On another level, however, I understand the motivation. When it comes to delivering audio-visual content to a wide audience, the Internet has lowered the barriers to entry so far that anyone with even the dinkiest camera can become a major broadcaster. The television industry may face a crisis of overhead when a large number of scrappy upstarts deliver comparable value with almost no fixed costs. Also, there are some aspects of the television business that the Internet simply does better, specifically when it comes to reaching an audience.

So there is the scent of blood in the water, and out of the resulting frenzy a few lessons have appeared. Here are four of them.

There doesn’t have to be a difference between a “channel” and a “show.”

You probably have a clear understanding about what a television channel is. Comedy Central is a channel. Your local CBS affiliate is a channel. A channel is the thing you tune in to at a specific time to watch a particular show. A channel runs a lot of shows on it. Time Warner Cable offers 900 channels. This seems like too many. Bruce Springsteen wrote “57 channels and nothing on.” That sounds so quaint now.

But if you have a conversation about YouTube channels with this concept of a “channel” in your head you may experience some cognitive dissonance. There are “tens of millions” of channels on YouTube. One company, Machinima, operates 3,380 of them. That’s literally 100 times as many channels as are owned by NBC Universal, and it’s not enough. YouTube just launched 100 more channels with premium content. YouTube must be using the word “channel” differently. Except they’re not.

Both a YouTube channel and a television channel deliver a stream of content from a transmitting device to a receiving one. Viewers tune in to a television channel by selecting its number; they reach a YouTube channel via its URL. The main difference is that the cost of creating a television channel from scratch is incredibly high, while on YouTube it’s pretty close to zero. Unlike television, a YouTube channel can turn a profit with very little programming. The comedian Ray William Johnson, for example, has one of the most lucrative channels on YouTube. It plays one show. That show adds 12 minutes of new programming per week.

If a channel online costs next to nothing, and you can build one around a single show, then why do television shows need television channels at all? Every once in a while there’s a lot of fuss about getting cable channels à la carte. But who cares about that when you can have à la carte programming?

I like to think about this in the context of “The Daily Show.” On cable, you’re limited to 30 minutes of “The Daily Show” per day, and you have to tune in at 11 pm or set your DVR to watch it. There could easily just be a “Daily Show” channel, with all the extra programming that Comedy Central now reserves for the Web site, plus spinoffs for the various “Daily Show” correspondents. More content means more places to sell advertising, which means more profit. One challenge, of course, would be getting the audience to modify its behavior, but new technology seems to be inspiring this already.

Programming can now be delivered to your television set through a remote control.

Let’s define “remote control” as a handheld piece of electronics that tells your television set what to do while you’re sitting on the couch. Smartphones and tablets fit into this category, and before you argue that this definition is too broad, I submit that an iPhone is no less a remote control than it is a camera. It commands your television set far more profoundly than your traditional remote control. At least, if you have an Apple TV. Which you should.

The Apple TV comes with a technology called AirPlay, which allows you to throw videos wirelessly from your phone or tablet to your television set. Got a movie sitting in iTunes on your computer? You can watch it on TV via AirPlay. Find a video you want to watch embedded on a Web site you read? If AirPlay is available, a little button will pop up and you can stream the video to your TV. Need some good recommendations? Try one of the many “discovery” apps out there, like Shelby.tv or ShowYou or VHX. They skim your Twitter and Facebook feeds looking for videos your friends have posted. And you can throw those to your TV.

There are apps for ESPN and Discovery Channel and PBS and other traditional channels that allow you watch their shows, on demand, on your TV, via AirPlay. There are also a growing number of apps for channels that have never been included in a traditional cable provider’s lineup. The Wall Street Journal’s news channel, WSJ Live, is one of them. Time Warner Cable doesn’t carry it, but my iPad does.

I should note that WSJ Live is also available in the main Apple TV library, so you don’t actually need to use AirPlay to watch it. But the fact that you can illustrates my point. The remote control has become a very personal device, one that you carry around with you all day long, one that you use to store and index your favorite media. A viewer is just as likely to watch a channel she’s added to her home screen as anything available in the cable menu. The programming of her choice routes through her remote control.

