About Lee Simmons

Sting may no longer be able to hit the high notes when he croons “Roxanne.” Still, he and his fellow Police-men will be richer than many Third World nations by the time their current reunion tour wraps up this fall.

Hard as it is to believe, it is not 1983. The Police, Genesis, Squeeze, Crowded House, Def Leppard, and Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters are but a few among the pantheon of aging rockers selling out arenas and concert houses the world over this year. More than ever, these elder rock statesmen — and women (hat tip to The Pretenders) — are proving a bigger draw among ticket buyers than younger whippersnappers like John Mayer and Wilco. How can it be that these guys are still scissor-kicking their way to the bank after all these years?

The concert industry loves its dinosaurs, bands from the ‘60s and ‘70s that continue to gobble up the summer tour market year in and year out. While artists once made two-thirds of their income from record sales, today about two-thirds of their income comes from concert tours, according to London trade group Music Managers Forum. In North America alone, ticket sales have jumped from $1.7 billion in 2000 to $3.1 billion in 2006, says industry tracker Pollstar.

Ticket prices certainly have something to do with that rise. The best seat in the house at a Police show can run you $900 (the band’s entire oeuvre can be purchased on CD for less than $100). Of course people are more than willing to pay because it was a tour that was never supposed to happen. They’re not the only ones raking in the dough, though. Genesis tickets are going for a cool $225.

It certainly begs the question how well the concert industry will fare once these rockers hang up their axes for good. However, with the likes of Van Halen and Led Zeppelin reportedly mulling their own reunion tours, the industry is showing no signs of a mournful refrain.

The first thought that crossed my mind when I heard that Sprint Nextel had recently dumped as many as 1,000 of its most critical customers: Why couldn’t I have been one of them? That’s neither here nor there, though. What is interesting is how the mobile giant has chosen to deal with its more malcontent subscribers. Just to recap, the company decided in late June to cut off service to its biggest complainers, a group of about 1,000 subscibers who have generated 40,000 calls per month to customer-service centers. Sprint delivered letters to these jilted subscribers explaining that “The number of inquiries you have made to us during this time has led us to determine that we are unable to meet your wireless needs.”

(Incidentally, Sprint also recently dropped 200 customers for excessive roaming – all of them military personnel stationed at West Point with no Sprint tower in sight.)

How’s that for customer service?

Firing a client isn’t necessarily a bad thing for any company. For the one that runs a distant third in the wireless industry to AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless, however, it’s a risky move. Today, it’s 1,000 customers. Thirty days from now – and millions of dissident blog postings later – who knows? The company gained only 600,000 new customers during the last quarter, compared to AT&T (1.2 million) and Verizon (1.7 million). In addition to chugging $8 billion into network upgrades, Sprint has launched an $800 million strategic campaign focused on data services – Internet, music downloads, video – to attract new subscribers.

So far Sprint has waved off criticism of the axing, claiming it was necessary because the volume of insurgent calls detracted from other subscribers’ customer experience. If I could only get a signal, I might call to remind the company an old adage that seems to be lost in translation – the customer is always right, even if he or she isn’t right by a cell tower.

Thousands of US Webcasters silenced their music streams on June 26 to protest a planned 300% royalty hike that could very well put the majority of them out of business. That day in 2007 may not go down in infamy in the course of world events, but it will be remembered by music fans.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Copyright Royalty Board has decided to boost royalty rates paid by digital radio operators to artists’ rights group SoundExchange beginning July 15. Many Webcasters face the threat of permanent blackout posed by the extraordinarily high rates, since they exist primarily on listener donations rather than corporate or ad-backed dollars.

The June day came and went with some fanfare. Yahoo!, MTV Online, and Rhapsody were among the more notable protesters. News outlets and the blogosphere were both well saturated with musings about the protest. Popular indie music e-tailer eMusic even pledged a “modest” amount of support to the campaign. But what will it all really produce?

