David Howard
July, 2011

Introduction

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. §1602 (1995) defines lobbying as “a deliberate attempt to effect or to resist change in the law through direct communications with public policymakers including legislators, legislative staff, and executive branch officials.” Lobbying and lobbyists have gotten a bad reputation as a result of scandals that have peppered the news over the years but they do serve a purpose in advancing the causes of citizens, industry, charities and non-governmental organizations. Ostas (2007) quotes a 1956 speech given by then-candidate John F. Kennedy in which he called lobbyists “…expert technicians … capable of explaining complex and difficult subjects in a clear, understandable fashion.” Indeed, due to the vast growth of government oversight and the many bills in front of members of Congress every day, lobbyists working each side of the issues provide a valuable service to legislators by making short work of understanding key points of contention.

Despite the need for such expert advice and the continuing role of lobbyists in guiding public policy, the public overwhelmingly sees lobbyists as villains in Washington and the bane of democratic process. In a 1964 poll, 76 percent of Americans said that they trusted government to do the right thing “just about always” or “most of the time.” When the same question was asked in 1994, the number dropped to 21 percent, with about half of the respondents stating that the federal government was “controlled by lobbyists and special interests” (Ostas, 2007).

Jones (2007) reports that in a 2007 poll, Gallup asked the public to rate the honesty and ethical standards of lobbyists, and only 5% describe their ethics as “very high” or “high.” Congressmen rated only slightly higher at 9%. Nevertheless, the public’s business must be done and lobbyists provide a vital service to Congress by crystallizing and summarizing the arguments on all sides of the issues. Regardless of public opinion, 100% of congressional representatives must take a position on all of the bills before them and vote their conscience. Conscience therefore becomes the ultimate yardstick and the ultimate qualifier for the integrity, honesty and morality of the lobbyist’s work. Lobbying is protected under the constitution as free speech, freedom of association and petition for the redress of grievances. The Supreme Court has, in numerous cases, upheld the rights of corporations to lobby Congress under the constitution.

Practical Models for Ethics Policy

How then, can lobbyists and the clients they represent provide an ethical framework that allows for their role in governmental affairs yet ensures the equal consideration of additional stakeholders in both the process and the monitoring of their lobbying activities?

Different ethical decision-making platforms offer solutions to different stakeholders. As with most ethical dilemmas, it is rare to find a single approach that will satisfy or produce a consensus view among all parties to that dilemma. The comparison below makes clear the need for a hybrid approach; one that can be applied by different types of organizations and the advocates that they send to city halls, state houses and Washington D.C. to seek support for their causes.

Ethical Relativism – values and customs vary from individual to individual and from situation to situation. One set of values may apply in one situation but not another. Restrictions may adversely affect one group more than another. International customs and culturally accepted norms. Globalization has added additional levels of gray to the spectrum of ideas about lobbying.

Virtues – the public and those opposed to particular industries, associations and their arguments may argue based on the virtue or non-virtue of one position or the other. Even lobbyists will argue the virtue of their position i.e.; anti-abortion groups, creationists, etc. What is right and what is wrong are not always clear. Which is more right and virtuous: cleaner air from reduced emissions or cleaner water from a moratorium on oil drilling? Whose position is more virtuous; those of the Catholic Church in defending the transfer of priests accused of sex crimes or those of abuse victims calling for further investigation into allegations of collusion by bishops and cardinals?

Rights – Both sides of the lobbying issue assert their rights to free speech, public redress and representation of their interests. In the abortion debate for example, one side defends the so-called “rights of the unborn” while their opponents support “a woman’s right to choose” Many supporters of the “right to life” also express support for the death penalty. This paradox puts a citizen advocate in support of two lobbying positions that are contradictory. Without lobbyists, the citizen advocate’s credibility and philosophical integrity would no doubt be called into question but two lobbyists can separately and equally defend values that seem opposites on the surface.

Utilitarianism – Experts in the field, media and public policy academics tend to analyze the power and influence of lobbyists and the relationship between lawmakers and public relations organizations in utilitarian terms. That is; does the function do more good than harm and within that function does public or private good displace the other to its detriment?