Marketing and distribution are often the same thing.

Last month, IFC released the entire first episode of the second season of “Portlandia” online a week before its airdate. They used an embeddable video player, so that any online publication could feature the episode on its Web site. Individual sketches from the show were also made available in the same way. IFC didn’t just tease the show or talk it up, they let people actually see it for themselves. The result was an 81 percent increase in viewership among 18-49 year olds when the show returned to the network.

There are few examples of this sort of thing happening before the Internet. A movie poster hanging in a theater where that movie is playing, perhaps, or a DVD insert in a magazine ad. But this is something the Internet does really well. A single sentence can promote a film and deliver it to your computer at the same time. Allow me to demonstrate: “This video is amazing.”

That, of course, is the lifeblood of online publishing. Here’s something that resonated with me, I’m recommending it to you, my audience. They call it “curating” now. Somehow that word got separated from “blogging” recently, and I’m not entirely sure how or why. I think Tumblr and Pinterest had something to do with it. But curating, which is a thing bloggers do, is a distinct talent. It’s highly respected in other manifestations, such as museum curators or fashion buyers or television programmers. It was curators who spread that “Portlandia” preview around. And when you factor in the marketing power they brought to that show, and you consider how much a network pays to advertise a program in general, there’s only one conclusion to draw. Online curators are the most undervalued talent in the television industry.

A few of those new YouTube channels seem to recognize the power of the curatorial voice. Vice, Pitchfork, SB Nation and the Bleacher Report all received funding to create new YouTube programming. Presumably their editors will create shows that they’d want to watch themselves, and with that level of personal investment, they’d vouch for those shows to their readers.

Television is no longer that different from publishing.

Just last week, the Gawker Media site Kotaku announced a programming schedule similar to that of a television network. This strategy was conceived well over a year ago, and is designed to sell audience size to advertisers, the way television does, rather than pageviews, which have been dropping in value for years.

This is only the latest example of conceptual overlap. Video embedding took off after the launch of YouTube, turning online publications into versions of The Daily Prophet, that newspaper from Harry Potter with the magical moving pictures on the front page. Some Internet video hosting and streaming services are built on content management systems designed for online publishing. When you upload a video to Blip, the last thing you click to make it go live is “publish.” Awl Music, the music video channel launched by The Awl in January, is run entirely on Tumblr. You can watch it on a television set connected to Google TV.

Both traditional and online publishers are producing original video series with increasing frequency. Reuters, Slate and The Wall Street Journal all have news and documentary programming on the new YouTube channel lineup. The New York Times and New York Magazine have been doing their own video programming for years. It’s only a matter of time before some of these compete with the cable news channels.

Eric Spiegelman produces the Web series “Old Jews Telling Jokes,” which is about to launch its fifth season. He helped bring the hit Japanese television show “Retro Game Master” to Kotaku.com, and he helped launch AwlMusic.tv in partnership with TheAwl.com.

Skip the Vevo.com site itself, which is still in preview mode. But if you go to YouTube and start searching for acts signed to Sony (SNE) or Universal Music Group, the first two labels to join the joint venture, you’re likely to encounter some “Vevo”-labeled videos, like this Britney Spears clip.

Guess what? If you embed them, they look exactly like YouTube videos.

Which is the whole point: While there’s a standalone Vevo site, the labels and Google (GOOG) don’t expect Web surfers to automatically head there, and they’re happy to serve up the clips on YouTube. The main difference between a regular YouTube clip and a Vevo YouTube clip is that Vevo is responsible for selling ads against the latter, and the traffic it attracts will accrue to the new JV.

That said, if you watch a Vevo clip on YouTube, you will notice some other doodads like lyrics and artist-profile options. While those features don’t seem to be live yet, the new Vevo “channels” that I’ve seen so far do a good job of illustrating what they’re going to offer, so take a look and see what you think. Here are a few from Britney, Justin Timberlake and Bruce Springsteen.

The Sony (SNE) album, titled “I Dreamed a Dream,” goes on sale on Nov. 23. Ms. Boyle sang the song by the same name on “Britain’s Got Talent,” and the video of her unexpectedly strong performance made her a world-wide phenomenon after it landed on video-sharing sites like YouTube.

