ReportWire

Tag: Media and entertainment industry

  • Marketing exec wants to shift Verizon’s transactional image into one more tied to people’s lives

    Marketing exec wants to shift Verizon’s transactional image into one more tied to people’s lives

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Verizon Communications has long enjoyed its position as the leading provider of mobile services in the U.S. But a new trend of price-conscious customers holding onto their old phones has hurt the bottom line for telecom companies seeking to capitalize off the sale of new mobile phone lines.

    Enter Verizon Chief Marketing Officer Leslie Berland, who joined the telecom giant in January. She was Twitter’s first chief marketing officer nearly a decade ago and spent about a year at Peloton after leaving the social media platform in 2022. She started at Verizon in January and announced the company’s first rebrand in nine years, including a bold update to the iconic checkmark logo.

    The rebrand has been paired with fresh promotion of Verizon’s myPlan platform, which allows customers to pick and pay for select services. Verizon also announced a partnerships with streaming services — such as Netflix and Disney — to offer promotional bundles.

    Berland spoke to The Associated Press about the strategy behind the rebrand, and why it was necessary to keep the company growing. The transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

    Answer: Verizon is an extremely known brand in this country. I think it’s about 99% awareness. And what the research will show you is that we are seen as a respected, trusted, reliable brand and company. And that is a dream state for any company, big or small, right?

    But what we also found is that because so much of what Verizon does is invisible. You don’t see it and you don’t feel it, (the service) just works. And so what we saw in the research, there is sort of a distance between the brand and the consumer. So yes, we’re a (telecom) company but we’re also a life company, but people don’t think about us in their day-to-day life. So the challenge for us is to make our invisible visible and bring forward the things that we do in a meaningful and authentic way and show the role we play in people’s lives.

    The other thing that we looked at from a marketing perspective and advertising perspective is the (telecom) space, where, over time, it’s become a sea of sameness. A lot of the language is the same. The formats are very similar, a lot of the creative is similar. So it is really our opportunity now to be very bold and really breakthrough in a way that is meaningful to the consumer.

    A: The checkmark came out about nine years ago. It was introduced with the intention to show and emphasize the reliability (of the Verizon brand). But for a brand that now very much needs and should reflect an emotional and personal connection, the check is a very transactional sort of symbol.

    The other thing that we found with the check mark is that because it’s a generic symbol there’s relatively low awareness from consumers of the check’s association with Verizon. Given how well known we are, our logo should be something that is very resonant. So we moved the check into the V.

    We really see this as hearkening back to the origins of the Verizon name — veritas and horizon — life and what’s possible with the potential of life. So we brought those two things together in the design. So we’re using a lighter red and then we have the glow of the horizon in the middle of the V. That’s how we transitioned to what we now call the glow V.

    A: Over the years, absolutely. And (social media) continues to change and evolve at a very rapid place, especially the creator economy. And so what you’re pointing to is really very much a fragmentation of channels where people are absorb information each and every day, often throughout their day.

    The opportunity is that you can really reach the right customer with the right message at the right time in the channel that makes the most sense. So I think what’s involved is that there needs to be a deep understanding of these platforms. This is not something that you can fake. You really need to live it. You need to use these platforms. You need to understand it. The teams working on it need to understand it. Because it’s a science but very much an art.

    The speed at which the conversation changes is absolutely dynamic and surely has changed everything we’ve done as marketers over the years and will continue to do so.

    A: The industry over the years has had to become much more sophisticated around misinformation — among many other things that are not in our control — and so our response has evolved very rapidly.

    So over time, there has been increased amount of tools and monitoring and tracking and assessment and even polices to to assess, track, evolve and be agile in our response to misinformation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Marketing exec wants to shift Verizon’s transactional image into one more tied to people’s lives

    Marketing exec wants to shift Verizon’s transactional image into one more tied to people’s lives

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — Verizon Communications has long enjoyed its position as the leading provider of mobile services in the U.S. But a new trend of price-conscious customers holding onto their old phones has hurt the bottom line for telecom companies seeking to capitalize off the sale of new mobile phone lines.

    Enter Verizon Chief Marketing Officer Leslie Berland, who joined the telecom giant in January. She was Twitter’s first chief marketing officer nearly a decade ago and spent about a year at Peloton after leaving the social media platform in 2022. She started at Verizon in January and announced the company’s first rebrand in nine years, including a bold update to the iconic checkmark logo.

    The rebrand has been paired with fresh promotion of Verizon’s myPlan platform, which allows customers to pick and pay for select services. Verizon also announced a partnerships with streaming services — such as Netflix and Disney — to offer promotional bundles.

    Berland spoke to The Associated Press about the strategy behind the rebrand, and why it was necessary to keep the company growing. The transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

    Question: What compelled Verizon to rebrand now?

    Answer: Verizon is an extremely known brand in this country. I think it’s about 99% awareness. And what the research will show you is that we are seen as a respected, trusted, reliable brand and company. And that is a dream state for any company, big or small, right?

    But what we also found is that because so much of what Verizon does is invisible. You don’t see it and you don’t feel it, (the service) just works. And so what we saw in the research, there is sort of a distance between the brand and the consumer. So yes, we’re a (telecom) company but we’re also a life company, but people don’t think about us in their day-to-day life. So the challenge for us is to make our invisible visible and bring forward the things that we do in a meaningful and authentic way and show the role we play in people’s lives.

    The other thing that we looked at from a marketing perspective and advertising perspective is the (telecom) space, where, over time, it’s become a sea of sameness. A lot of the language is the same. The formats are very similar, a lot of the creative is similar. So it is really our opportunity now to be very bold and really breakthrough in a way that is meaningful to the consumer.

    Q: What was the thinking going into integrating the iconic checkmark into the V in Verizon?

    A: The checkmark came out about nine years ago. It was introduced with the intention to show and emphasize the reliability (of the Verizon brand). But for a brand that now very much needs and should reflect an emotional and personal connection, the check is a very transactional sort of symbol.

    The other thing that we found with the check mark is that because it’s a generic symbol there’s relatively low awareness from consumers of the check’s association with Verizon. Given how well known we are, our logo should be something that is very resonant. So we moved the check into the V.

    We really see this as hearkening back to the origins of the Verizon name — veritas and horizon — life and what’s possible with the potential of life. So we brought those two things together in the design. So we’re using a lighter red and then we have the glow of the horizon in the middle of the V. That’s how we transitioned to what we now call the glow V.

    Q: Has the decentralization of social media affected your approach to branding and marketing at all?

    A: Over the years, absolutely. And (social media) continues to change and evolve at a very rapid place, especially the creator economy. And so what you’re pointing to is really very much a fragmentation of channels where people are absorb information each and every day, often throughout their day.

    The opportunity is that you can really reach the right customer with the right message at the right time in the channel that makes the most sense. So I think what’s involved is that there needs to be a deep understanding of these platforms. This is not something that you can fake. You really need to live it. You need to use these platforms. You need to understand it. The teams working on it need to understand it. Because it’s a science but very much an art.

    The speed at which the conversation changes is absolutely dynamic and surely has changed everything we’ve done as marketers over the years and will continue to do so.

    Q: Are you concerned about AI-generated misinformation involving the Verizon brand? And how do you scan for that?

    A: The industry over the years has had to become much more sophisticated around misinformation — among many other things that are not in our control — and so our response has evolved very rapidly.

    So over time, there has been increased amount of tools and monitoring and tracking and assessment and even polices to to assess, track, evolve and be agile in our response to misinformation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google agreed to pay millions for California news. Journalists call it a bad deal

    Google agreed to pay millions for California news. Journalists call it a bad deal

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Google will soon give California millions of dollars to help pay for local journalism jobs in a first-in-the-nation deal, but journalists and other media industry experts are calling it a disappointing agreement that mostly benefits the tech giant.

    The agreement, which was hashed out behind closed doors and announced this week, will direct tens of millions of public and private dollars to keep local news organizations afloat. Critics say it’s a textbook political maneuver by tech giants to avoid a fee under what could have been groundbreaking legislation. California lawmakers agreed to kill a bill requiring tech to support news outlets they profit from in exchange for Google’s financial commitment.

    By shelving the bill, the state effectively gave up on an avenue that could have required Google and social media platforms to make ongoing payments to publishers for linking news content, said Victor Pickard, professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania. California also left behind a much bigger amount of funding that could have been secured under the legislation, he said.