Playing One Value Against Another

This may prove to be a critical but acceptable weakness in using the utilitarian model to arrive at ethical and defendable decisions. Stakeholders in any ethical dilemma may use a cost-benefit analysis to make a compelling argument for their side of the debate. Health care reformists hold that the rising costs of healthcare in the United States are the result of insurers cutting reimbursements and raising premiums while denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and those with no or low-income who cannot afford to pay their “fair share” of the cost of coverage. On the other side of the spectrum, opponents of reform claim that America has the best system in the world and that the free market works in all other areas, so it should be with the market for health care. These stakeholders argue that hospitals and physicians are raising rates and fees, demanding higher reimbursements far beyond the rise in actual costs thereby inflating the value of health care and forcing the insurance companies to charge higher premiums and reconsider exclusion policies. The utilitarian approach, a cost/benefit analysis, is a process that is already standard operating procedure in nearly every business concern. If the resulting decision maximizes good and minimizes harm for all stakeholders then that decision is the “right thing to do.” A truly utilitarian approach however must include consideration of the effects of the action on all stakeholders.

Who Has Skin in the Game?

Lobbying plays such a central role in the public policy process that stakeholders come from every corner of society and every industry. The Senators and Representatives that take the lobbyists’ information and proposals must assess and balance the impact of legislation on their own constituents as well as the rest of the nation. Congress is under constant watch by media, citizens, activists and other governments. The lobbyist, no matter who his or her client may be, is shielded from the direct response to their policy recommendations by the representative or committee they are soliciting. The client and the lobbyist are afforded a level of anonymity that enables them to continue working the issue even if the representative loses support or even is removed from office by voters in response to their eventual support or opposition on the issue.

Hamilton and Hoch (1997), note that increased freedom in the flow of information has made it easier for stakeholders on all sides to bring power and influence to bear on the lobbying industry. The press can stimulate and facilitate public discussion of business lobbying. Investors and stockholders with skin in the game of lobbying can use shareholder resolutions to pressure for internal dialogue. Consumers can make ethical choices when purchasing products and services. Pension and mutual fund managers can make investment choices based on ethical lobbying activities. Citizens can keep the issue in plain sight by expressing their concerns and their own expectations of the values and ethics of their elected officials and the company they keep. Religious groups, charities and social service providers also lobby for their causes with a focus on values and morals that are widely accepted and applied when they act as consumers and observers of the public affairs process. State and local governments and their constituents stand to gain or lose based on the lobbying of various issues at the federal level that affect their region. The bottom line is no longer a measure of profits for stockholders. The changing nature of societal norms and values has pushed businesses to operate in an ethically responsible manner. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires lobbyists to reveal which issues they are working on. Stakeholders have a clear opportunity to see a bigger picture of corporate lobbying activities A well-reasoned policy regarding the ethical rights and limitations of lobbyists and governments requires a multi-faceted approach. No single approach can possibly address the needs of all stakeholders and issues. Recent advances in technology and communications have driven the debate over lobbying ethics to higher levels of analysis and understanding. To this end, commercial as well as non-profit organizations have sought to work with interested parties to develop palatable guidelines that address the concerns of policy advocates and their critics. Two such rule sets are the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) Code of Ethics and the “Woodstock Principles” adopted by the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

Industry Standards and Best Practices

The Woodstock Theological Center developed a set of guiding ethical principles for lobbying that are widely accepted as a thoughtful and relevant set of operating guidelines for those engaged in the influence of public policy. The seven sections of the Woodstock Principles, without their subparts are as follows:

1. The pursuit of lobbying must take into account the common good, not merely a particular client’s interests narrowly considered.

2. The lobbyist-client relationship must be based on candor and mutual respect.

3. A policymaker is entitled to expect candid disclosure from the lobbyist, including accurate and reliable information about the identity of the client and the nature and implications of the issues.

4. In dealing with other shapers of public opinion, the lobbyist may not conceal or misrepresent the identity of the client or other pertinent facts.

5. The lobbyist must avoid conflicts of interest.

6. Certain tactics are inappropriate in pursuing a lobbying engagement.

7. The lobbyist has an obligation to promote the integrity of the lobbying profession and the public understanding of the lobbying process.”

The American League of Lobbyists (ALL) developed a Code of Ethics (see Appendix A) which has remained in effect unchanged since its adoption in 2000. According to the ALL website (2009) “Lobbyists are strongly urged to comply with this Code and to seek always to practice the highest ethical conduct in their lobbying endeavors.” Thomas M. Susman is a partner in the Washington office of Ropes & Gray, a public policy law firm. He served on the board of the American League of Lobbyists, chaired its Ethics Committee, and is a contributor to The Lobbying Manual and Lobbying Laws and Gift Rules Guide. Susman agrees with all but one of the Washington Principles; the common good. Susman (2002) argued that it is not the lobbyist’s job “…to determine whether the common good is best served by cheap power provided by hydroelectric plants that can make electricity more readily available to the poor, or by maintaining pristine waterways. I think that’s Congress’s role, not mine.” His argument is supported by the changing nature of what is perceived as the common good. For example he adds, slavery was considered beneficial to the common good for nearly 2000 years. Since slaves were not citizens, their interests were not relevant. Susman’s argument makes sense. American business exerts strong influence over the decisions and purchasing habits of the populace every day. Most however, would agree that it would be un-American for any single organization to dictate what is best for all.