Amazon announced the pre-order milestone Wednesday, noting that her advance sales have exceeded those for such stars as Norah Jones, U2, Bruce Springsteen and Coldplay. It also created a “store” for Ms. Boyle that includes her breakthrough clip in addition to a link to buy the $10 album.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Yesterday, BoomTown did a tour of the Mountain View, Calif., HQ of Guitar Hero, which is poised for a series of launches, including the fifth version of Guitar Hero and new music games Band Hero and DJ Hero.

While there, I interviewed CEO Dan Rosensweig, the well-known Silicon Valley exec who was once COO of Yahoo (YHOO) and who took over the high-profile division of Activision Blizzard (ATVI) in May in what was a bit of a surprise move into the music gaming industry.

Rosensweig had been working in private equity since his departure from Yahoo in late 2006. Previous to that, he worked at CNET Networks and Ziff-Davis.

Except that Rosensweig is a well known music fan–for example, having crisscrossed the country to see Bruce Springsteen play innumerable times–so he seems to be pretty happy with his new gig when I talked to him.

He certainly has a big job ahead, considering renewed competition from Viacom (VIA) in the form of its soon-to-be-released Beatles version of the competing Rock Band game, as well as a big slump in sales in the music game category.

The question is: Can innovation keep Guitar Hero alive? So far, the reviews for the new version are strong, but whether they translate into sales will be closely watched.

Rosensweig talked about that and more in this video interview:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090901/guitar-heros-dan-rosensweig-speaks/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090527/irving-azoff/ http://allthingsd.com/20090527/irving-azoff/#comments Wed, 27 May 2009 16:31:16 +0000 Peter Kafka http://d7.allthingsd.com/?p=178

As a longtime music executive and talent manager, Irving Azoff has had to find a way to work with everyone from inebriated rock stars to David Geffen. But he’s never had to placate Washington, D.C., before. But that’s what Azoff needs to do in order to pull off the deal of a lifetime: A merger between his Ticketmaster (TKTM) Entertainment, which dominates the ticketing business, and Live Nation, (LYV), which dominates the live concert business.

When Azoff isn’t busy trying to convince people that the merger doesn’t violate antitrust regulations, or running his ticketing company, he manages the careers of everyone from the Eagles to Christina Aguilera. Note the one thing in the music business he doesn’t spend time on: selling recorded music.

Session Highlights

Live Blog

• Introduction: Legendary Eagles survivor Joe Walsh, looking very much worse for wear, shows up via video to talk about his longtime manager. “Irving is the only manager that I ever knew that said to David Geffen ‘pffft,’ and he’s still here.” Also: “He’s a friend of mine….All the guys in the Eagles love him. He has a beautiful house that we bought him.”
• Irving notes that Joe is now sober.
• Irving rattles off his management empire: 16 management companies, handling everyone from Miley Cyrus to Willie Nelson. Country, classic rock “where the tour money is.”
• Kara: Where’s the music business going? Irving: Obviously, with the “demonetization of recorded music,” everyone got into a woe-is-me attitude, but I’m enthusiastic. “Narrowcasting” of the industry has created new stars, and live business is good.

• Irving: Music labels have always been slow to react to technology, and a lot of people in this room profited from that. Basically the record industry sat around and tried to protect an old model.
• Kara: Could the business have reacted differently? Irving: Yeah, suing your customer is a bad idea.
• Kara: Will there be record companies in the future? Irving: Yes. They have 100 years of content. They’ll be more like publishing companies, where they are a repository of rights.
• Kara: How do you feel the technology business has treated the music business? [Apologies for gap, technical issues]. Eagles have generated about $400,000 in Apple (AAPL) iTunes royalties. Which is about what they get for a couple live shows.
• Irving: Overall, the state of music industry is promising. Was fallow for a bit, but there’s a whole new generation of singers, songwriters, performers. “You never know where it comes from.” In terms of the business, there will be more companies than the four big labels that dominate today. “It will be a great time for entrepreneurs….It’s not over, but it’s warping into 2.0, 3.0.”
• Kara: What does a music executive have to do to survive? Irving: You have to take chances. They can’t complain about the iTunes deal. They have to embrace new technology, and I think they are, and it’s easier to get deals done now.
• Kara: What about these little digital companies like Playlist and iLike, which Ticketmaster owns  a piece of? They can survive, and they’re excellent marketing opportunities. But they’ll have to find other ways of making money. Can they? “I don’t know.” Advertising? “I don’t know.”