    “Google got off easy,” Pickard said.

    Google said the deal will help both journalism and the artificial intelligence sector in California.

    “This public-private partnership builds on our long history of working with journalism and the local news ecosystem in our home state, while developing a national center of excellence on AI policy,” Kent Walker, president of global affairs and chief legal officer for Google’s parent company Alphabet, said in a statement.

    State governments across the U.S. have been working to help boost struggling news organizations. The U.S. newspaper industry has been in a long decline, with traditional business models collapsing and advertising revenues drying up in the digital era.

    As news organizations move from primarily print to mostly digital, they have increasingly relied on Google and Facebook to distribute its content. While publishers saw their advertising revenues nosedive significantly in the last few decades, Google’s search engine has become the hub of a digital advertisement empire that generates more than $200 billion annually.

    The Los Angeles Times was losing up to $40 million a year, the newspaper’s owner said in justifying a layoff of more than 100 people earlier this year.

    More than 2,500 newspapers have closed since 2005, and about 200 counties across the U.S. do not have any local news outlets, according to a report from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.

    California and New Mexico are funding local news fellowship programs. New York this year became the first state to offer a tax credit program for news outlets to hire and retain journalists. Illinois is considering a bill similar to the one that died in California.

    Here’s a closer look into the deal California made with Google this week:

    The deal, totaling $250 million, will provide money to two efforts: funding for journalism initiatives and a new AI research program. The agreement only guarantees funding for a period of five years.

    Roughly $110 million will come from Google and $70 million from the state budget to boost journalism jobs. The fund will be managed by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Google will also kick in $70 million to fund the AI research program, which would build tools to help solve “real world problems,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who brokered the deal.

    The deal is not a tax, which is a stark departure from a bill Wicks authored that would have imposed a “link tax” requiring companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft to pay a certain percentage of advertising revenue to media companies for linking to their content. The bill was modelled after a policy passed in Canada that requires Google to pay roughly $74 million per year to fund journalism.

    Tech companies spent the last two years fighting Wicks’ bill, launching expensive opposition campaigns and running ads attacking the legislation. Google threatened in April to temporarily block news websites from some California users’ search results. The bill had continued to advance with bipartisan support — until this week.

    Wicks told The Associated Press on Thursday that she saw no path forward for her bill and that the funding secured through the deal “is better than zero.”

    “This represents politics is the art of the possible,” she said.

    Industry experts see the deal as a playbook move Google has used across the world to avoid regulations.

    “Google cannot exit from news because they need it,” said Anya Schiffrin, a Columbia University professor who studies global media and co-authors a working paper on how much Google and Meta owes to news publishers. “So what they are doing is using a whole lot of different tactics to kill bills that will require them to compensate publishers fairly.”

    She estimates that Google owes $1.4 billion per year to California publishers.

    The Media Guild of the West, a union representing journalists in Southern California, Arizona and Texas, said journalists were locked out of the conversation. The union was a champion of Wicks’ bill but wasn’t included in the negotiations with Google.

    “The future of journalism should not be decided in backroom deals,” a letter by the union sent to lawmakers reads. “The Legislature embarked on an effort to regulate monopolies and failed terribly. Now we question whether the state has done more harm than good.”

    The agreement results in a much smaller amount of funding compared to what Google gives to newsrooms in Canada and goes against the goal to rebalance Google’s dominance over local news organizations, according to a letter from the union to Wicks earlier this week.

    Others also questioned why the deal included funding to build new AI tools. They see it as another way for tech companies to eventual replace them. Wicks’ original bill doesn’t include AI provisions.

    The deal has the support of some journalism groups, including California News Publishers Association, Local Independent Online News Publishers and California Black Media.

    The agreement is scheduled to take effect next year, starting with $100 million to kickstart the efforts.

    Wicks said details of the agreement are still being ironed out. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to include the journalism funding in his January budget, Wicks said, but concerns from other Democratic leaders could throw a wrench in the plan.

    ___

    This story has been updated to correct that, as well as Southern California and Texas, the Media Guild of the West represents journalists in Arizona, not Nevada.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok compares itself to foreign-owned American news outlets as it fights forced sale or ban

    TikTok compares itself to foreign-owned American news outlets as it fights forced sale or ban

    [ad_1]

    TikTok on Thursday pushed back against U.S. government arguments that the popular social media platform is not shielded by the First Amendment, comparing its platform to prominent American media organizations owned by foreign entities.

    Last month, the Justice Department argued in a legal brief filed in a Washington federal appeals court that neither TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, nor the platform’s global and U.S. arms — TikTok Ltd. and TikTok Inc. — were entitled to First Amendment protections because they are “foreign organizations operating abroad” or owned by one.

    TikTok attorneys have made the First Amendment a key part of their legal challenge to the federal law requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok to an approved buyer or face a ban.

    On Thursday, they argued in a court document that TikTok’s U.S. arm doesn’t forfeit its constitutional rights because it is owned by a foreign entity. They drew a parallel between TikTok and well-known news outlets such as Politico and Business Insider, both of which are owned by German publisher Axel Springer SE. They also cited Fortune, a business magazine owned by Thai businessman Chatchaval Jiaravanon.

    “Surely the American companies that publish Politico, Fortune, and Business Insider do not lose First Amendment protection because they have foreign ownership,” the TikTok attorneys wrote, arguing that “no precedent” supports what they called “the government’s dramatic rewriting of what counts as protected speech.”

    In a redacted court filing made last month, the Justice Department argued ByteDance and TikTok haven’t raised valid free speech claims in their challenge against the law, saying the measure addresses national security concerns about TikTok’s ownership without targeting protected speech.

    The Biden administration and TikTok had held talks in recent years aimed at resolving the government’s concerns. But the two sides failed to reach a deal.

    TikTok said the government essentially walked away from the negotiating table after it proposed a 90-page agreement that detailed how the company planned to address concerns about the app while still maintaining ties with ByteDance.

    However, the Justice Department has said TikTok’s proposal “failed to create sufficient separation between the company’s U.S. operations and China” and did not adequately address some of the government’s concerns.

    The government has pointed to some data transfers between TikTok employees and ByteDance engineers in China as why it believed the proposal, called Project Texas, was not sufficient to guard against national security concerns. Federal officials have also argued that the size and scope of TikTok would have made it impossible to meaningfully enforce compliance with the proposal.

    TikTok attorneys said Thursday that some of what the government views as inadequacies of the agreement were never raised during the negotiations.

    Separately the DOJ on Thursday evening asked the court to submit evidence under seal, saying in a filing that the case contained information classified at “Top Secret” levels. TikTok has been opposing those requests.

    Oral arguments in the case are scheduled to begin on Sept. 16.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Warner Bros. Discovery sues NBA for not accepting its matching offer

    Warner Bros. Discovery sues NBA for not accepting its matching offer

    [ad_1]

    Warner Bros. Discovery has sued the NBA after the league did not accept the company’s matching offer for one of the packages in its upcoming 11-year media rights deal.

    The lawsuit was filed on Friday in New York state court in Manhattan.

    WBD, the parent company of TNT Sports, is seeking a judgement that it matched Amazon Prime Video’s offer and an order seeking to delay the new media rights deal from taking effect beginning with the 2025-26 season.

    The NBA signed its deals with Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon Prime Video on Wednesday after saying it was not accepting Warner Bros. Discovery’s $1.8 billion per year offer. The deals will bring the league around $76 billion over 11 years.

    “Given the NBA’s unjustified rejection of our matching of a third-party offer, we have taken legal action to enforce our rights,” TNT Sports said in a statement. “We strongly believe this is not just our contractual right, but also in the best interest of fans who want to keep watching our industry-leading NBA content with the choice and flexibility we offer them through our widely distributed WBD video-first distribution platforms – including TNT and Max.”

    NBA spokesman Mike Bass said in a statement that “Warner Bros. Discovery’s claims are without merit and our lawyers will address them.”

    WBD says in the lawsuit that “TBS properly matched the Amazon Offer by agreeing to telecast the games on both TNT and Max. The Amazon Offer provides for Cable Rights, including TNT Rights, because the offer is for games that TBS currently has the right to distribute on TNT via Non-Broadcast Television, which includes both cable and Internet distribution.”

    WBD also claims under its contract it “has the right to ‘Match a Third Party Offer that provides for the exercise of (NBA games) via any form of combined audio and video distribution.’”