Stakeholder-centered Corporate Ethics Policy

A corporate policy regarding lobbying and participation in public policy debates must balance the needs of the enterprise and its shareholders with those of other organizational actors such as customers, suppliers, employees, competitors and governmental bodies at the local, state and federal levels. The stated policy of the organization will influence the actions of all of these stakeholders and while no policy will fully satisfy all of the needs and wants of all constituents, the policy should not impede the progress or continued business activities of the company.

Using elements of both the Washington Principles and the ALL Code of Ethics, any organization can draft a single policy that expresses the intent of the organization and the expectations for ethical behavior and advocacy. No policy would be complete that fails to incorporate the concepts of legal compliance, integrity, transparency, public education and avoidance of conflicts of interest. But policies can be interpreted in different ways by different parties. Loopholes emerge over time and create ethical leaks in the policy and weaken the integrity of the organization and its leadership. For this reason, I propose that in addition to the stated policy the organization offer different decision-making approaches and ethical tests by which managers, executives, contractors and employees can apply the principles of the policy to varying ethical dilemmas. .Applying these principles of ethical conduct to corporate lobbying requires effective communication in plain language that can be understood by directors and executives as well as employees, consumers and stockholders.

Practical Application of the Stakeholder View

United Health Group (UHG) is one of the largest health care organizations in the world with nearly 80,000 employees in more than 40 countries. Their products and services range from health insurance to prescription management, hospital and health information systems and enterprise support for health service delivery. The company’s Ethics and Integrity policy (2010) is 32 pages long and is publicly available at the UHG website. Within the policy document is a “quick test” for all employees, consultants and contractors to use when faced with matters of ethics in the workplace. Here, UHG supports the use of both policy and personal ethics when testing the consequences of a course of action. These test questions are similar to the “smell test” outlined by Weiss (2009) as an informal approach to ethical decision-making. Further, the UHG test directs their representatives to “ask questions and keep asking” if they are unclear on either the policy or the answers to the questions in the test.

Each employee brings professional skills and personal values to his or her job. When faced with a difficult situation, it may help to ask these questions:

• Are my actions legal?

• Am I being fair and honest?

• Will my actions stand the test of time?

• How will I feel about myself afterward?

• How will it look in the newspaper?

• Will I sleep soundly tonight?

• What would I tell my child to do?

After asking these questions, if you’re still not sure of the proper course of action, ask – and keep on asking until you’re sure you are taking the right action.

At its core, any successful policy must be based on a stated trust in the organization and all of its members to act ethically. Corporate policy is in place to direct behavior when the right choices are unclear or unstated by the policy per se. AS UHG does in its policy manual, organizations must not only draft policies using a stakeholder approach but allow the policy to be vetted and challenged by various tests of the choices available in any given situation.

Conclusion

Lobbyists have many ways to address the issue of ethical persuasion of public officials. Both the Washington Principles and the ALL Code of Ethics can be used as a template. Weiss (2009) points out that ethics and conduct codes are often vague and offer generalities without prioritization. Additionally, these codes are not regularly and strictly enforced. Yet, even firms that follow these principles and maintain high ethical standards fall into the categorization by the public as mostly unethical. The impact of this perception is a widespread distrust of the political process, elected officials and the entire district of Washington, D.C. by citizens of every political affiliation and culture. A sound ethics policy must include public discussion of the political process, public education not only on the issues but also who has a stake in the resulting law or appropriation. Elected officials must also hold themselves and their constituents accountable for ethical pursuit of special interests and transparency.

In the end, each organization must do its part. The attached policy recommendation is based on best in class models and industry standards as well as trends in societal norms. The business of lobbying is still a mystery to the average American. We must do our part to remove the veil of ignorance that tarnishes reputations and inhibits more public acceptance and participation in the legislative process. It is my hope that this policy recommendation will enable the organization to do the right thing for the its shareholders, employees, the public and serve as a lasting and model of ethical conduct.