Unfortunately, licensing fees are and always have been part of any major Webcaster’s business, as Last.FM’s co-founder Felix Miller apathetically reminded us. (Easy for Miller to say. Last.FM just got bought by CBS.) While there’s definitely some truth to the statement, it’s just not reasonable to think that Joe-Schmo-Who-Webcasts-From-His-Garage can afford paying up to $700,000 in annual fees (the current rate is around $10,000).

Two bills that would better align royalty fees with those applied to satellite radio operators continue to work their way through Congress, but the odds that they get enacted are highly negligible. In the meantime, protesters continue to urge fans to call their Congressional representatives for some much-needed final-hour boost to the legislation.

In a music industry stripped of any hint of eclecticism, Web radio is the final frontier for fans and artists alike. It frightens me to think what it looks — and sounds — like after July 15.

Up until just a few years ago, “corporate sustainability” was little more than a catch phrase used by environmentalists and a punch line used by executives. More and more, though, companies are warming up to the idea of corporate sustainability as a key profit driver. Many publicly traded firms are including corporate sustainability reports (CSR) in their annual reviews, while others are incorporating the practice into their bylaws. Some states like Minnesota — home to companies like Target, UnitedHealth, and U.S. Bancorp — are even considering legislation to permit corporations to adopt a “triple bottom line” (people, planet, profit), otherwise known as corporate sustainability reporting.

The corporate world can thank Enron for the recent boost in CSR efforts. Shareholders rightfully began clamoring for more transparency, and organizations have answered by implementing sustainability reports. Transparency isn’t the only result, though. Many CEOs are happily discovering that CSR pays dividends.

Wal-Mart is perhaps the best example of corporate sustainability at work. Its Personal Sustainability Project has aimed to decrease solid waste generated by retail locations by 25%, reduce packaging, develop more recyclable packaging, and increase fleet mileage. It has also gotten employees to adopt their own sustainability goals, whether it be riding a bike to work or switching to eco-friendly household cleaning products.

3M’s Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) program has saved that company $1 billion. While the program itself is older than the relatively new concept of corporate sustainability (launched in 1975), it is nonetheless cited by sustainability proponents as an example of what a company can do to reduce waste. 3P manages this by consistently reformulating products, modifying processes, redesigning equipment, and reusing waste materials.

Andrew Savitz and Karl Weber make a case for corporate sustainability and outline six steps toward launching a CSR effort. They point to two good examples. Volvo gauged its customers’ needs when it began to develop enhanced safety features while US automakers balked at the idea. Toyota anticipated industry change — rising gas prices — by introducing the hybrid Prius. Volvo revolutionized vehicle safety and saw increased profits. Toyota revolutionized fuel technology and is now the world’s #1 automaker.

While these are just a few examples, it’s clear that corporate sustainability should no longer be the butt of boardroom jokes. It’s a strategy worth investigating.

I am one of the many consumers of Internet radio, a godsend to the computer-bound worker. Internet radio has introduced me to countless new musical artists over the past few years and provides a constant and exhilarating soundtrack to my workday. Stations like KUT (Austin) and KCRW (Los Angeles) are among the hundreds of stations around the country that deliver music to online listeners free of charge.

Those days might soon be a memory, though. Earlier this year the Copyright Royalty Board voted to increase royalty rates that digital radio operators pay to SoundExchange, an artists’ rights group representing copyright owners. The ruling means broadcasters like KUT and KCRW, both of which subsist heavily on listener donations, will have to pay a per-song fee beginning July 15. That translates to 7/100 of a cent for every listener to every song dating back to January 1, 2006, and the cost is expected to triple by 2010.

It’s no great mystery what will happen if the ruling is left as is. Internet broadcasters around the country will close up shop in lieu of paying the new rates (except, perhaps, for corporate-backed providers like AOL Radio). Luckily, enough people are criticizing the proposal to pique Congress’ interest. Both the House and Senate have introduced bills aimed at halting the rate increase while seeking a more achievable flat royalty fee.

Do artists deserve to be paid for their art? Absolutely. But it’s pretty clear to me and others that if the ruling stands, those artists who need the dough most probably won’t get their music played anyway. That’s the beauty of Internet radio today — obscure artists have an efficient and direct marketing channel straight into the headphones of thousands of listeners and potential music buyers every single day.