    The lawsuit is another chapter in a deteriorating relationship between the league and Turner Sports that has gone on nearly 40 years. Turner has had an NBA package since 1984 and games have been on TNT since the network launched in 1988.

    TNT’s iconic “Inside the NBA” show has won numerous Sports Emmy Awards and has been a model for studio shows.

    However, the relationship started to become strained when Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said during an RBC Investor Conference in November 2022 that Turner and WBD “don’t have to have the NBA.”

    Warner Bros. Discovery and the league were unable to reach a deal during the exclusive negotiating period, which expired in April. Zaslav and TNT Sports Chairman/CEO Luis Silberwasser said throughout the process, though, that it intended to match one of the deals.

    WBD had five days to match a part of those deals after the NBA’s Board of Governors approved the rights deals on July 17.

    WBD received all of the contracts the next day and informed the league on Monday that it was matching Amazon Prime Videos offer.

    The NBA announced on Wednesday that it was not considered a true match.

    “Throughout these negotiations, our primary objective has been to maximize the reach and accessibility of our games for our fans,” the league said when it did not accept the WBD deal. “Our new arrangement with Amazon supports this goal by complementing the broadcast, cable and streaming packages that are already part of our new Disney and NBCUniversal arrangements. All three partners have also committed substantial resources to promote the league and enhance the fan experience.”

    ___

    AP NBA: https://apnews.com/hub/nba

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Artists from Universal Music Group are heading back to TikTok as new licensing deal reached

    Artists from Universal Music Group are heading back to TikTok as new licensing deal reached

    [ad_1]

    Artists from Universal Music Group, which include Drake, Adele, Bad Bunny and Billie Eilish, will be returning to TikTok as the two parties have struck a new licensing agreement following an approximately three-month long dispute.

    The two sides said Thursday that they are “now working expeditiously to return music by artists represented by Universal Music Group and songwriters represented by Universal Music Publishing Group to TikTok in due course.”

    Taylor Swift, whose recently released album, “The Tortured Poets Department,” has hit No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart, had some of her songs make a return to TikTok last month, but the details of how that exactly happened are unclear, according to Variety.

    UMG said in January that it had not agreed to terms of a new deal with TikTok, and planned to stop licensing content from the artists it represents on the social media platform that is owned by ByteDance, as well as TikTok Music services.

    At the time, UMG had been pressing TikTok on three issues: “appropriate compensation for our artists and songwriters, protecting human artists from the harmful effects of AI, and online safety for TikTok’s users.”

    TikTok pushed back against the claims by UMG, saying that it had reached ‘artist-first’ agreements with every other label and publisher.

    On Thursday the two sides announced that their new agreement would give significant benefits to UMG’s global stable of artists, songwriters and labels and would return their music to TikTok.

    “Music is an integral part of the TikTok ecosystem and we are pleased to have found a path forward with Universal Music Group,” TikTok CEO Shou Chew said in a statement. “We are committed to working together to drive value, discovery and promotion for all of UMG’s amazing artists and songwriters, and deepen their ability to grow, connect and engage with the TikTok community.”

    Part of the new deal includes UMG and TikTok working together to find new monetization opportunities. They will also will work together on campaigns supporting UMG’s artists across genres and territories globally.

    In addition, the companies will put their combined efforts toward ensuring that AI development across the music industry will protect human artistry and payments for artists and songwriters. TikTok will also work with UMG to remove unauthorized AI-generated music from the platform, as well as on tools to improve artist and songwriter attribution.

    TikTok plans to continue investing in building artist-centric tools that will help UMG artists realize their potential on the platform. Some tools include “Add to Music App”, enhanced data and analytics, and integrated ticketing capabilities.

    “We’re gratified to renew our relationship with TikTok predicated on significant advancements in commercial and marketing opportunities as well as protections provided to our industry-leading roster on their platform,” Michael Nash, chief digital officer and executive vice president, Universal Music Group, said in a statement.

    While TikTok has settled its dispute with UMG, the future of the platform remains uncertain. Last month President Joe Biden signed legislation requiring TikTok parent ByteDance to sell to an approved buyer within a year or to shut down. It’s not clear whether that law will survive an expected legal challenge or that ByteDance would agree to sell.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google removes links to California news sites for some users

    Google removes links to California news sites for some users

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Google on Friday began removing California news websites from some people’s search results, a test that acted as a threat should the state Legislature pass a law requiring the search giant to pay media companies for linking to their content.

    Google announced the move in a blog post on Friday, calling it a “short-term test for a small percentage of users … to measure the impact of the legislation on our product experience.” The company said it also would pause new investments in the California news industry, including the partnership initiative with news organizations and its product licensing program.

    “By helping people find news stories, we help publishers of all sizes grow their audiences at no cost to them. (This bill) would up-end that model,” Jaffer Zaidi, Google’s vice president for global news partnerships, wrote in the blog post.

    The California Legislature is considering a bill that would require tech giants like Google, Facebook and Microsoft to pay a certain percentage of advertising revenue to media companies for linking to their content. How much the companies would have to pay would be decided by a panel of three judges through an arbitration process.

    The bill aims to stop the loss of journalism jobs, which have been disappearing rapidly as legacy media companies have struggled to profit in the digital age. More than 2,500 newspapers have closed in the U.S. since 2005, according to Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. California has lost more than 100 news organizations in the past decade, according to Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, the bill’s author.

    “This is a bill about basic fairness — it’s about ensuring that platforms pay for the content they repurpose,” Wicks said. “We are committed to continuing negotiations with Google and all other stakeholders to secure a brighter future for California journalists and ensure that the lights of democracy stay on.”

    The state Assembly passed the bill last year with bipartisan support despite fierce opposition and lobbying efforts from big tech companies. The California Senate would have to pass it later this year for it to become law.

    Supporters said the legislation would help level the playing field between news publishers and large digital platforms and provide a “lifeline” to local news organizations, which rely heavily on Google’s search engine to distribute its content in the digital era. While Google’s search engine has become the hub of a digital advertisement empire that generates more than $200 billion annually, news publishers saw their advertising revenues nosedive significantly in the last few decades.

    But opponents, including Google, Meta and some independent newsrooms, call the legislation a “link tax” that would primarily benefit out-of-state newspaper chains and hedge funds and further decimate local news organizations. Richard Gingras, Google’s vice president of news, also told state lawmakers, in a hearing last December, that Google already made significant contributions to support local journalism, pointing to the tech giant’s financial grants and training to nearly 1,000 local publications in 2023, among other programs.

    Google’s search engine should be seen as “the largest newsstand on Earth,” Gingras said, where it helps connect users to news websites more than 24 billion times per month. Google’s search engine holds an estimated 90% share of the market.

    “This traffic in turn helps publishers make money by showing ads or attracting new subscribers,” he said, adding that it’s estimated that each click on a link from Google is worth 5 cents to 7 cents to a news website.

    Google’s decision to temporarily remove links to news websites is not a new tactic for tech giants to use when pushing back on unwanted legislation. When Canada and Australia passed similar laws to promote journalism, Meta — the company that owns Facebook and Instagram — responded by blocking content from Canadian publishers on its sites in Canada. The company made similar threats to U.S. Congress and California lawmakers last year. Google had threatened to do the same in Canada. But in November, Google agreed to pay 100 million Canadian dollars ($74 million U.S. dollars) to the news industry.

    News publishers would suffer and could lay off more journalists if Google completely blocks content from its search, but experts say Google also would take a financial hit without news content.

    “Google would be damaging itself enormously if it decided to stop using newspaper content,” Brandon Kressin, an antitrust attorney representing News Media Alliance and other news publishers, told lawmakers in a December hearing. “They would be cutting off their nose to spite their own face.”

    The political wrangling over Google’s dominant search engine can throttle access to various news sources comes against the backdrop of legal trouble that could culminate in decisions that undercut the company’s internet empire.

    After presenting evidence to support its allegations that Google has been abusing its power to stifle competition and innovation during the biggest antitrust trial in a quarter century, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department will present its closing arguments next month to a federal judge who is expected to issue a decision in the case later this year.

    Following another antitrust trial that ended in December, a federal jury concluded Google had turned its app store for smartphones running on its Android software into an illegal monopoly that limited consumer choices while enriching the company through unfairly high commissions charged for in-app purchases. A hearing on the changes that Google will have to make resulting from that verdict is also scheduled to occur next month.

