fans and reduce the need for front page ads (which the editor of the Times himself calls a huge mistake.) Seems reasonable enough for a column, and Goldstein was on the Spring Street Committee that was tasked with coming up with innovative ideas:

It’s time we embraced change instead of always worrying if some brash new idea — like giving away music — would tarnish our sober minded image.
Still, the piece was spiked on high after sailing through the desk. The banned column fell into our hands and runs in full after the jump:


How would you like to pick up this newspaper one day and get a free CD or an MP3 file of new music from one of your favorite musicians?
Earlier this month England’s Mail on Sunday and Prince — two symbols of two embattled businesses — stuck their big toes into the future, a future that has looked increasingly bleak for both the record industry and the newspaper business. In a move that sent shock waves across the British music business, the country’s leading tabloid distributed 2.9 million free copies of Prince’s new "Planet Earth" CD with its Sunday paper, reaping a publicity bonanza and a big bump in advertising as well.

But the real winner was Prince. In an era where record sales are plummeting, Prince got his new music into the hands of millions of fans while pocketing a reported $500,000 payment from the paper. Most record store owners in England have protested by refusing to carry the artist’s new CD while his record company, Sony, has suspended its release in England. But Prince, who seems to have as much brilliance as an entrepreneur as an artist, is laughing all the way to the bank.

Like most artists his age, Prince, 49, doesn’t top the charts anymore. His last album, "3121," sold roughly 80,000 copies in the UK. He makes most of his money through touring — his last major tour, in 2004, sold $87.4 million in tickets, dwarfing anything he could make from CD sales. For him, giving away his record free — as he is for anyone who buys a ticket to one of his UK concerts, most of which have already sold out — is a way of creating exposure and excitement. That transfers into concert sales, which is how most artists, outside of a few pop stars, make the vast majority of their money these days. What older artists need today is a marketing partner, not a record company. The Eagles have Wal-Mart, Paul McCartney has Starbucks and now Prince has the Mail on Sunday.

Amazingly, much of the media coverage of the giveaway treated the event as a PR stunt. After all, the anti-gay, anti-immigration Mail is hardly natural Prince territory — in Harry Potter, the paper is favorite reading material for Vernon Dursley. But the strange alliance offers a striking example of how two struggling businesses could reinvent themselves. In fact, I have to admit that my professional assessment of the giveaway quickly gave way to a much more personal reaction.

Why couldn’t my newspaper do that?

Newspapers, as you may have heard, are in deep doo-doo. While the Times still is a profitable business, our revenue was down 10% in the second quarter while our cash flow was down, as our publisher put it the other day, a "whopping 27%, making it one of the worst quarters ever experienced." Times are so hard at the Times that the publisher has proposed putting ads on the front page to generate new revenue.

So far we’ve made little headway developing imaginative strategies to bring back lost readers — or compete for younger readers who get their information from the Internet. The record business has been just as slow to provide fans online with new, convenient ways to hear music — the only visionary idea, Steve Jobs’ iTunes store, came from outside the business. Unless you are a mainstream pop artist, it’s hard to see how the old-fashioned record company model benefits your career anymore. If you’re a respected older performer — known in industry parlance as a heritage artist — your biggest challenge is finding a way to get your music heard.

That’s where the newspaper comes in. As the Mail on Sunday has shown, newspapers remain a formidable distribution machine. My paper has roughly 1.1 million Sunday subscribers and generates 65 million page views each month. If you’re a heritage artist looking for exposure with an audience that might appreciate your work and has proven by reading a newspaper that it’s curious about the outside world, what could be a better starting point than the Times?

Here’s how it might work. The Times would start a free-music series, offering music (either on a CD or via downloads) from respected artists willing to think outside the box — meaning anyone from Elvis Costello, Beck and Ryan Addams to Ry Cooder, Steve Earle and Lucinda Williams. Instead of paying the artist a fat fee, we’d recruit advertising sponsors who’d be delighted to be associated with classy artists and the imprint of the Times.