• Onto the merger. Irving lays out the case. Everything revolves around live music, and they’re the biggest player in live music. It’s really the promotion piece, and the marketing piece, added to Ticketmaster. Without that, Ticketmaster wouldn’t survive. “Any of you guys can write a program that does what Ticketmaster does….I’ve been there a couple of months and I have gripes myself.”
• People’s gripe with Ticketmaster isn’t with what we do, it’s demand issues: People want tickets to attend sold-out shows, so we have unhappy customers. Plus we’ve been the “collection agency” for a whole bunch of fees. “But the decision is ultimately made by the act.”
• What about criticism to the merger from the likes of Bruce Springsteen? “Everything we do revolves around what’s good for the artist and what’s good for the fan. That’s our new model.”
• Not really an answer, Kara points out. Irving: “I would say that Bruce is uninformed about the potential of what this could be.” [Maybe someone could tell Jon Landau.] For instance, we could be bundling new songs along with tickets. “The business traditionally resists change,” so complaints about the merger are nothing news. And there’s plenty of competition: Phil Anschutz competes with us and he’s worth more than the combined market cap of both of these companies. Warner Music Group’s (WMG) Edgar Bronfman Jr. says he’s in the ticketing business, etc.
• Discussion of TicketsNow, a StubHub-like  “secondary market”/scalping business owned by Ticketmaster. Irving has said that in the past that he wouldn’t have bought it. Would he sell it now? Maybe.
• What are the prospects for the merger? “Very optimistic” that it will get done between now and end of the year.
• Back to griping about prices and availability: “People in the music industry, we’ve had a horrible record of shooting ourselves in the head.” We haven’t done enough dynamic pricing for tickets, and we should, and that will help make people happy. But these issues are fundamentally the artists’ responsibility. They decide what tickets we sell, and at what price.

• Where is the music business going, overall? Who’s your favorite? “It’s like asking what’s your favorite kid.” Internet makes things very exciting, distribution is opening up. What about the industry suing customers? I think that’s a “very small issue.” We do need to protect intellectual property, and the people who make it.
• Q&A: Esther Dyson wants to know what Ticketmaster/Live Nation will  do with all the data they collect about customers, etc. “Any artist that calls up and says I’d like the email list of the people who came to my show, we’ll make that available.” But with regard to pricing, etc., artists and their management are not being sophisticated about how they use data. And we have to keep the press from chastising artists that use dynamic pricing.”
• Q: Not clear what the question is. But seems to be about using an auction model from the get-go. “Auctions are falling into real disfavor at the moment….We’re finding that people don’t want to spend the time to participate in them.” They just want to know that this VIP package costs this much.
• Q: What do you think about subscription services? “I’ve always thought subscription was an incredible model.” But tricky to pull off with labels, publishers, unions, mobile guys all trying to figure out how to split the money.
• Q: Do you have specific advice for classical music artists? The great thing about the Internet is that you no longer have to be popular with everybody to have a career. Classical should flourish in this era. Build a base, get in front of people, have people like you live. “That’s been true in 1966, and that will be true as long as there is music.”
• Do your artists like Twitter? Some do. “Very useful” but other artists “refuse to get a mobile phone.”

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as we were able. It was not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090527/irving-azoff/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20090415/will-ebay-dump-stubhub-too/ http://allthingsd.com/20090415/will-ebay-dump-stubhub-too/#comments Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:33:46 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=6293 Now that eBay has sloughed off StumbleUpon and made plans to dump Skype, theoretically via an IPO, will it drop StubHub, too?

That’s the possibility floated, albeit in an offhand way, via Bernstein Research’s Jeffrey Lindsay in a note published this morning: “We would likely expect further divestments of non-core businesses, possibly including StubHub.”