Proposed Organizational Code of Ethics

1. We value honesty and integrity. We are responsible for presenting factual and truthful information to public officials and other interested parties. Any misinformation, once identified must be immediately corrected.

2. In the pursuit of our clients’ interests we are fully compliant with the laws and rules that govern our activities. All lobbyists will be properly registered as required by federal, state and local laws.

3. We avoid and disclose potential or actual conflicts of interest. No lobbyist should pursue a position with a client that is in conflict with another client’s opposing position. No lobbyist should accept appointments to boards or committees that advocate an adversarial position of a client they represent. Each lobbyist is responsible for disclosing personal relationships that may pose a conflict of interest.

4. We advocate our client’s interests rather than our own. Each lobbyist must maintain loyalty to his or her client. If an employee feels that his or her personal beliefs or values interfere with their duty to a client or position, that employee should transfer the client’s project to another member of the firm.

5. We practice the highest standards of confidentiality. No employee may disclose confidential information related to our clients, our legislative activities or our business activities without the express written consent of his or her clients and the Chief Compliance Officer.

6. We disclose all compensation and such compensation is based on a written agreement executed between the client and the firm. No employee may accept gifts unless they are of nominal value.

7. We have a duty to honor and respect the democratic process and educate the general public and the elected officials that we engage in pursuit of new legislation. Each lobbyist is a reflection of the firm and the lobbying industry. We will act in a manner that brings honor to our profession. We must remember that we provide a service to those who serve the public.

8. In every case where a lobbyist is unsure or unclear on the proper and ethical course of action, he or she will consult with their manager and the Chief Compliance Officer for guidance. We will never punish doubt or delay in the pursuit of the correct action. We will address willful violation of our ethics policy to the maximum extent including termination, legal action and revocation of the lobbyist’s registration.

References

American League of Lobbyists (2010). Code of Ethics. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://www.alldc.org/ethicscode.cfm

Jones, J. (2007). Lobbyists Debut at Bottom of Honesty and Ethics List. Gallup Poll Briefing, 1. Retrieved November 13, 2010 from Business Source Complete database.

Hamilton III, J., & Hoch, D. (1997). Ethical standards for business lobbying: some practical suggestions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(3), 117-129. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Susman, T. (2002). Lobbying: Ethical, though not bound by the “common good”. Woodstock Report, 72. Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. Retrieved from http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/resources/articles/The-Ethics-of-Lobbying.

United Health Group (2010), Ethics and Integrity website. Retrieved from http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/aboutus/EthicsAndIntegrity.aspx

Weiss, J.W. (2009) Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning

The album features six sacred mantras, chanted by the lamas (Ven. Drupon Samten, Gen Norbu and Omzed Stanzin) and nuns (Ani Chodron and Ani Dolma) of Drikung Kyobpa Choling. The soothing music was composed and performed by Upaya, the ambient instrumental project of American composer Dave Howard. Howard has released three CDs under his own name as a singer-songwriter and one with his rock band, The Shamey Jays. Dave has been practicing Buddhism since 1986 and began studying and practicing with Drupon Samten Rinpoche at Drikung Kyobpa Choling in 2006 after encouragement from his wife, Terri, who was already part of the sangha.

The album was recorded in three sessions. "I met with the Drupon Samten Rinpoche and the other monks and nuns and recorded them chanting acapella in the gompa (shrine room) at the Tibetan Meditation Center. After our sessions, I went back to my home studio and listened to the mantras. Meditating to these chants inspired the melodies and environments I created with the keyboard."

It is our hope that this recording will benefit all sentient beings by spreading the precious dharma and the virtues of compassion and mindfulness." I have wanted to work with the lamas and nuns at DKC for a long time" says Howard. "Finally, the opportunity arose and I am thrilled with the results. I am sure this is only the first of many projects together."

TO LISTEN AND BUY THE ALBUM ON CD OR DIGITAL DOWNLOAD click here.
Digital downloads are available on iTunes, Amazon, Napster, Rhapsody and other online music services.

To find out more about Drikung Kyobpa Choling and our sangha, please visit our website at www.tibetanmeditationcenter.com.
For more information and music by Upaya, please visit www.upaya.bandcamp.com

Later that day I got an e-mail back from Praful Jain, a regular contributor to the Adobe Technical Communication blog with a solution. It involves the use of an extendscript that is shipped with the project as a sample. Here’s the process he described:

• Back up your existing project. (in case you want to revert back to the original state)
• Open the project.
• Go to View > Pods > Script Explorer
• Expand the Sample Script folder in Script Explorer and select UDV Converter with UI.jsx
• Right click and select Run
• This script will show a dialog where you can enter the text you want to replace, also you can provide the new UDV name and its value.
• Click the Convert button in the dialog.

