Wolf whistling is alive and well

Is it just me, or is wolf-whistling on the increase?  Whilst out for my early morning run on Tuesday I was slightly taken aback when I heard this strange noise, looked around and saw a parked-up driver with pursed lips.  Then on Thursday, I had two horn-honks, in close succession.  At one stage I thought I must have forgotten to put my running vest on, or might have split my shorts.  But no, no wardrobe malfunctions.

It got me thinking about how women in the eighties used to get so hung up on wolf-whistles, and being called "love", or "darling" in the office.  Funny how times change.  Now it seems to be the norm for everyone to refer to each other in affectionate terms such as chick, hun, duck, love, treacle - whether you are male or female, and noone seems to bat an eye.

Even in the office, most women I know tend to hold their own, and give as good as they get.  Don't get me wrong, we still make a mental note of men with an inability to keep the eyes away from the chest-region. But we are probably less likely to go running down to HR to complain, and are more likely to simply recognise this male deficiency and move on, occasionally laughing at said individual with other colleagues who have clocked the same.

I'm not condoning those who cross the line, just saying that I think the line has moved and blurred, since the media and shoulder-padded feminists have stopped telling us it was all so demeaning.

The thing about Skype

We've all heard of Skype.  It's a great idea, and its free - mostly. So why hasn't it taken over the world? Years after launching, why isn't everyone laughing all the way to the bank.  And why haven't call providers revenues been dented?  In short, why hasn't Skype tipped?

I'm not sure what the business text books are saying, but my experience is this, and I suspect it to be typical of many users.  I heard of Skype about 5 years ago.  Didn't really get it.  Thought that perhaps some people were joining a secret cult where you had to scratch your left ear to gain entry.  You would see certain 'types' add it to the bottom of their email signature, or websites - Hmmm.  Anyway, after an advertising campaign a couple of years ago, and after visiting some faraway relatives I revisited Skype.  Set up a username and hey presto, I made 2 or 3 calls - maximum - grainy webcam, patchy sound quality etc.  I then did nothing.  Until this week.

My brother has recently moved to the US, so my sister was teaching my Mother to use Skype (again!).  Now here is the first thing about Skype.  People aren't always on.  They couldn't get hold of him because he was showing as offline.  I used my nifty, free, WhatsApp app to message him, and within a few seconds he was on.  But here for me is the crux with Skype.  The quality was so abysmal they had to abandon.  I called them on my iphone's Skype app, but again the quality was awful.  They could barely hear me at all - just the odd syllable.

If the stats are to be believed they reckon Skype is taking 13% of the international call share of minutes.  Really???  Based on my experience I would rather use my landline, mobile or a prepaid phone card.  Surely you need to be able to hear someone to have a conversation with them, rather than spend the entire duration saying "what was that?"  Perhaps this is why the share of minutes is so high.

What I love about Skype is that it truly epitomises the Scandinavian sense of fairness and egality.  Spotify and Ikea - same thing.  But I think I'll wait another few years until the next marketing campaign announces that you can actually now hold a decent conversation.

Singing for supper on QVC

I've read the article in today's Sunday Times and I'm still not sure what to make of it - artists singing on QVC to sell albums?

For me, Matthew Goodman goes a little far when he calls it 'selling their soul'. No, Matthew, selling your soul is allowing your single, nay, your face, to be used to advertise deodorant. Come on, Alexandra, you are so much better than that.

Is it sad, or savvy, that recording companies are scraping the barrel of recorded music sales by turning to the 'we buy anything on impulse' audience that watch QVC. Sure it may shift a few units, but will these people actually go to the concerts, buy the merchandise, and follow up releases? Unlikely, but still plausible I suppose. Either this is the clever discovery of a profitable new segment, or the last ditch attempt of a dying swan.

I reckon that recorded music is heading one way - free. Or as free as it can be under some sort of subscription, rights, or rental basis. With only collectors, luddites and members of the slow movement regularly buying physical products.

I also believe that there is a big elephant in the room, which the music industry has to acknowledge before it can move forwards. Illegal downloading has not robbed them of income per se, as suggested in the article. There is no way on earth that the quantity of everything downloaded would ever have been purchased. Many illegal downloaders probably don't even get round to listening to half of it. Yes, it will have had an impact on revenues, but what about general social trends. Kids who had nothing else to do thirty years ago except watch TV with their parents, listen to their friends' mix tapes, or play on their Commodore 64 (if they were lucky) now have PSPs, Facebook, iphones, wii's etc. While the grown-ups now eat out, go to the cinema, cook with Jamie's 20-minute meals app. Maybe the time for listening to music has just been squeezed out by our busy, have-it-all lives.

Yes, all creative industries need to tackle the issue of protecting artistic content. But seriously, the music business needs to spend less money on old rope, and put more efforts into making money in the future - be that from recorded music, or something else. And I don't think QVC is the answer. But then what do I know.