Pre-amble: It would be easy for me to use this article as a means of trumpeting my own political beliefs about Mr. Beck. Big Orange Slide, however is not that sort of blog. The purpose of this article is to tell the story of Glenn Beck’s rise and fall as a pundit through his advertising ups and downs.

Act 1 – Right as Rain

The Aughts were a highly galvanizing time. The Bush Administration governed the United States in both heart and mind. According to several polls, Fox News, with its infamous roster of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Geraldo Rivera, was seen as the most trusted news channel in America. Advertisers recognized that they had just the right demographic for visibility, and knew that it was the pony to get behind. CNN, at one time synonymous with 24-hour news, was cast as ‘notably left’ and had begun to lose traction. Seeing the need to feature the right’s perspective as well, CNN brought on Glenn Beck, the rising star of the talk radio world.

Glenn Beck wasn’t just any talk radio host. By the time he’d reached CNN, he had a syndicated show on 280 terrestrial stations and XM, carrying over 6.5 million listeners. Judging by numbers alone, CNN desperately needed Beck which had less than half the audience of its rival Fox. Beck was given free reign, introducing a format that capitalized on Fox’s prize fear-inducing titles and hot-button issues. CNN’s ratings soared, and Glenn Beck was officially a media superstar.

Act 2 – The Eyes Have It

Within two years, Beck had jumped in ratings ahead of everyone at CNN except Nancy Grace. However, in October 2008, Beck opted to sign a $50 million deal with Fox News, debuting in the coveted 5 p.m. slot. His program went live in January of 2009, with cross-promotion on several other Fox programs, including Bill O’Reilly’s.

With more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and HLN combined, Beck debuted to enormous ratings. He began ‘trying new things’ on his program, notably amping up his conservative platform as a man terrified for his country’s future. Despite his polarizing presence, Beck’s time slot was initially filled with Fox’s top-tier advertisers.

Beck used his program to to show correlations between the Obama administration’s agenda and that of the Nazis. The Tea Party got their beginnings mostly through Beck’s endorsement. Followers and detractors alike stayed tuned in, no matter what. Those who stood behind Beck did so vigorously, showing up for his rallies and public protests. Glenn Beck had taken the age-old notion that controversy is profitable to new extremes, proving (for the time) that people will watch it, even if they hate it.

Act 3 – Boulevard of Broken Memes

Beck’s show became even more radicalized. Memes began to surface featuring his unhinged behaviour – crying on air, and shrieking at callers to his radio show. His ratings had begun to dwindle, and the station’s credibility took a nosedive, resulting in senior advisor David Axelrod’s statement that Fox “isn’t really a news station.”

Beck’s assertion that the President was “Racist, with a deep-seated hatred for white people and white culture” began an exodus of blue-chip advertisers from his program, including Geico, Proctor & Gamble, Microsoft, and Progressive Insurance – each of whom issued public statements distancing themselves from Beck’s views. As of 2010, house ads comprised nearly half of those in Beck’s time slot. Beck’s ratings were under two thirds of what they’d been at their height, and they were not improving.

As of this article, the list of advertisers publicly boycotting Beck’s show has rounded 400. Fox ran several outdoor ads in New York City (where their headquarters are situated) featuring their famous roster, with Beck notably absent. Hardball, CNN’s competition against Beck has nearly doubled Beck’s advertiser list, including most of the aforementioned blue-chip names.

Fox News and Beck have made clear their intention to part ways at the expiration of his contract this year. Beck has indicated plans to create his own network, similar to Oprah’s OWN network.

Glenn Beck himself isn’t proof of any one thing. His relationship with advertising, however, is proof positive that the viewing public has a threshold for controversy. Once passed, those glory days may be impossible to revisit.

Jamie Harvey is the founder of hardrockchick.com, and has been the rock blogger for the GRAMMY awards for the past couple years.
________________________________________________________________

1) What is HardRockChick.com?
HardRockChick started as a place to write about the many concerts I attended. After four years, it has become my journal and alter ego. I write pieces around shows that I attend, usually in the metal, hard rock, industrial or psychedelic genres, and how it relates to my life. I also interview bands.

2) How do you – as a blogger and a fan – use the Internet to keep on top of new music?
When I began HRC I was very proactive about finding new music. I would use MySpace’s recommendations, Last.fm, Pandora (not available to Canadians) and combed tonnes of other blogs. Now I am too busy for that. Fortunately, my readers send me lots of recommendations, and I get tonnes of press releases. But there’s one thing that’s stayed the same for me – openers at concerts.  I always try to go early to see the openers, and I’ve fallen in love with many new bands that way.

3) How has social media changed the concert going experience?
It’s changed it in every way possible. It’s amped up awareness around upcoming shows with tools like Songkick, last.fm and Facebook events based on friends or past behaviour. There have also been changes around the ticket buying process – from traditionally buying a ticket and talking about it via Twitter or Facebook, to using those very methods to do ticket giveaways. Social media allows fans to connect and talk about upcoming shows and such through bands’ sites and iPhone apps. There’s the actual show – the most controversial part – where we now see a sea of cameras or phones as people photograph, video, tweet, Tumblr, Facebook, etc. to show all of their friends that they’re there.  Finally, there are the reviews, which don’t only come from journalists anymore.