    California has attempted to boost local journalism through various initiatives, including a $25 million multiyear, state-funded program in partnership with UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism to place 40 early-career journalists in local newsrooms annually. Lawmakers are also considering another proposal that would expand tax credits for local news organizations this year.

    —-

    Associated Press reporter Michael Liedtke in San Francisco contributed to the report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Want to feel special? Stores and restaurants with paid memberships are betting on it

    Want to feel special? Stores and restaurants with paid memberships are betting on it

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — How much does it cost to feel special?

    At Chuck E- Cheese, the family entertainment and pizza chain, the price is $7.99, $11.99 or $29.99 per month. At the other end of the spectrum, the founder of a shopping app called Long Story Short wants to charge members $1,000 monthly for anonymous access to such hard-to-get goods as a rare Keith Haring artwork.

    Paid loyalty programs are all the rage in the restaurant and retail worlds. Looking for reliable sales in an unpredictable spending environment, more companies have extended their points-based loyalty tiers to making their most dependable customers feel valued for an up-front fee.

    Consumers bombarded with membership offers are promised perks such as free deliveries and first dibs on new launches, but also in some cases the right to jump ahead of non-members on reservation lists and in customer service queues.

    It’s a method rooted in both the business case for treating big spenders well – it’s cheaper for businesses to keep an existing customer than to find a new one — and in the fundamental human need for belonging, said Valerie Folkes, a consumer psychologist and marketing professor emerita at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business.

    “If they’re seated earlier than other people or there’s a special line for them at the registers, then they feel they’re special,” Folkes said. “It makes them feel that there’s a stronger link or a bond between themselves and the company.”

    In retailing, Target Corp. is taking on the Amazon Prime juggernaut with a paid loyalty program that will cost $49 a year between April 7 and May 18, and $99 annually thereafter. Members of Target Circle 360 can expect free two-day shipping and free deliveries of orders over $35 in as little as an hour, the company announced last week.

    Target executives said the 100 million-plus customers enrolled in the company’s free Target Circle loyalty plan already spend five times more than non-members. CEO Brian Cornell told The Associated Press the hope is the new paid membership “builds more relevance, more stickiness.”

    Chuck E. Cheese piloted a paid program with bronze, silver and gold tiers in Santee, California in December and launched it in the rest of the San Diego area in February. The program offers discounts on food and drinks and freebies like cotton candy. Members also receive free “play points,” which allow customers to play arcade games and get snacks, and e-tickets, which are typically earned from playing arcade games and redeemed for prizes. The tickets and points are automatically loaded on to the customer’s card.

    Gold tier members, for example, pay $29.99 per month, received 50% off their meals and earn 1,000 tickets. Bronze members, who pay $7.99 a month, have food and beverages discounted at 20% and get 200 tickets. The higher the tier, the better discounts and the more e-tickets and play points customers get.

    Mark Kupferman, the company’s chief insights and marketing officer, said the program offers good value for repeat customers at a time when families paying higher costs for basic necessities may feel financially stretched.

    “So this gives them options that they can come more often,“ Kupferman said. ”We want our members to feel special.”

    For companies concerned about churn rates, creating a fee-based loyalty program can seem like a win-win in terms of revenue. A 2020 McKinsey survey found members of paid loyalty programs were 60% more likely to spend more on the brand after opting in, while free loyalty programs only increased that likelihood by 30%.

    E-commerce site Hive Brands, a startup launched in 2020, wants to be the go-to online marketplace for eco-friendly cleaning products, toiletries and pantry staples from soup to nuts. But after finding shoppers not returning as frequently as hoped, it launched a loyalty program in January that costs $60 a year.

    Members get speedier shipping and a $120 credit for recurring deliveries. Hive also plans to tag them for priority treatment to ensure their inquiries or orders are dealt with first.

    “Customer care across the board for us is really important. And so we make that pretty democratic,” Hive co-founder and Chief Commercial Officer Katie Tyson said. “However, there’s lots of incremental opportunities that members are going to get with Hive in a way that nonmembers can not.”

    Tech entrepreneur Joseph Einhorn, the founder of Fancy, a shopping and scrapbooking site, is looking to take VIP rewards to a new level with Long Story Short. The $1,000 a month app still is in a testing phase, but several hundred potential power shoppers have created accounts to apply for membership, Einhorn said.

    Once admitted, they can view roughly 50,000 hand-selected luxury items, including rare watches and a private island. Members also can request to have items procured for them anonymously, and Einhorn’s team will serve as a go-between to get the best price, he said.

    “We are like a concierge,” he said. “We can get you anything and will be a buffer between you and wherever it has to come from.”

    As the number of loyalty programs with entry costs rises in the mass market, however, some experts think businesses run the risk of making customers who can’t afford to opt in feel left out and diminished.

    Alexander Chernev, a marketing professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, said shoppers previously satisfied with the customer service they were getting may become dissatisfied when they see others getting more.

    “It’s about whether the extra benefits ( … ) are at the expense of someone else,” Chernev said.

    Walmart was the recent subject of complaints on social media from customers who noticed some self-checkout kiosks reserved for Walmart+ members, who pay $98 per year for free next-day and two-day shipping on many online orders.

    Walmart spokeswoman Kelsey Bohl said that during times of limited self-checkout access, some stores were designating select self-serve registers for Walmart+ members using the retailer’s Scan and Go app and for independent contractors who make deliveries and returns for the chain and other stores.

    “The decision is intended to better manage checkout availability,” she noted in an emailed statement to The Associated Press.

    Some skeptics think paid memberships might be a way for companies to disguise cost increases or to cheat their subscribers by changing the program perks down the road.

    Anna McDonald, a senior technical writer who lives in Valparaiso, Indiana, said she’s not happy that video streaming services have started adding charges for ad-free viewing. She’s noticed hotels increasingly charging an extra fee for a flexible reservation cancellations or cutting back on providing new sheets and towels daily.

    “If you’re providing a service, it should be providing the full customer service,” McDonald, 40, said. “There are some basics that come with that. And companies are just trying to nickel and dime to the basics.”

    ___

    AP Airlines writer David Koenig in Dallas contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Apple fined nearly $2 billion by the European Union over music streaming competition

    Apple fined nearly $2 billion by the European Union over music streaming competition

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — The European Union leveled its first antitrust penalty against Apple on Monday, fining the U.S. tech giant nearly $2 billion for breaking the bloc’s competition laws by unfairly favoring its own music streaming service over rivals.

    Apple banned app developers from “fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services outside of the app,” said the European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s executive arm and top antitrust enforcer.

    “This is illegal, and it has impacted millions of European consumers,” Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, said at a news conference.

    Apple behaved this way for almost a decade, which meant many users paid “significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions,” the commission said.

    The 1.8 billion-euro fine follows a long-running investigation triggered by a complaint from Swedish streaming service Spotify five years ago.

    The EU has led global efforts to crack down on Big Tech companies, including a series of multbillion-dollar fines for Google and charging Meta with distorting the online classified ad market. The commission also has opened a separate antitrust investigation into Apple’s mobile payments service.

    Apple hit back at both the commission and Spotify, saying it would appeal the penalty.

    “The decision was reached despite the Commission’s failure to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm, and ignores the realities of a market that is thriving, competitive, and growing fast,” the company said in a statement.

    It said Spotify stood to benefit from the decision, asserting that the Swedish streaming service that holds a 56% share of Europe’s music streaming market and doesn’t pay Apple for using its App Store met 65 times with the commission over eight years.

    “Ironically, in the name of competition, today’s decision just cements the dominant position of a successful European company that is the digital music market’s runaway leader,” Apple said.

    The commission’s investigation initially centered on two concerns. One was the iPhone maker’s practice of forcing app developers that are selling digital content to use its in-house payment system, which charges a 30% commission on all subscriptions.

    But the EU later dropped that to focus on how Apple prevents app makers from telling their users about cheaper ways to pay for subscriptions that don’t involve going through an app.

    The investigation found that Apple banned streaming services from telling users about how much subscription offers cost outside of their apps, including links in their apps to pay for alternative subscriptions or even emailing users to tell them about different pricing options.

    The fine comes the same week that new EU rules are set to kick in that are aimed at preventing tech companies from dominating digital markets.