I understand why the auction site dropped StumbleUpon, a Web 2.0 publishing business with a novel and unproven revenue model. And it makes sense to stop carrying Skype, a telecom business that requires a lot of time, money and maintenance.

But Stubhub, which eBay bought for $307 million a little more than two years ago, seemed like a bona fide fit: The ticket resale business mirrors eBay’s (EBAY) core auction in pretty obvious ways. I’ve asked Lindsay to tease out his thinking for us, and will update if he does.

UPDATE: Here’s Lindsay, via email: “It seems that eBay is going right back to basics, and is dispensing with the ‘we are an auction company’ ethos that got them into so much trouble. We see StubHub as coming out of that era. We think the market in tickets is changing rapidly and there is a chance to sell StubHub at the very top. They might well take it and pursue a much more pure play retail/second hand portfolio and go back to geographic expansion of the marketplaces/PayPal core.”

Meanwhile, if eBay does decide to jettison StubHub, now would be a very interesting time to do so. TicketsNow, its primary competitor, is likely to go on the block in the near future: Parent company Ticketmaster (TKTM), which acquired the business for $265 million a year ago, has said it would dump the business in order to mollify antitrust critics (and Bruce Springsteen fans) who want to stop the company’s proposed merger with Live Nation (LYV).

Anyone want to corner the market on the ticket-scalping industry?

[Image credit: Hyrck]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090415/will-ebay-dump-stubhub-too/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090224/ticketmaster-makes-up-with-bruce-springsteen-and-his-fans/ http://allthingsd.com/20090224/ticketmaster-makes-up-with-bruce-springsteen-and-his-fans/#comments Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:49:33 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=4591 Remember the great Ticketmaster/Bruce Springsteen controversy of 2009? The one where fans of the Boss said they got screwed by the ticketing company everyone loves to hate? The one that prompted Springsteen himself to complain about Ticketmaster and its proposed acquisition of concert giant Live Nation (LYV)?

Well, that’s all resolved now. In a convoluted way. But it’s resolved. Via New Jersey’s Star-Ledger:

Ticket giant Ticketmaster has reached a national settlement with the New Jersey Attorney General in which it agrees to stop linking customers to TicketsNow, a subsidiary agency that sells tickets at scalper’s prices.

Attorney General Anne Milgram said Ticketmaster has agreed to run a lottery that will make 2,000 tickets available at face value to customers who complained about the way Ticketmaster handled the Feb. 2 sale of tickets to Bruce Springsteen’s shows May 21 and 23 at the Izod Center at the Meadlowlands….

Fans–more than 1,000–who don’t win a pair of tickets in the lottery will be given $100 gift certificates, Milgram said, and the ability to purchase tickets for an upcoming Springsteen concert in New Jersey.”

Ticketmaster (TKTM) will also pay a $350,000 fine, and has agreed to stop using Google (GOOG) keywords to direct Ticketmaster searchers to TicketsNow.

Given that Ticketmaster and Live Nation are trying to pull off a politically tricky deal, this seems like a great settlement for Barry Diller, Irving Azoff and company–no use going before the Department of Justice while you’ve got state investigations into your ticketing practices.

And what does Springsteen himself think about the deal? There’s no comment from him or his management team on his site. But tellingly, his previous comments about the Ticketmaster/Live Nation deal–the ones where he described the proposed merger as a “near monopoly” and asked his fans to complain to their representatives about it–have vanished from his site.

I’ve spent way too much time trying to wrap this one up with a Springsteen lyric pun. Too hard! So here’s your YouTube, instead. Apologies for the subpar video/audio: Sony Music Entertainment, Springsteen’s label, won’t allow me to embed the higher-quality versions.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090224/ticketmaster-makes-up-with-bruce-springsteen-and-his-fans/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090212/bruce-britney-beyonce-staying-on-youtube-sony-music-resigns/ http://allthingsd.com/20090212/bruce-britney-beyonce-staying-on-youtube-sony-music-resigns/#comments Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:31:06 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=4232 YouTube and Sony Music Entertainment have signed a deal that will keep the music label’s videos and music on the site. The contract accomplishes what YouTube and Warner Music Group have been unable to do–figure out a way to keep the label’s music on the world’s biggest video site while sharing revenue with both sides.