If you haven’t noticed, music has a powerful mojo for advertisers. TV commercials have used pop songs to sell product for years. Lexus currently has a series of TV ads featuring Costello and John Legend seated in a Lexus, simply talking about their favorite music (Elvis sings the praises of Beethoven). But what they’re really selling is coolness by association. The same association could apply to us via a giveaway series. It would encourage readers to see the paper in a new light, as not just a news-gathering organization but a cultural engine. If we surrounded the music with news, reviews and features from our staff, it could also expose new visitors to our formidable music critics and reporters.

Could this really work? For a reality check, I called Jim Guerinot, an industry free-thinker who manages Nine Inch Nails, Gwen Stefani and Social Distortion. "Are you kidding — that’s a great idea," he says. "There are tons of these Hall-of-Fame quality heritage artists who don’t sell records anymore. It would be a real coup for them to reach their target demo through the newspaper and have the cachet of being an artist of the week or month."

Having the Times showcase new music would do more than attract advertising — it would help transform the image of the paper. "It could redefine the paper by making it a destination site for music fans," says Guerinot. "On the net, the big challenge is always about providing a filter for people. It would make the Times, with its critical voice, into a gatekeeper. People are looking for someone to show them the way — why shouldn’t it be the L.A. Times?"

Newspapers don’t just need new readers, we need new ways to serve them. So why shouldn’t we use one of our core strengths — our entertainment coverage — as a way to transform our web site’s pop music page into a place where you wouldn’t just find us writing about music, but find the music itself? It not only makes the paper feel more relevant, but it would create a new income stream that might be less intrusive than putting ads on the front page.

"What you’d be doing is turning the paper into a recommendation engine," says Fred Goldring, a leading industry attorney. "Everywhere you look, from car ads to the NBA, music is a big part of everything that sells. You wouldn’t just be giving away music, you’d be doing something no one else does better educating the consumer."

I can’t guarantee that my bosses will instantly embrace this idea — they don’t often look to columnists for business acumen. And there are plenty of naysayers. Retail outlets could punish artists that give away music by refusing to carry their new CDs, as they did in England with Prince. Cliff Burnstein, who manages the Red Hot Chili Peppers, believes music giveaways work better in England where "pop music is a national sport and the audience is a lot less fragmented than in the U.S."

But Prince’s gambit won’t be a one-shot deal. The British ska group Madness is considering a similar newspaper giveaway for its next album. One of Burnstein’s bands, Snow Patrol, is touring Australia in September. Since few fans bought its first album there, the group is mailing the first album free to anyone who buys concert tickets, bumping up the ticket price to pay for it, figuring the fans will enjoy the concerts more if they’re more familiar with the band’s earlier music.

Giving music away doesn’t mean it has lost its value, just that its value is no longer moored to the price of a CD. Like it or not, the CD is dying, as is the culture of newsprint. People want their music — and their news — in new ways. It’s time we embraced change instead of always worrying if some brash new idea — like giving away music — would tarnish our sober minded image. When businesses are faced with radical change, they are usually forced to ask — is it a threat or an opportunity? Guess which choice is the right annswer.

[Edited 7/24/07 16:48pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 07/24/07 4:56pm

7e7e7

so this man loses his job supporting his family for this? and you somehow admire this development in this man's life?

s=v=n s+v~n(sq2) 7.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 07/24/07 5:03pm

SCNDLS

avatar

7e7e7 said:

so this man loses his job supporting his family for this? and you somehow admire this development in this man's life?

s=v=n s+v~n(sq2) 7.