    The Digital Markets Act, due to take effect Thursday, imposes a set of do’s and don’ts on “gatekeeper” companies including Apple, Meta, Google parent Alphabet, and TikTok parent ByteDance — under threat of hefty fines.

    The DMA’s provisions are designed to prevent tech giants from the sort of behavior that’s at the heart of the Apple investigation. Apple has already revealed how it will comply, including allowing iPhone users in Europe to use app stores other than its own and enabling developers to offer alternative payment systems.

    The commission also has opened a separate antitrust investigation into Apple’s mobile payments service, and the company has promised to open up its tap-and-go mobile payment system to rivals in order to resolve it.

    ___

    This story has been corrected to show that the fine was issued Monday, not Tuesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Apple fined nearly $2 billion by the European Union over music streaming competition

    Apple fined nearly $2 billion by the European Union over music streaming competition

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — The European Union leveled its first antitrust penalty against Apple on Monday, fining the U.S. tech giant nearly $2 billion for breaking the bloc’s competition laws by unfairly favoring its own music streaming service over rivals.

    Apple banned app developers from “fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services outside of the app,” said the European Commission, the 27-nation bloc’s executive arm and top antitrust enforcer.

    “This is illegal, and it has impacted millions of European consumers,” Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, said at a news conference.

    Apple behaved this way for almost a decade, which meant many users paid “significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions,” the commission said.

    The 1.8 billion-euro fine follows a long-running investigation triggered by a complaint from Swedish streaming service Spotify five years ago.

    The EU has led global efforts to crack down on Big Tech companies, including a series of multbillion-dollar fines for Google and charging Meta with distorting the online classified ad market. The commission also has opened a separate antitrust investigation into Apple’s mobile payments service.

    Apple hit back at both the commission and Spotify, saying it would appeal the penalty.

    “The decision was reached despite the Commission’s failure to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm, and ignores the realities of a market that is thriving, competitive, and growing fast,” the company said in a statement.

    It said Spotify stood to benefit from the decision, asserting that the Swedish streaming service that holds a 56% share of Europe’s music streaming market and doesn’t pay Apple for using its App Store met 65 times with the commission over eight years.

    “Ironically, in the name of competition, today’s decision just cements the dominant position of a successful European company that is the digital music market’s runaway leader,” Apple said.

    The commission’s investigation initially centered on two concerns. One was the iPhone maker’s practice of forcing app developers that are selling digital content to use its in-house payment system, which charges a 30% commission on all subscriptions.

    But the EU later dropped that to focus on how Apple prevents app makers from telling their users about cheaper ways to pay for subscriptions that don’t involve going through an app.

    The investigation found that Apple banned streaming services from telling users about how much subscription offers cost outside of their apps, including links in their apps to pay for alternative subscriptions or even emailing users to tell them about different pricing options.

    The fine comes the same week that new EU rules are set to kick in that are aimed at preventing tech companies from dominating digital markets.

    The Digital Markets Act, due to take effect Thursday, imposes a set of do’s and don’ts on “gatekeeper” companies including Apple, Meta, Google parent Alphabet, and TikTok parent ByteDance — under threat of hefty fines.

    The DMA’s provisions are designed to prevent tech giants from the sort of behavior that’s at the heart of the Apple investigation. Apple has already revealed how it will comply, including allowing iPhone users in Europe to use app stores other than its own and enabling developers to offer alternative payment systems.

    The commission also has opened a separate antitrust investigation into Apple’s mobile payments service, and the company has promised to open up its tap-and-go mobile payment system to rivals in order to resolve it.

    ___

    This story has been corrected to show that the fine was issued Monday, not Tuesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tax-free status of movie, music and games traded online is on table as WTO nations meet in Abu Dhabi

    Tax-free status of movie, music and games traded online is on table as WTO nations meet in Abu Dhabi

    [ad_1]

    GENEVA — Since late last century and the early days of the web, providers of digital media like Netflix and Spotify have had a free pass when it comes to international taxes on films, video games and music that are shipped across borders through the internet.

    But now, a global consensus on the issue may be starting to crack.

    As the World Trade Organization opens its latest biannual meeting of government ministers Monday, its longtime moratorium on duties on e-commerce products — which has been renewed almost automatically since 1998 — is coming under pressure as never before.

    This week in Abu Dhabi, the WTO’s 164 member countries will take up a number of key issues: Subsidies that encourage overfishing. Reforms to make agricultural markets fairer and more eco-friendly. And efforts to revive the Geneva-based trade body’s system of resolving disputes among countries.

    All of those are tall orders, but the moratorium on e-commerce duties is perhaps the matter most in play. It centers on “electronic transmissions” — music, movies, video games and the like — more than on physical goods. But the rulebook isn’t clear on the entire array of products affected.

    “This is so important to millions of businesses, especially small- and medium-sized businesses,” WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said. “Some members believe that this should be extended and made permanent. Others believe … there are reasons why it should not.”

    “That’s why there’s been a debate and hopefully — because it touches on lives of many people — we hope that ministers would be able to make the appropriate decision,” she told reporters recently.

    Under WTO’s rules, major decisions require consensus. The e-commerce moratorium can’t just sail through automatically. Countries must actively vote in favor for the extension to take effect.

    Four proposals are on the table: Two would extend the suspension of duties. Two — separately presented by South Africa and India, two countries that have been pushing their interests hard at the WTO — would not.

    Proponents say the moratorium benefits consumers by helping keep costs down and promotes the wider rollout of digital services in countries both rich and poor.

    Critics say it deprives debt-burdened governments in developing countries of tax revenue, though there’s debate over just how much state coffers would stand to gain.

    The WTO itself says that on average, the potential loss would be less than one-third of 1% of total government revenue.

    The stakes are high. A WTO report published in December said the value of “digitally delivered services” exports grew by more than 8% from 2005 to 2022 — higher than goods exports (5.6%) and other-services exports (4.2%).

    Growth has been uneven, though. Most developing countries don’t have digital networks as extensive as those in the rich world. Those countries see less need to extend the moratorium — and might reap needed tax revenue if it ends.

    South Africa’s proposal, which seeks to end the moratorium, calls for the creation of a fund to receive voluntary contributions to bridge the “digital divide.” It also wants to require “leading platforms” to boost the promotion of “historically disadvantaged” small- and medium-sized enterprises.

    Industry, at least in the United States, is pushing hard to extend the moratorium. In a Feb. 13 letter to Biden administration officials, nearly two dozen industry groups, including the Motion Picture Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Entertainment Software Association — a video-game industry group — urged the United States to give its “full support” to a renewal.

    “Accepting anything short of a multilateral extension of the moratorium that applies to all WTO members would open the door to the introduction of new customs duties and related cross-border restrictions that would hurt U.S. workers in industries across the entire economy,” the letter said.

    A collapse would deal a “major blow to the credibility and durability” of the WTO and would mark the first time that its members “changed the rules to make it substantially harder to conduct trade,” wrote the groups, which said their members include companies that combined employ over 100 million workers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tax-free status of movie, music and games traded online is on table as WTO nations meet in Abu Dhabi

    Tax-free status of movie, music and games traded online is on table as WTO nations meet in Abu Dhabi

    [ad_1]

    GENEVA — Since late last century and the early days of the web, providers of digital media like Netflix and Spotify have had a free pass when it comes to international taxes on films, video games and music that are shipped across borders through the internet.

    But now, a global consensus on the issue may be starting to crack.

    As the World Trade Organization opens its latest biannual meeting of government ministers Monday, its longtime moratorium on duties on e-commerce products — which has been renewed almost automatically since 1998 — is coming under pressure as never before.

    This week in Abu Dhabi, the WTO’s 164 member countries will take up a number of key issues: Subsidies that encourage overfishing. Reforms to make agricultural markets fairer and more eco-friendly. And efforts to revive the Geneva-based trade body’s system of resolving disputes among countries.

    All of those are tall orders, but the moratorium on e-commerce duties is perhaps the matter most in play. It centers on “electronic transmissions” — music, movies, video games and the like — more than on physical goods. But the rulebook isn’t clear on the entire array of products affected.

    “This is so important to millions of businesses, especially small- and medium-sized businesses,” WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said. “Some members believe that this should be extended and made permanent. Others believe … there are reasons why it should not.”

    “That’s why there’s been a debate and hopefully — because it touches on lives of many people — we hope that ministers would be able to make the appropriate decision,” she told reporters recently.