The deal, which extends a previous agreement, has been finalized but not formally announced, multiple sources familiar with the matter tell me. A spokesman from Google’s (GOOG) YouTube said the company would not comment on “rumor or speculation”; Sony’s (SNE) music label declined to comment. Last week, CNET reported that the two companies were “very near” to a deal.

It’s unclear what the final deal terms are, but people familiar with the matter tell me that the negotiations revolved around three components: an upfront payment from YouTube to Sony, the minimum amount Sony will receive each time someone plays a Sony video on the site, and the way the two sides will split revenue generated by any of the label’s videos.

Those terms had previously tripped up Warner Music and YouTube in December, and Warner Music (WMG) artists have been taken off the site while the two companies try to work out a new licensing deal. Sony Music’s artists range from Britney Spears and Beyoncé to Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan.

Music videos are some of YouTube’s most popular offerings, but they have also been expensive for the video site. Under the terms of its old deals with the labels, YouTube agreed to pay the music companies either a per-stream fee or a share of ad revenue associated with the clip, whichever is greater. Since YouTube is just beginning to get serious about selling ads next to its content, it’s usually paying the per-stream fee, which industry executives peg at about half a penny per clip.

The music labels have been angling to increase that fee to perhaps eight-tenths of a penny, while Google has been pushing in the other direction, where the two sides would simply share any revenue the clips create.

Infuriatingly, seemingly all of Sony Music’s official YouTube videos have had their embedding function turned off, which means I can’t share them with you. So here’s an unofficial but still excellent clip of The Clash, who recorded for the company’s Columbia label.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090212/bruce-britney-beyonce-staying-on-youtube-sony-music-resigns/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090205/the-boss-says-no-bruce-springsteen-already-campaigning-against-ticketmaster-live-nation-deal/ http://allthingsd.com/20090205/the-boss-says-no-bruce-springsteen-already-campaigning-against-ticketmaster-live-nation-deal/#comments Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:56:44 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=3925 Struggling Ticketmaster, which holds a near-monopoly on concert ticket sales, wants to merge with struggling Live Nation (LYV), which is the biggest concert promoter in the world. Will antitrust regulators let this one fly?

We’ll find out once the reported deal becomes official, which could happen as early as Friday. In the meantime, you can consider the varied opinions of antitrust attorneys and experts quoted in The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Or you can just ask the Boss, who gives the deal an unqualified thumbs down.

The story: Bruce Springsteen happens to be embarking on yet another megatour (perhaps you caught him on TV the other day). Said tour, which is using Ticketmaster (TKTM) to sell tickets (again, like just about everyone else in the concert business) has already run into a snafu involving TicketsNow, the “secondary marketplace” (i.e., legal aftermarket/scalping) company Ticketmaster bought last year.

If you want the details, you can consult Springsteen’s Web site, where the musician and manager Jon Landau have posted a long apology. Or you can cut to the chase:

The one thing that would make the current ticket situation even worse for the fan than it is now would be Ticketmaster and Live Nation coming up with a single system, thereby returning us to a near monopoly situation in music ticketing. Several newspapers are reporting on this story right now. If you, like us, oppose that idea, you should make it known to your representatives.

The abuse of our fans and our trust by Ticketmaster has made us as furious as it has made many of you. We will continue to do our utmost now and in the future to make sure that these practices are permanently curtailed on our tours.”

And that’s the thing: There are plenty of companies Americans enjoy disliking, but most of them have some kind of lobby and political clout to help shrug off that animus. But just about anyone who’s bought a concert ticket has at some point cursed Ticketmaster for some kind of perceived slight or insult. And unlike banks, oil, health care or any of our favorite bugaboos, it’s hard to argue that ticket brokers perform some crucial function in our economy, so we have to put up with it.

Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff is one shrewd dude. But he’s going to have to be awfully persuasive to find people in Washington willing to back this one when it gets to Washington.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090205/the-boss-says-no-bruce-springsteen-already-campaigning-against-ticketmaster-live-nation-deal/feed/ 0