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.

Facebook's Zuckerberg says "you have one identity"

really???

I read the article in this month's Wired with some intrigue. But I certainly had a better understanding of the interesting beliefs/values that sit behind Facebook's approach to privacy (or lack of).

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with Facebook's much-maligned abuse, exploitation or under-hand approach to privacy (or lack of) per se. As I have said previously, those that put it all out there on facebook do not give a sh*t about privacy. You only need to look at the content and photos that they publish for their 300+ 'friends' to view. Pictures of their children, tales of their ex's flaws, wall postings to their spouses and children - who actually live under the same roof - and warnings to biatches to 'keep away from my man' etc etc. In fact the real crime here is probably one of general social breakdown and the art of conversation. But I'll save that for another post.

I was intrigued that what seems to be driving facebook's evangelism of no privacy is in fact Zuckerberg's view that we should all be transparent anyways - both our social and work personas blurred. Hmmmm. Interesting that Sheryl Sandberg, COO, did not appear to share the same view.

Now, I don't know Zuckerberg. I've read a few articles about him, and of course I've read his biog on wikipedia, so I'm sure I have the full picture. But I think he is seriously naive if he believes people only have one identity, or aspect. What I find most worrying, is that he implies that privacy, because it is not transparency, is dishonest. When did it become dishonest to avoid flaunting your sexuality in front of small children, or refrain from swearing like a trooper in front of the reverend, or save hangover breath for days when you don't have to be in the office at 8am. Hello!!! I thought that this was part of juggling the various strands of life. Why does Zuckerberg think that this is a lack of transparency, or in some way construe putting up a pretence? Isn't this what all human beings - both children, but especially adults, do, to actually function socially or otherwise? Imagine if no one ever had any social constraints, controls or restraints. Although interesting, the world would be an awful caricature of... facebook.

Ask any working mom, and she will tell you about the different aspects of her life. This does not mean that she has different identities, just that she brings the relevant skills, knowledge, humour and emotions etc, to suit the situation.

I'm all for more transparency, and I agree that people do sometimes suppress their true personalities, and therefore potential, to such an extent that they lose themselves, especially at work. But, I am a little worried that Zuckerberg's mission to correct this is somewhat misguided, and its not what people are signing up to. In a sense, Facebook could actually be accused of having more than one identity. In that it pretends to be a harmless social networking site, when actually its young founder is on a naive mission to 'out' everyone and rid the world of the evil that is privacy.

When One Woman's Tweet is Another Woman's Privacy

Talk about a storm in a tweetcup! When Penelope Trunk tweeted the following, she caused an outcry:
I'm in a board meeting. having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there's a f***ed-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin

Now, I'm not really interested in discussing the ins and outs of abortion, or how women deal with miscarriage or the rights/or not of the unborn child vs woman's body debate.

But I am intrigued at the furore that the Tweet has caused. In fact I cannot believe this to be the most offensive thing ever posted on Twitter, Facebook, myspace or wherever. So why all of the fuss?

I have been dabbling with social networking sites for a little while now, and have been on facebook in particular for some time. I am utterly amazed at the level of, often intimate, detail that people will post for old school friends, family members, work colleagues, bosses and acquaintances to see. And I'm not talking teenagers here - I'm talking 30 and 40 somethings, who seem to be at the forefront of online living - escapism from middle-aged mediocre lives, or simply a way of cranking up ones productivity. Who knows.

There was even the case of the MI6 chief - John Sawers, whose wife had posted numerous family photos and details of holidays etc on her facebook account. Doh! And surely therein lies the issue. When does the release of information jeopardise either your own or someone else's security? Or when is the content so grossly offensive that it breaks some law or other? Surely anything else is completely up to the individual.

People are trying to sell their virginity, and their grannies on ebay. The miscarriage tweet, though it may offend many, is really no big deal.

Summer Reading

I'm certain there is a snazzier title in here somewhere but I merely want to spend 10 minutes musing over just that...my Summer reading list. Actually, its my holiday list to be precise. For as much as I would love to have time in the day to curl up in a bug cosy fleece and fluffy slippers with a mug of cocoa, it just never happens. There is always something else to do.

Unless, of course, I am far away from that thing that needs doing. En vacance, I spend roughly 50% of my time reading - at the beach, by the pool, at breakfast. The OTM book is only banished in the evening, and if I am exploring wherever it is in the world I am.

I think you can see that this two week reading window of opportunity is critical to the success of the holiday as well as reminding me how to read, topping up my literary intake, stimulating my thinking and self-development, and enabling me to converse with the chattering classes (that last one was a joke), so this takes some thinking about beforehand. It cant just be thrown together, and I certainly cannot simply grab whatever is on special offer at the Waterstones at the airport.

So, what is on the list? Well, there is some logic to it. I always take a mixture of deep vs shallow, trite vs serious, fact vs fiction, corporate vs real life. Right at the very top of my list, which I will start with to help the wind down is He's just not that into you. I have already read the introductions and it is laugh out loud funny. I may follow that with Shopaholic and Baby (yes, you read right). I'll have you know I was probably one of the first to read Shopaholic (and the follow-on's) many many years ago, probably when Isla Fisher was still wearing a checkered summer dress on Home and Away. I always take a salacious biography, and I'm currently torn between Russell Brand and Dawn French. Then onto the business books that will be fortunate enough to make it into the critical collection. My rule is that they must be easy reads, with concepts and principles that relate to every day life. So in the past, Tipping Point, Funky Business and Blink have all made it onto the list. This year's choice is easy. I need to buy The Long Tail in paperback (luggage allowance-friendly) so that I can finally finish it. I will also add Chris Anderson's new book - Free. I will complete my literary summer holiday with The White Tiger, and White Teeth - a bit like watching big Oscar winners, I like to give critically acclaimed reads a try. The jokers in the pack (two of them) are The Accidental Billionaires (beginnings of facebook) and Bringing Down The House (the book behind the film 21, which I saw recently).

The very task of pulling this incredibly important list cannot be underestimated - this is essentially a years worth of reading, compressed into two precious weeks. Fab!!!