    Under WTO’s rules, major decisions require consensus. The e-commerce moratorium can’t just sail through automatically. Countries must actively vote in favor for the extension to take effect.

    Four proposals are on the table: Two would extend the suspension of duties. Two — separately presented by South Africa and India, two countries that have been pushing their interests hard at the WTO — would not.

    Proponents say the moratorium benefits consumers by helping keep costs down and promotes the wider rollout of digital services in countries both rich and poor.

    Critics say it deprives debt-burdened governments in developing countries of tax revenue, though there’s debate over just how much state coffers would stand to gain.

    The WTO itself says that on average, the potential loss would be less than one-third of 1% of total government revenue.

    The stakes are high. A WTO report published in December said the value of “digitally delivered services” exports grew by more than 8% from 2005 to 2022 — higher than goods exports (5.6%) and other-services exports (4.2%).

    Growth has been uneven, though. Most developing countries don’t have digital networks as extensive as those in the rich world. Those countries see less need to extend the moratorium — and might reap needed tax revenue if it ends.

    South Africa’s proposal, which seeks to end the moratorium, calls for the creation of a fund to receive voluntary contributions to bridge the “digital divide.” It also wants to require “leading platforms” to boost the promotion of “historically disadvantaged” small- and medium-sized enterprises.

    Industry, at least in the United States, is pushing hard to extend the moratorium. In a Feb. 13 letter to Biden administration officials, nearly two dozen industry groups, including the Motion Picture Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Entertainment Software Association — a video-game industry group — urged the United States to give its “full support” to a renewal.

    “Accepting anything short of a multilateral extension of the moratorium that applies to all WTO members would open the door to the introduction of new customs duties and related cross-border restrictions that would hurt U.S. workers in industries across the entire economy,” the letter said.

    A collapse would deal a “major blow to the credibility and durability” of the WTO and would mark the first time that its members “changed the rules to make it substantially harder to conduct trade,” wrote the groups, which said their members include companies that combined employ over 100 million workers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Target stops selling product dedicated to Civil Rights icons after TikTok video shows errors

    Target stops selling product dedicated to Civil Rights icons after TikTok video shows errors

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Target says it will stop selling a product dedicated to Civil Rights icons after a now-viral TikTok spotlighted some significant errors.

    In a video posted earlier this week, Las Vegas high school teacher Tierra Espy displayed how three Civil Rights icons — Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington — were misidentified in the magnetic learning activity.

    “These need to be pulled off the shelves immediately,” Espy, who uses the TikTok handle @issatete, says in her Tuesday video. “I teach U.S. History … and I noticed some discrepancies as soon as I opened this.”

    In a Friday interview with The Associated Press, Espy explained that she purchased the “Civil Rights Magnetic Learning Activity” at the end of January, in hopes of giving it to her kids. But when she opened the product at home, she quickly found the egregious errors and shared them online.

    Soon after, Target confirmed that it would stop sales of the product.

    “We will no longer be selling this product in stores or online,” Minneapolis-based Target said in a statement. “We’ve also ensured the product’s publisher is aware of the errors.”

    Target did not immediately address how long the product had been for sale, or a timeline for when its removal would be complete. The product’s removal comes at the start of Black History Month, which Target and other retailers are commemorating with special collections aimed at celebrating Black history.

    The erroneous magnetic activity featured in Espy’s video has a Bendon manufacturing label. The Ohio-based children’s publisher did not immediately respond to requests for statements Friday.

    As of Friday, Espy said that Target and Bendon had yet to reach out to her. While she said she is glad the product was removed from shelves, she also said she was disappointed to not see an apology from the companies yet.

    In addition to an apology, Espy said the incident underlines the importance of reviewing products before making them available to consumers — which would help avoid harmful errors like this down the road.

    “Google is free, and like I caught it in two seconds. They could have caught it by just doing a quick Google search,” she said.

    Espy added that she appreciated the support from fellow TikTok users who helped make sure the errors didn’t go unnoticed.

    “I’m happy that people are realizing that history, period, matters,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon will invest in Diamond Sports as part of bankruptcy restructuring agreement

    Amazon will invest in Diamond Sports as part of bankruptcy restructuring agreement

    [ad_1]

    Amazon will partner with Diamond Sports as part of a restructuring agreement as the largest owner of regional sports networks looks to emerge from bankruptcy.

    Diamond owns 18 networks under the Bally Sports banner. Those networks have the rights to 37 professional teams — 11 baseball, 15 NBA and 11 NHL.

    Diamond Sports has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of Texas since it filed for protection last March. The company said in a late 2021 financial filing that it had debt of $8.67 billion.

    The terms of the agreement were announced by Diamond Sports on Wednesday morning. Amazon had no comment. It remains subject to approval by the bankruptcy court.

    The agreement with Diamond Sports’ largest creditors allows it to emerge from bankruptcy, continue operations and prevents a total collapse of the regional sports network system where the NBA, NHL and MLB would have to step in to take over production and distribution of most of their teams.

    Last season, MLB had to take over production and distribution of the San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks after Diamond let rights payments to the Padres lapse and was unable to agree to an amended deal with the Diamondbacks.

    Under the terms of the restructuring agreement, Amazon will make a minority investment in Diamond and enter into a commercial arrangement to provide access to Diamond’s content via Prime Video.

    Customers will be able to access their local team’s content on Prime Video channels where Diamond has rights. Pricing and availability will be announced at a later date. Regional sports content will also remain available on cable and satellite providers.

    Amazon Prime already carries some New York Yankees and Brooklyn Nets games produced by the YES Network.

    Diamond also has an agreement in principle with Sinclair Broadcast Group, to settle pending litigation between the companies.

    Sinclair bought the regional sports networks from The Walt Disney Co. for nearly $10 billion in 2019. Disney was required by the Department of Justice to sell the networks for its acquisition of 21st Century Fox’s film and television assets to be approved.

    Even before Sinclair bought the regional networks, the business was in a downturn due to cord cutting and declines in advertising revenue after entering into exorbitant long-term deals with some teams.

    Under an agreement with creditors last year, Diamond Sports Group became a separate company from Sinclair.

    As part of the settlement, Sinclair will pay Diamond $495 million and provide ongoing services to support Diamond’s reorganization. The proceeds from the settlement will also pay off some creditors.

    “We are thrilled to have reached a comprehensive restructuring agreement that provides a detailed framework for a reorganization plan and substantial new financing that will enable Diamond to operate and thrive beyond 2024,” Diamond Sports CEO David Preschlack said in a statement. “We are grateful for the support from Amazon and a group of our largest creditors who clearly believe in the value-creating potential of this business. Diamond’s near-term focus will be on implementing the RSA and emerging from bankruptcy as a going concern for the benefit of our investors, our employees, our team, league and distribution partners, and the millions of fans who will continue to enjoy our broadcasts.”

    Diamond recently reached agreements with the NHL and NBA to keep local rights through the end of this season. It remains in discussions with Major League Baseball on reworked agreements for the upcoming season, with the next court hearing scheduled for Friday.

    ___

    AP sports: https://apnews.com/sports

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Men who say they were abused by a Japanese boy band producer criticize the company's response

    Men who say they were abused by a Japanese boy band producer criticize the company's response

    [ad_1]

    TOKYO — Members of a group of men who say they were sexually abused as boys by a Japanese entertainment mogul are accusing the company behind the scandal, previously known as Johnny’s, of not being sincere in dealing with the victims.

    Shimon Ishimaru, who represents the victims’ group, said many have not yet received compensation. The group has asked to meet with company officials, but that has not happened, he said at a news conference with three other men who said they were victims.

    Ishimaru is among hundreds of men who have come forward since last year, alleging they were sexually abused as teens by boy band producer Johnny Kitagawa. Kitagawa, who died in 2019, was never charged and remained powerful in the entertainment industry.

    The company finally acknowledged Kitagawa’s long-rumored abuse last year. The company’s chief made a public apology in May. The Japanese government has also pushed for compensation.

    The company, which has changed its name from Johnny & Associates to Smile-Up, said Monday it has received requests for compensation from 939 people. Of those, 125 have received compensation, it said in a statement. The company has set up a panel of three former judges to look into the claims.

    “We are proceeding with those with whom we have reached an agreement on payments,” it said, while promising to continue with its efforts.

    It did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday’s news conference.

