June 4, 2013 – Daily Brief

If no one is making a profit on streaming yet, can anyone really be "late to the market"? I'm no holding my breath, because the Cook era has generally been one tone-deaf disappointment after another. But Apple has a history of stepping into a market at the right time with the right solution. I don't know what that solution is. I *like* desktop Spotify a lot, but the price for mobile access (or Google music) is far too much for me. That's not to say it isn't the future. It just happens that I own a lot of music and a large percentage of the stuff I listen to, even on Spotify, is stuff I already own.

You'll be converted to subscription music eventually, just as I imagine you've converted to subscription TV/Movies via Netflix or Amazon. I consume so much music with Google that the $7.99/month cost is a bargain. I downloaded the new Daft Punk album, listened, added tracks I liked to my playlist, which includes my entire music collection that used to reside on hard drives. Mixing/matching new and old into a playlist is really great. Having access to 18 million tracks for $8 a month on all my devices and indeed browsers is incredible.

I'm the wrong guy to use the Netflix analogy on. They lost me when they shifted their pricing schedule, and I may never go back. Well, at least not until every movie is available on the same day as disc. One can only watch Caddyshack so many times.

I've always "subscribed" to TV. A season 1-4 box set of The Wire notwithstanding, I don't own any TV shows, and I will generally watch a series once. I come into the game with thousands upon thousands of songs, many of which I've listened to hundreds of times. I'll always own these. The incremental benefit of a $120/year service is pretty small to me. And the chances are, as I get older and grouchier, my demand for new music will decrease. The sweet spot is somewhere south of $10, especially if a family can share it. They'll get me sooner or later. (and it so happened that someone dropped Daft Punk on my lap two weeks early, so there's that)

I wonder if Clear Channel will sue Apple over iRadio name. CC's (by their accounts) iHeartRadio app/site is going strong, and I would suggest (although I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on television even) that the names are too close for Trademark sake and there would be confusion among the average consumer. (Not to mention literally dozens of other trademark holders (seemingly in the Camarillo / Ventura area) who hold IRADIO or iRadio as trademarks in one way or another.)

My proposed opportunity for “Returning the Library to Public Control” is to form a “Board of Library Trustees” or “Library Commission”. Members would be chosen from residents who are Library uses, are knowledgeable about Library operations and are not employed by the City of Santa Clarita, the County of Los Angeles or LSSI. It would be their job to study current Library operations, investigate alternatives and recommend a course of action to be taken. We witnessed what happened when the city did not listen to the public and jumped blindly into the Briar Patch. Let’s not let that happen again.

Regarding the city contracting out, the city also "saves money" by having contract companies pay up to half the salary of the corresponding city employee, ie, in 2011, Blue Barrel paid half of the salary of Mark Patti, Project Development Coordinator, the man who petitions the city council on matters of recycling, among other things. The salary subsidy is in the contract with Blue Barrel. I've been told that this is a common practice with our city employees and their salaries. Does that not divide loyalties, for a city employee? Does he then represent the city's interests, or those of the company which subsidizes his salary? "Contract out" is a loaded term.

Lori, I can see your perspective and how it might create a conflict. We've created a system whereby we have to nickel and dime government expenditures in the name of transparency and accountability (not suggesting that is bad). As such, each and every job has to have a "funding source." When I worked for water and power, 55% of my salary and benefits were paid by the electric utility fund, and 35% was paid by the water utility fund, 5% paid by the sewer fund and 5% paid by refuse fund (just giving rough numbers). Thats because some way some how someone figured that in the world of customer service, 55% of my work was related to electrical service, and so on. When I was in marketing, I think my salary became more like 85% electric, and 15% water (zero garbage and sewer). So, it was that clear for me, but all the money was coming directly in to the local agency and not to a contractor. Here it gets a little conflicted in that money goes from consumer to contractor to city to pay 50% of the costs of the employee.... Its very SOP, but you're right, it does seem to be murky.

In the example which Lori cites, Mark Patti with the city of Santa Clarita, I can personally attest to the fact that Mark is not confused regarding who he works for regardless of who is paying a portion of his salary. On at least two separate occasions I had problems with Waste Management’s “customer service” folks. After trying futilely to resolve it myself with Waste Management/Santa Clarita Disposal I called Mark at the city. In both instances within a couple of hours the issues were resolved to my satisfaction and Mark followed up to make sure everything was taken care of. There was never any doubt in my mind that Mark was working on my behalf, a city resident.

As Todd said, funding for employees come from multiple sources. In this case, the contract pays for 50% of that person's salary. The City is always going to have a contract with a waste hauler as the City does not have the resources to provide refuse services. The City probably determined that 50% of that employee's time is dedicated to managing the contract. If the City elects to go with another waste hauler in the future, the contract would have the same language. If for some reason the City did do its own refuse services, then the City would most likely pay the salary that comes from the monthly rate for services. I know when the City builds a new facilty or any type of public improvement job, the employees that work on that job charge their time to that project whatever the funding source may be. That way, the General Fund of the City is not being used and can be spent on other items.