This script will scan each topic in your project and replace the provided text with UDV name you have provided.

I work in an agile software development environment that serves the healthcare industry. Compliance and security drive changes to product features, labels and nomenclature as much as enhancement requests. This extendscript will save me many hours of hand-wringing despair.

Hope this helps.

I am a strong proponent of pulling the government’s covers. Ever since the Vietnam War, Americans have made it clear that they will only tolerate a certain level of lying, deception and criminal activity from their elected officials; usually less from the opposition party. The exposures of Watergate, the Pentagon Papers and the Iran Contra scandal are examples of what I would categorize as ethical whistleblowing. One was an attempt at throwing a presidential election, another was similar to the Wikileaks situation in that it exposed Nixon’s escalation of the Vietnam War even as he was claiming to seek peace and reduce troop deployments and the last, well it was nothing but a little government cocaine dealing to fund an illegal covert war without Congress’ approval.

Then there is the case of a website publishing and making digital copies available to the public, classified information in the name of government transparency. I believe that Wikileaks serves a purpose. It pushes the envelope of freedom of speech. But there is a limit to both the usefulness and ethics of this type of whistleblowing. I think that in the long run this incident will lead to changes in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and increased government secrecy not only in regards to the war but other areas where the press and public policy groups have a stake in the free flow of information.

The FOIA allows for the government to release classified documents if the classified portions are “redacted.” This often renders the documents useless as it makes the dots harder to connect. FOIA is clumsy and inefficient in that it can take months to get a response to a request for documents and then decipher the redactions. This is why sites like Wikileaks exist; not to intentionally do harm but to put the stark realities in the hands of citizens before it is “too late”. Unfortunately Wikileaks does not necessarily put the information in context. While the information they share may be truthful it is usually not the whole story. That is to say, there is more there than meets the eye. Government may conceal harmful truth alongside critically helpful truth which may save lives or prevent violence or corruption. In that sense untimely revelation is counterproductive.

As long as there is frustration with government there will be something like Wikileaks. Perhaps new iterations will emerge which release terrorist plans and the activities of hate groups here at home. Information is the new dope. People get hooked and it’s hard to put it down. The internet is like a candy store for information junkies. Assange said when the government and the ISPs came after him that it was essentially no use trying to shut him down. Thousands of people were mirroring his site and the leaked content all over the world.

Woops.

Agile, iterative development in the software industry has forced agile, iterative documentation and training development. The software company I work for deploys a “sprint” release every six to eight weeks. Not a whole lot of time to apply a very formal process.

I use what I call the “3D” approach to User Assistance Development: Design, Deploy, Debrief.

Rinse and repeat as necessary. This is a cyclical process which encompasses all of the steps in the old, tired ADDIE model but gets on with it rather than analyzing and critiquing every bloody step. I don’t know about you but I don’t have that kind of time.

Whip it up, put it out there and get feedback

If you’re developing help, user guides, job aids, interactive e-learning and the like, you KNOW what the need is. You have SMEs to partner with (groan here about the level of help they provide) and you have the tools. If you are missing any of these things I hope you can improvise. For assistance here, listen to Miles Davis or John Coltrane.

Just DO IT. “You pay your money and you take your chance” as Bruce Cockburn says. Whip it up in RoboHelp, Captivate, Framemaker, Camtasia, Word, PowerPoint or whatever you’ve got. Put it out there and point your users to it. Gather feedback from your users, your SMEs and start the process over, making tweaks and changes as needed.

I am a big fan of quality but I have learned to choose my battles. Our users need the info when they need the info. It is better to design than to re-design but sometimes you have no choice. Our mantra has become “it’s better to have something than nothing” and while this seems like a cop out, I have learned to get the best quality learning product out quickly and make refinements as the changeset settles down.

This is nothing new. People like Lance Dublin and Jane Bozarth have been raging against the machine of formality and resistance lo, these many years. HR trainers and Operations folks have been looking to rapid learning design as a way to cut costs and time to market for training. The field of user assistance has just as much if not more of a need for rapid development but few high-profile evangelistas. RJ Jacquez from Adobe is one. I am still looking for more of my peers to share their experience and strategies for developing software training with rapid tools. If you train software, particularly to non-technical users, I’d like to hear how you meet the challenges of rapid UA development. For now, I’m sticking with 3D.