Uh, no I'm not celebrating that the man lost his job. WTF are you talking about??? Did you read the whole thing? I don't know where you got that. I think the people at the LA Times must be narrowminded, hypocritical censors to fire him when they did not even run the story. They'll cover all the bullshit in the world about fools like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan but someone who wants to change the system is summarily dismissed without consideration. My point was that just the mere suggestion of doing things differently is putting a lot of industry people on edge to the point of blind overreaction.
[Edited 7/24/07 17:05pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 07/24/07 5:12pm

Genesia

avatar

The guy put actual numbers about the Times's profitability in the column -- and quoted the head guy in a way that cast him in a very unfavorable light. I'd be willing to bet that's why they fired him. If I had inside financial information about the company I work for and tried to disseminate that, I'd be fired, too. It's like that with any corporate interest.

He knew better. He shouldn't have done it. Assuming, of course, he wanted to keep his job. Which he may not have.
We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 07/24/07 5:16pm

Justin1972UK

He does seem a little indiscreet about his employer's business...

While the Times still is a profitable business, our revenue was down 10% in the second quarter while our cash flow was down, as our publisher put it the other day, a "whopping 27%, making it one of the worst quarters ever experienced." Times are so hard at the Times that the publisher has proposed putting ads on the front page to generate new revenue.

So far we’ve made little headway developing imaginative strategies to bring back lost readers — or compete for younger readers who get their information from the Internet.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 07/24/07 5:18pm

SCNDLS

avatar

Genesia said:

The guy put actual numbers about the Times's profitability in the column -- and quoted the head guy in a way that cast him in a very unfavorable light. I'd be willing to bet that's why they fired him. If I had inside financial information about the company I work for and tried to disseminate that, I'd be fired, too. It's like that with any corporate interest.

He knew better. He shouldn't have done it. Assuming, of course, he wanted to keep his job. Which he may not have.


I see your point but it's not "inside financial information." I believe that the LATimes is publicly traded so their financial/revenue information is public. Besides, the publisher and editor were quoted by other sources saying the exact same thing before he wrote the article. Here's a link to a statement that the publisher himself issued on July 13th stating all of the info that the journalist quoted. http://www.laobserved.com...ing_to.php

So it seems hypocritical to me especially since they didn't even run the story.
[Edited 7/24/07 17:28pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 07/24/07 5:34pm

moonshine

avatar

Has the guy actually been fired , I dont read that for definite in the column , all it says is " His The Big Picture column for Tuesday was killed " ,
not that his column was killed for good . Even the newspaper that killed the column says hes on vacation . Aren't we reading a little too much into this guys long term job prospects here ?

*edit* even googling up the words " Patrick Goldstein fired " brings up no articles claiming hes lost his job ....
[Edited 7/24/07 17:38pm]
Check out Chocadelica , updated with Lotusflow3r and MPLSound album lyrics April 2nd 2009 :
http://homepage.ntlworld....home2.html
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 07/24/07 5:39pm

SCNDLS

avatar

moonshine said:

Has the guy actually been fired , I dont read that for definite in the column , all it says is " His The Big Picture column for Tuesday was killed " ,
not that his column was killed for good . Even the newspaper that killed the column says hes on vacation . Aren't we reading a little too much into this guys long term job prospects here ?


Well, I don't if he's been fired. If the "story" had been killed I would think that he'd back next week or sometime in the future. But when a column is killed it usually means the paper is no longer running the journalist's work and not paying him anymore. This story also states that the suits are saying he's on vacation or assignment to cover up the fact that his column has in fact been "killed." Looks like he or someone close to the situation leaked the full, unpublished article to the LA Observed to make it public. Maybe he'll be back for future editions. Who knows?
[Edited 7/24/07 17:54pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 07/25/07 2:32am

SCNDLS

avatar

According to a friend of mine who's a journalist in LA, she said that the column was killed in that issue only. so, he turned it in, they chose not to run it, and instead of using it they said "his column will return, he's on asssignment." So that particular story got killed, not the writer, or the whole series of columns by that writer. He is still with the Times.

