Phil Rizzuto, R.I.P.

Sad news about the passing of Phil Rizzuto today at the age of 89. Sure he was a great Yankee shortstop and Hall of Famer. But, I remember him as a broadcaster. As a kid, I used to love his radio play-by-play on WABC-AM's Yankees broadcasts. Of course, he also rotated into the TV broadcast booth, but he always seemed better on the radio. I still remember his "huckleberry" and "Holy Cow" catch phrases.

When my family moved to the Great Lakes region and started getting WGN on our cable, I always wondered who this Harry Carey guy was ripping off the "Holy Cow" thing. I don't know who started using it first, but I like to think it was Rizzuto.

Rizzuto helped make me a baseball fan, and it's probably no coincidence that my interest waned after we moved and I could no longer hear is broadcasts.

Refuting Liebowitz: Part 1

Let me get started with my take on the Stan Liebowitz paper. I'm going to refer to specific page numbers, and the numbers I use correspond to his page numbering rather than Adobe Reader's page count.

On page 5, Liebowitz lays the foundation for his entire argument:

Americans spend approximately 2.7 hours per day listening to radio but
only 40 minutes listening to prerecorded music. Yet the main ingredient of
radio broadcasts is prerecorded music, for which radio stations pay very little if
anything. If listening to radio were treated like a substitute for listening to
prerecorded music (much as blank tapes were treated as substitutes for the
purchase of a prerecorded tape by partisans for the RIAA) then simple
arithmetic might suggest that five times as many records would be sold if radio
didn’t exist. Although we shouldn’t take the math seriously, the possibility of
harm is certainly worth examining.

Liebowitz cites this information when coming up with those numbers. His logic is flawed, though. He equates time spent listening to CDs to CD sales. Just because you only listen to one CD a day (which takes around 40 minutes), doesn't mean you're not going to buy more CDs. You could buy a new CD every day and listen to it once. That would be the RIAA's dream-come-true, but you're still only listening for 40 minutes or so. And three hours listening to radio doesn't indicate which formats. Music formats generally dominate their markets (except Chicago), but most morning shows on music formats are talk-oriented anyway. Potentially, the listener could be tuning in just for the morning show.

On Page 7, Liebowitz makes this point:

By way of comparison, the exposure effect seems likely to be stronger in the
case of radio than in the case of MP3 downloads. Downloaders were unlikely to
just encounter music that they enjoyed since downloaders are required to look
for music using a search engine. Radio stations, in contrast, play music not
chosen by and often unknown to the listener. The listener’s choice of the radio
station or program, however, reveals that the listener enjoys the particular
genre of music played by the station, increasing the possibility that the listener
will encounter new music that he or she will wish to purchase.

Why does he include this point? I actually have a feeling that I'm missing something here. This lone paragraph seems to negate his whole argument. Radio exposes people to new music? No kidding? And the listener will be more likely to buy that music? I guess radio does the music industry quite a bit of good, then. Where else are people going to learn about new music? Not from MP3 downloads, apparently. I find that paragraph puzzling.

More to come. I'm even going to cover some points where I think Liebowitz gets it right.

OK, maybe Drew Carey isn't so bad, after all

So, I was a little disappointed by CBS's decision to make Drew Carey the host of The Price is Right. But, I have to admit, I really enjoyed him on the debut of Power of 10 last night. He was funny, comfortable and genuine. He made what could have been a dull show pretty entertaining.

He was funny right off the bat. While introducing one of the first two contestants named Marine (I think), Carey had a little difficulty pronouncing the name of her hometown of Issaquah, Washington:

Drew: What major city is that near?
Marine: That is near Seattle.
Drew: Good. So you're from Seattle, Washington.
(laughs)
Drew: You're a marketing and sales manager but you run marathons!
Marine: I do. I run marathons--
Drew: Me too!

And that was only about a minute and half into the show. It caught me by surprise and I laughed out loud.

Carey seemed legitimately excited when 19-year-old Jamie won a million bucks, which was a pretty cool moment. And then Carey admitted that they hadn't counted on somebody going for the $10,000,000 grand prize so soon, and hadn't really rehearsed how that part of the game would go. What could have been a train wreck of a moment (and probably would have been edited out), turned into a charming sequence as Carey tentatively lead Jamie into the final round.

Drew Carey was wonderful as he interacted with the contestants, and if he can bring something like that to The Price is Right, I'll be watching.

Refuting Liebowitz: preface

Earlier this summer, the radio business paid a bit of attention paid to a paper written by a Stan Liebowitz. Liebowitz is a professor at the University of Texas at Dallas School of Management. Liebowitz has done lots of work on copyright issues, usually taking the side of the entertainment industry.

The paper receiving the attention is entitled The Elusive Symbiosis: The Impact of Radio on the Record Industry and it was published in March 2004. Why is just now getting attention? The music industry is gearing up to claim more royalties from traditional broadcast radio. In short, most outlets that use copyrighted music must pay royalties to both the composer and the performer. Radio, however, has only had to pay royalties to the composer. Now, the recording industry wants radio to pay both royalties, like everybody else. Radio has always felt that by playing songs, the record industry was getting free exposure to millions of people. If a listener heard a song they liked, they might be more inclined to go out and buy a recording of it. Now, the recording industry wants radio to pay both royalties, like everybody else.

Not so, claims Liebowitz. There are some in the music industry that are using his paper as ammunition in the fight to collect more royalties.

Liebowitz argues that radio listening substitutes for listening to recorded music, therefore negatively impacting music sales.

I decided to seek out his paper and actually read it. Following the link on his personal page hosted by his university, I read on the download page that the document has only been downloaded 221 times since March 2004. Really? The paper causing such a stir has only been downloaded 221 times? I'm sure it has been read more than that as people email it back and forth, but still...221 times?

One only needs to read the paper to realize that if this is the best that the music industry has, then the RIAA and their friends are truly out of their minds.

In the coming days, I will refute Liebowitz's arguments page by ridiculous page. In the meantime you can download the paper and read it for yourself.