    The victims’ group said it has been approached by dozens of people who had been told by the company that there was not enough evidence to honor their claims. Details were not disclosed.

    The company’s production business, known previously as Johnny’s, has continued under a different name, Starto Entertainment.

    According to multiple accounts, Kitagawa abused the boys in his Tokyo luxury mansion, as well as other places, such as his car and overseas hotels, while they were performing as Johnny’s dancers and singers. The abuse continued for several decades.

    The repercussions of the scandal have spread. In standup comedy, several women have alleged sexual abuse by a famous comic. He has denied the allegations.

    The U.N. Working Group on Business and Human Rights, which is investigating the Johnny’s abuse cases, is to issue a report in June, including recommendations for change.

    The Associated Press does not usually identify people who say they were sexually assaulted, but Kitagawa’s recent accusers have given their names. Critics say what happened and the silence of Japan’s mainstream media are indicative of how the world’s third largest economy lags in protecting human rights.

    ___

    Yuri Kageyama is on X https://twitter.com/yurikageyama

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon Prime ads on movies and TV shows will begin in late January

    Amazon Prime ads on movies and TV shows will begin in late January

    [ad_1]

    If you are an Amazon Prime Video user, get ready to see ads on movies and TV shows starting next month.

    Prime will include ads beginning on Jan. 29, the company said in an email to U.S. members this week, setting a date for an announcement it made back in September. Prime members who want to keep their movies and TV shows ad-free will have to pay an additional $2.99 per month.

    Amazon is also planning to include advertisements in its Prime service in the United Kingdom and other European countries, as well as Canada, Mexico and Australia next year.

    The tech giant follows other major streamers –- such as Netflix and Disney –- who have embraced a dual model that allows them to earn revenue from ads and also offer subscribers the option to opt out with a higher fee.

    Amazon said in its email that it will “aim to have meaningfully fewer ads” than traditional TV and other streaming providers.

    The ads, the company said, “will allow us to continue investing in compelling content and keep increasing that investment over a long period of time.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Spotify CFO becomes one of thousands departing the streaming service, after selling $9M in shares

    Spotify CFO becomes one of thousands departing the streaming service, after selling $9M in shares

    [ad_1]

    Spotify’s chief financial officer, Paul Vogel, is leaving next year, the music streaming service said — just days after the company announced its third round of layoffs for 2023

    ByThe Associated Press

    December 8, 2023, 11:04 AM

    FILE- This March 20, 2018, file photo shows the Spotify app on an iPad in Baltimore. Spotify’s chief financial officer, Paul Vogel, is leaving next year, the music streaming service said, Friday, Dec. 8, 2023, — just days after the company announced its third round of layoffs for 2023. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

    The Associated Press

    NEW YORK — Spotify’s chief financial officer will step down next year, according to the music streaming service, just days after it announced its third round of layoffs for 2023.

    In a statement announcing CFO Paul Vogel’s departure, CEO Daniel Ek said that the two had “come to the conclusion that Spotify is entering a new phase and needs a CFO with a different mix of experiences.”

    Spotify said this week that it would be axing 17% of its global workforce, citing the need to slash costs and become profitable. About 1,500 people will lose their jobs, a spokesperson confirmed.

    Shortly after the layoffs were announced Monday, Spotify’s stock jumped about 8%. On Tuesday, Vogel moved to sell more than $9.3 million worth of shares, according to securities filings.

    Two other senior executives also cashed in over $1.6 million in shares, The Guardian reported.

    The Associated Press reached out to Spotify for further comment on Friday.

    Vogel will leave Spotify on March 31. Ben Kung, who currently serves as vice president of financial planning and analysis, “will take on expanded responsibilities” in the interim as Spotify searches for a successor externally, the company said in a blog post.

    Stockholm-based Spotify posted a net loss of 462 million euros (about $500 million) for the nine months to September. The company announced in January that it was axing 6% of total staff. In June, it cut staff by another 2%, or about 200 workers, mainly in its podcast division.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Actors vote to approve deal that ended strike, bringing relief to union leaders and Hollywood

    Actors vote to approve deal that ended strike, bringing relief to union leaders and Hollywood

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — Hollywood’s actors have voted to ratify the deal with studios that ended their strike after nearly four months, leaders announced Tuesday.

    The approval of the three-year contract from the members of the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists was no certainty, with some prominent members voicing dissent on the deal for which the union leaders bargained.

    The 78% yes result in voting that began Nov. 13 and ended Tuesday was a far cry from the near-unanimous approval and widespread enthusiasm members of the writers guild gave to the deal that ended their strike in September.

    But the outcome is a major relief for SAG-AFTRA leaders and an entertainment industry that is attempting to return to normal after months of labor strife. And it brings a final, official end to Hollywood labor’s most tumultuous year in half a century, with two historic strikes that shook the industry.

    “This contract is an enormous victory for working performers, and it marks the dawning of a new era for the industry,” the union said in a tweet announcing the results Tuesday evening.

    Just over 38% of members cast votes, SAG-AFTRA said.

    “More yes votes than I expected and very happy to see because despite loud voices of complaint on social media, it shows the membership is still strong and united,” actor “Can’t Hardly Wait” actor Ethan Embry posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Back to work.”

    A rejection of the agreement would have meant a return to the bargaining table and, with that, the possibility of the actors going back on strike if leaders called for it.

    Those leaders had freed actors to return to work, declaring the strike over as soon as the tentative deal was struck Nov. 8 with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents studios, streaming services and production companies in union negotiations. Two days later, it was approved by the guild’s board with an 86% vote.

    “The AMPTP member companies congratulate SAG-AFTRA on the ratification of its new contract, which represents historic gains and protections for performers,” the AMPTP said in a statement Tuesday night. “With this vote, the industry and the jobs it supports will be able to return in full force.”

    Control over the use of artificial intelligence was the most hard-fought issue in the long, methodical negotiations.

    SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher told The Associated Press shortly after the resolution was reached that making sure AI reproductions of actors could only be used with their informed consent and compensation was a “deal breaker” in the talks.

    But they did not fight hard enough for some prominent members, including actors Justine Bateman and Matthew Modine, who cited the issue as a reason to vote “no,” and stoked fears many voters would follow their lead.

    “I cannot endorse a contract that compromises the independence and financial futures of the performers,” Modine, who ran against Drescher for union president in 2021 and was also among the board members to reject the deal, said in a statement. “It is purposefully vague and demands union members to release their autonomy…. Consent is surrender.”

    But many other prominent actors voiced strong support for the agreement, including Academy Award winner Jessica Chastain and Colman Domingo, who is getting major Oscars buzz this year for his performance in “ Rustin.”

    “I believe that we have an incredible deal, I believe it’s thoughtful and it’s about moving the needle forward,” Domingo told the AP last week. “I’m very happy with it. I voted yes.”

    The contract calls for a 7% general pay increase with further hikes coming in the second and third years of the deal.

    The deal also includes a hard-won provision that temporarily derailed talks: the creation of a fund to pay performers for future viewings of their work on streaming services, in addition to traditional residuals paid for the showing of movies or series.

    The provision is an attempt to bring payment systems in line with an industry now dominated by streaming, a reality that is almost certain to fuel more labor fights — and possibly more strikes — in the coming years.

    ___

    Associated Press journalist John Carucci contributed from New York.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jezebel, an incisive feminist voice since the height of the blogosphere era, is shutting down

    Jezebel, an incisive feminist voice since the height of the blogosphere era, is shutting down

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Jezebel, the sharp-edged feminist website that found an impassioned and devoted following at the height of the blogosphere era but ended up struggling with its business model, is shutting down after 16 years, its parent company announced Thursday.

    It is the latest gender-focused media site to fold as the media industry struggles with plummeting digital advertising that has also cut into the profitability of major tech companies from Google to Facebook. Bitch Media, which had a print magazine, website and podcast, closed last year after 25 years, citing sustainability. The Washington Post folded The Lily, its freestanding publication on gender an identity issues, into its main website last year.

    G/O Media said 23 staffers would be laid off, including Jezebel’s team, as part of a restructuring to cope with economic headwinds and a difficult digital advertising environment. The New York-based company also announced the departure of G/O Media editorial director Merrill Brown.