Here's some updated info on his status:
http://www.deadlinehollyw...goldstein/



UPDATED: Patrick Goldstein Responds To LA Times' Killing Of His Column For Today
I've just been emailed the column that Los Angeles Times Hollywood writer Patrick Goldstein wrote for today. But it didn't run. The paper killed it -- actually John Montorio, newly promoted from associate editor to manaing editor for features, axed it -- then offered the lame excuse that Goldstein was on assignment. UPDATE: *Patrick Goldstein just gave me a statement: "Obviously no columnist is ever very happy about having their column killed. But I'm much more disappointed that the column that was killed was full of ideas about how to help my newspaper. I love working at a newspaper, especially this one, but if we don't start embracing change in a big way, there won't be great jobs like the one I have much longer. I'm constantly writing about how all the studios and big media companies are radically reinventing themselves. It's time we did the same."* Also, the Times announced today that Montorio was named managing editor for features while John Arthur, presently the paper's page one editor, will be managing editor for news. I don't get it: didn't anyone inform Times editor in chief Jim O'Shea that Montorio is really hated by almost all the Calendar staff? Or is that a prerequisite?

Goldstein argued in favor of the Times aping that British newspaper stunt distributing free Prince Planet Earth CDs and start partnering with other rock stars to give away music. "It’s time we embraced change instead of always worrying if some brash new idea — like giving away music — would tarnish our sober minded image. When businesses are faced with radical change, they are usually forced to ask — is it a threat or an opportunity? Guess which choice is the right answer." Yes, the music industry hated the Mail On Sunday's publicity stunt. But why in the world Times management found Goldstein's column so subversive escapes me, especially since his is an informed opinion since he used to be one of the Times' top rock writers before moving to the movie biz. Besides, the paper has plenty of places to present the other side. "It was all Montorio," an LATer tells me. "Patrick's editors didn't have a problem with the column. Everyone was surprised, shocked, stunned. The theory is that Montorio has a very low opinion of all suggestions how to reinvent the Times, much less from a columnist."

More to the point, the Times should be working harder to keep talents like Goldstein, who is the best thing about its Hollywood coverage, not stifling them. My sources inside the paper told me not long ago that management was trying to push Goldstein to write more frequent and shorter pieces rather than his thoughtful once a week long forms, and he resisted understandably. My view is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now there's this morale killer aimed at a staffer who has repeatedly demonstrated his loyalty to the Times by turning down many jobs from rival newspapers and magazines over the decades. All I can say is, can you imagine what the Times would do if Goldstein tackled a really burning media issue -- like why the studios barely advertise in newsosaurs anymore?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 07/25/07 8:44am

eyewishuheaven

avatar

Dammit. The one Prince-related news story that doesn't include the words 'diminutive' or 'pint-sized', and they flip out and bury it.
PRINCE: the only man who could wear high heels and makeup and STILL steal your woman!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 07/26/07 6:36pm

SCNDLS

avatar

eyewishuheaven said:

Dammit. The one Prince-related news story that doesn't include the words 'diminutive' or 'pint-sized', and they flip out and bury it.

nod lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 07/26/07 10:40pm

asg

avatar

No one way fired they just didnt publish his column this week and lied that he was on assignment! This guy is apparently on a committee at LA times which is tryin to find new ways to make money apprently LA is full of the music industry they editor didnt want to create hostility with the music industry and also didnt like the fact he published the readership numbers of his own paper
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 07/27/07 4:55am

SCNDLS

avatar

asg said:

No one way fired they just didnt publish his column this week and lied that he was on assignment! This guy is apparently on a committee at LA times which is tryin to find new ways to make money apprently LA is full of the music industry they editor didnt want to create hostility with the music industry and also didnt like the fact he published the readership numbers of his own paper


I guess you didn't read all the posts because I've since clarified that it was just this one column that was killed, that he does still work for the Times AND that all of the revenue data that he included was public info that the editors themselves released 2 weeks before he wrote the column. So it still looks fishy. . .
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > LA Times' Goldstein's Column Killed Apparently for Suggesting CD Giveaways