The Rx for eLearning? Focus on the learner!

The prescription for what ails the current e-learning community is twofold; 1) focus on the learner and 2) embedded interactivity in the overall program if not in each component. Carliner (2009) observes three emerging trends in e-learning that are evolutionary and based on prior failures and lessons learned. First, he envisions a more iterative and learner-focused approach and openness to new methods and strategies. Next, he observes that subject matter experts will become de facto instructional designers since rapid e-learning is easier than ever to create and implement. Lastly, he sees e-learning as a permanent fixture on the landscape; part of the instructional design toolkit rather than an end unto itself.

Changes in technology and practice outpace academic research on the subject. The most honest and up-to-date information about the successes, challenges and roadblocks facing those currently active in the field is coming from Twitter, blogs, industry forums and trade publications. The lesson here is that the designer of e-learning and the analyst alike must be engaged and active with the technology and other practitioners in order to learn it and appreciate its advantages and its shortcomings.

Focus on the learner. Create realistic experiences that challenge the learners’ emotions and critical thinking skills. Empower subject matter experts to create and deploy rapid e-learning that addresses just-in-time learner needs and has an immediate impact on performance.

Here is an example. For several years our company has wanted to secure our customer support website to prevent our documentation and training materials from being downloaded by our competitors. In order to accomplish this, all pages on the site had to be converted from HTML to ASP. This was simple enough. Next, the application interface had to be changed to allow a new support icon to appear in the button bar; also an easy thing to implement. Next we had to be sure that we could validate that authorized users were logged in to our database in order to access the pages. Here’s the hiccup.

We still have about 30% of our customer base using a previous version of the software that uses an older interface and a completely different application database on a completely different server system. These users would have to download the new interface and obtain a user login to the newer system except with no application access. On that interface will be only one icon; the support button.

Operations documented the original security need. Engineering came up with the idea to add the icon in the application. QA made sure the button worked. Since I train our customers and tend to see things from their perspective, it was I that thought of our customers on the older version that were going to be affected by the change. Who thought this through? Nobody but me.

The change is going through. The prevailing wisdom is that we will eventually migrate all customers to the new version anyway, so this will be another “incentive” for them to migrate.
I am continually amazed by the world of software.

Make a mixtape of your local scene

So here I am, thinking about this compilation project I’m working on. It’s  an album of other artists’ covers of songs I’ve written and collaborated on. I’m planning on releasing it in the spring.

And then I run across this article on Musformation.com, possibly the coolest site for anyone pursuing music independently. This post by Jesse Cannon tells my story. I pushed and prodded artists within my own scene to cover my songs. Granted, it helped that they liked the songs in the first place. The scene was good to me . My songs bore fruit and produced seeds which in turn brought new life. I am one of the lucky ones.

Local scenes in cities today are more heavily populated by players than fans. Everyone is an artist, a journalist, a publisher and a label. Take a look across MySpace or Facebook and you’ll see numerous posts that read “New songs up now!”

It’s all happening NOW. We’re writing now, recording now, releasing now, promoting now, listening now. The playlist is the thing. Who’s in your player? Whose player are you in? The music business is suffering because it can’t keep pace with or truly access the music culture.

Nobody wants every song on your CD. And now they can buy one song for 94 cents if they want to; or find it for free if they really want to. Hell, a lot of us have started giving away disks and downloads just to get the music out there. Thanks, Sivers. The music consumer is more likely than ever to also be a music producer and therefore more likely to be listening to his or her own tunes than anyone else’s; especially during recording projects. The daunting and immeasurable inventory of available songs actually acts as its own deterrent against investigation. As producers we have only a moment to convince the listener that he or she has stumbled upon something worth having and worth further investigation. The return of the single is proof that consumers are pressed for time and have a short attention span for more of the same from an artist. Self promotion brings diminishing returns. How many times can you invite your local fans to come to your show and hear you play the same seven songs? Cross-promotion may be the only thing we have left.

Anyway, think about it. Maybe your next record should be a compilation; a mixtape. Give your colleagues equal time. It’s all for free anyway. Let the masses know that your city is a living breathing musical engine. Add a song to every blogpost. Score your neighbor’s YouTube vid. Get covered. Be covered.

“Now You Are Gone” performed by Citizen Band. Words and music by Jeff Berkley and Dave Howard