    Launched in 2007 by Gawker Media, Jezebel established itself as an influential voice in feminist commentary years before the explosion of the #Metoo movement pushed issues of gender and power to the forefront of mainstream media coverage. The website combined searing commentary on gender politics with edgy pop culture coverage to build a audience craving an alternative to the frothy fashion magazines that dominated the landscape of media targeted at women.

    The website appealed to readers because it combined style with serious news and commentary, said Kate Cox, program director for Poynter’s Leadership Academy for Women in Media. It covered political issues like abortion but gained the most buzz with its takedowns of celebrity culture and the fashion industries, helping make subjects like “body shaming” and “rape culture” part of the national discourse.

    “It was totally unprecedented. Their blend of pop culture along with whip-smart writing made it a daily read,” Cox said. “It took women’s issues out of a niche brand and embraced the real pragmatic experience of women’s lives. It captured the dynamic but also captured the despair and the hard swallow and the cheeky energy that the women I knew at the time had.”

    In a recent essay for the New Yorker, Jezebel’s founding editor-in-chief, Anna Holmes, wrote that launching Jezebel was a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to create a women’s media website at a time when she “was disillusioned by the state of America’s women’s media.”

    “I wanted it to combine wit, smarts, and anger, providing women — many of whom had been taught to believe that “feminism” was a bad word or one to be avoided — with a model of critical thinking around gender and race which felt accessible and entertaining,” Holmes wrote.

    She also reflected on Jezebel’s collision with social media, which blurred the lines between Jezebel’s content and the public commentary of its most devoted followers.

    “I see Jezebel not as the beginning of the end of the digital-media era but as a moment — a spark — within an ongoing discussion about gender politics,” she wrote.

    Cox said the demise of Jezebel and other feminist publications is more a reflection of the challenge of finding a sustainable revenue model for digital media sites, especially mission-driven ones, rather than a declining appetite for stories centered on gender. She noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade has only deepened interest in such coverage.

    In a memo to the company, G/0 Media CEO Jim Spanfeller said he made the “very, very difficult decision to suspend publication of Jezebel” after an unsuccessful search for a buyer for the website. The search, Spanfeller said, was launched because it became clear that the parent company’s “business model and the audiences we serve across our network did not align with Jezebel’s.”

    Cox said that statement hinted at difficulties of attracting advertisers to sites like Jezebel, which attract a loyal audience but also court controversy that scares off mainstream advertisers. She pointed to “The 19th,” a new gender-focused nonprofit newsroom that relies on a mix of membership, philanthropy and corporate underwriting as potentially successful model.

    Jezebel writers blamed the shutdown on the parent company “strategic and commercial ineptitude,” criticizing its leadership for its failure to search for a business model more suitable to Jezebel’s mission and audience.

    “The closure of Jezebel also underscores fundamental flaws in the ad-supported media model where concerns about ‘brand safety’ limit monetizing content about the biggest, most important stories of the day,” the writers said in a statement released by their union, WGA East.

    Jezebel became part of the G/0 Media portfolio in 2019, along with Gizmodo, Quartz, the Onion and the Root. Its shutdown follows years of tension with G/0 leadership.

    Jezebel’s interim Editor-in-Chief Laura Bassett resigned in August, accusing G/O in a tweet of failing “to treat my staff with basic human decency.” Jezebel’s current editor-in-chief, Lauren Tousignant, wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday that she is angry and sad about the shutdown and would have more to say later.

    Rich Juzwiak, a senior writer for Jezebel, said he enjoyed the freedom that came with writing for Jezebel, where he was encouraged to follow his instincts. But he said there was an increasing sense that the site and the parent company had misaligned priorities.

    “I don’t think that this was inevitable,” Juzwiak said of the closing. “It was like, do you even know what you bought?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hollywood’s labor stoppage is over, but a painful industry-wide transition isn’t

    Hollywood’s labor stoppage is over, but a painful industry-wide transition isn’t

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Hollywood’s months of labor unrest are coming to an end, but the post-strike landscape that awaits actors and writers may be far from happy-ever-after.

    The film and television industry could rightly celebrate the conclusion Wednesday of a bruising, protracted work stoppage that began in May when the Writers Guild hit the picket lines and gathered more force when Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists members walked out in mid-July.

    The strikes were historic in their length and cost, causing an estimated $6 billion in economic loss and leaving hundreds of thousands out of work. As Hollywood on Thursday began rushing back to production and stars again hit red carpets, many were surely still nursing wounds from a bitter feud with the studios, even after a deal that won actors a hefty boost to minimum pay and protections over the use of artificial intelligence.

    SAG-AFTRA’s board was to vote on approving the contract Friday afternoon.

    But as actors swap their picket signs for audition sides and calls sheets, they’ll be returning to an industry still in the midst of painful transformation and streaming upheaval.

    The strikes were prompted largely by the streaming wars, a digital land-rush to populate platforms like Disney+ and HBO Max (now just “Max”) with enough content to rival Netflix. That helter-skelter transition threw much of the economics of entertainment out of whack. One of the most contentious issues of SAG-AFTRA’s negotiations with the studios was the union’s attempt to win a percentage – 1 or 2% — of streaming revenue, to replace lost residuals. In the end, the actors accepted a bonus tied to viewership.

    But even before the strike, every studio was reexamining its streaming strategy. After several years of rampant green lights, most are pulling back, looking to make fewer series and movies, cutting staff and desperately seeking a path toward profitability. Wall Street, no longer enamored of subscriber numbers, wants to see profit, too.

    The aftermath of the strike may look less like a party and more like a streaming hangover.

    “The streaming business is completely screwed up. There’s too much content and nobody seems to be able to make any profit from it,” says Jonathan Taplin, director emeritus of the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab and author of “The End of Reality: How Four Billionaires are Selling a Fantasy Future of the Metaverse, Mars, and Crypto.”

    Both strikes, Taplin says, were successful because the guilds gained bulwarks against potential decimation by artificial intelligence. But the road ahead, during which he expects linear television to collapse and some streaming services to go out of business, will be strained.

    “The whole business is in a complete uproar,” says Taplin. “It will sort itself out in the next three to five years, but it’s going to be painful.”

    This is the world that awaits actors as they rush back to sets: Better pay but fewer jobs and intense competition. Puck’s Matt Belloni wrote: “What should be a time of relief and celebration in Hollywood is more akin to what soldiers experience in countless war movies — the horrors of battle give way to the equally grim reality of the new world for which they fought.”

    Still, the strikes recalibrated power in Hollywood, winning gains for actors and writers and rallying union support throughout the industry. More battles loom. The contract for International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), which represents crew members, expires at the end of July.

    Meanwhile, for months studios have signaled they’re downsizing. Earlier this week, Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger in an earnings call where he touted the financial benefits of more than 8,000 job cuts, said the company is focused on consolidating: “Make less, focus more on quality.”

    “At the time the pandemic hit, we were leaning into a huge increase in how much we were making,” Iger said. “And I’ve always felt that quantity can be actually a negative when it comes to quality. And I think that’s exactly what happened. We lost some focus.”

    Netflix, which earlier set its sights on a new original movie every week, has said it’s now aiming for about half that. Hulu, which Disney plans to bundle with Disney+ after acquiring Comcast’s stake, is slimming down. Peacock lost $2.8 billion this year, Comcast has said; it announced layoffs to its marketing department Thursday.

    Warner Bros. Discovery chief executive David Zaslav has taken drastic steps to get Max in order while the studio post-merger carries $43 billion in debt.

    “This is a generational disruption we’re going through,” Zaslav said Wednesday. “Going through that with a streaming service that’s losing billions of dollars is really, really difficult to go on offense.”

    Cancellations have grown more commonplace as streamers get more selective. Due in part to the strikes, series production will dip for the first time in years in 2023 after reaching an all-time high last year, when 599 original series were made. Peak TV, some say , is over.

    But there are still huge amounts of money being thrown around. Apple Studios, for one, is behind two of the fall’s biggest budget films in Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” and Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon.”

    Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-AFTRA’s lead negotiator, remains optimistic about what’s ahead.

    “I recognize that during a strike, sometimes rhetoric gets heated. People sometimes say things with the intention of sort of generating a reaction,” Duncan Crabtree-Ireland said Wednesday. “And so I think really we will see over the coming days, weeks and months what the industry’s real intentions are. But my expectation is that they do really want to get people back to work and that they’ll do so.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Krysta Fauria contributed to this report from Los Angeles.

    [ad_2]

    Source link