4) How can it enrich the fan experience?
Being a fan is a very communal experience. Previously this was limited to old school pen and paper fan clubs, to physically following the bands (à la Deadheads), or perhaps tape trading in the ‘80s metal scene. Now there are myriad ways that bands can connect with fans and fans can connect with each other. Not only can fans learn more about bands and musicians over and above their albums, stage performances or interviews, but fans can easily serve as evangelists for bands, sharing their feelings and experiences through all the social media outlets. Social media helps them feel a part of the process, like they’re giving back to the band.

5) Which bands are getting it right?
‘My’ band is Nine Inch Nails, and they’ve been, hands down, one of the most innovative. Beyond creating an alternate reality game around the release of the album, Year Zero, there is an amazing community created for the band’s fans, through their website and an iPhone app. Not only did these give the band an engaging outlet to communicate and assemble its fans, but it allowed the fans to meet up for shows, discuss the band with each other which fostered obsessive behavior that already existed around the band, and share concert experiences with other fans. I met many of my closest friends through this experience; and I even met Trent Reznor through the iPhone app once at an airport!

6) Given that MySpace is on its last legs, which social media sites work hardest for artists?
Honestly, I don’t think anyone has gotten it right yet.  Facebook has come a long way, Last.fm has some great features, and there are several other sites that are putting their own spin on these, but are more narrowcasted by genre or lifestyle, like VampireFreaks.  But considering that the largest consumption of music comes from YouTube, which has little in the way of connecting mechanisms native to the site, I think there’s a big gaping hole for someone to swoop in and figure it all out.

7) Is authenticity more important today than it has been in the past?
I think it’s always been important, but now that the sharing of information happens so quickly I think it can be more difficult to maintain. Everyone has become the paparazzi; Twitter and cell phone pics can out someone’s unauthentic behavior in an instant. At the same time, the connection between musician and fan has been broken down. Twitter can reveal details about a rock stars’ thoughts and day-to-day activities that we never would have known before.  You can see more than the manufactured image in a magazine. I think the real question, which ties into authenticity, is that of the importance of mystique today. Back in the day, entire careers were built on mystique back, and with social media causing people to overshare, it’s something that’s been lost by so many.

8) Are there any potential pitfalls for bands putting themselves out there in the social space?
Besides issues with authenticity and mystique, there’s a genuine issue of time.  With the decline of the record label, many bands are DIY again, dealing with many aspects of band activities – production, marketing, tour managing, etc. On top of that, you have to layer the expectation to be ever-present on a plethora of social media channels. It has to be exhausting. The other issue is with fan feedback. For every 100 tweets about loving something, you may get one cruel, negative one.  It all depends on how much an artist wants to hear, how they’ll take it, and whether they’ll use it.

9) Does the music ever get lost in all the tweets and status updates?
It can, but only if that’s what you’re looking for. I suppose it’s possible for some people to be more into a musician’s online personality then their music, or for an artist’s online presence to ruin the music for them. I think the main problem I run into now is that artists are releasing more music more often, and I’m following what’s going on with more bands than ever before, so things just get lost in the general clutter.

10) What was it like being an official blogger for the Grammy Awards?
First of all: it’s GRAMMY, and therefore quite the honor. Those of us who represent our genres for the GRAMMYs were chosen seemingly out of the blue. In my case, my task is to be the voice of  the rock fan. I’ve done it for two years now, and hope to be asked back next year. Being in the presence of such a large scale production is both overwhelming and exhilarating. I’ve also written a piece on SXSW for GRAMMY.com and will be covering a MusiCares (The Recording Academy’s non-profit foundation) event soon….so I’m getting to be involved with more than just GRAMMY week!

11) Are award shows still relevant?
Yes. The landscape has changed, there are more categories than ever and we are consuming more different types of music, but there are still things that rise to the top.  I think its funny how certain musicians love to gripe about awards shows until they are nominated.  As purely a viewer, I find them entertaining, which is what I’m looking to get out of it.

12) What advice would you offer fledgling talent wanting to spark a following online?
Expect to work hard and for free.  Do it for yourself.  When someone starts paying attention, learn what they connected with and do more of that.  Communicate with your fans often.  And always remember that it’s about the music.

It has long been a pet peeve of mine when people call themselves “artists,” or when someone refers to someone else as an “artist.” Traditionally, an artist was defined as someone who had mastered a craft. It is only in modern times that it has been bastardized to describe the likes of Lady Gaga and my mother in law. 9 times out of 10, when someone is called an “artist,” they are not an artist.  At least, not in the truest sense of the word.

There was a time when being termed an “Artist” implied that someone had honed his or her craft or skill set, whatever it was, to the point of public admiration. It was not exclusively the domain of the plastic or liberal arts – chefs, carpenters, lawyers and painters were all professions where one could attain the standard of artistry. It’s a descriptor – a willingness to refine a craft and imbue it with something of one’s own. At least, that’s always been my belief.

Recently, my friend and colleague lent me Lynchpin by Seth Godin, and I realized I am not alone in my belief. I never really wondered why people are so quick to designate artistry to those who haven’t done the work. I guess I just sort of assumed it was a by-product of complacency in society.

Let’s go back a few hundred years.  The road to becoming an artist required respect for tradition, and no small portion of dedication and time.  Those who wanted to become bakers started as novices under a mentor. Through guidance, they would become an apprentice. After a spell, a mentor – the artisan – would encourage exploring how to add a more personal touch to the output. Being named an artist wasn’t a decision handed down from some governing board with membership fees, but from your reputation in the community and beyond.  When you were good enough, your work was considered art.

Where have all the artists gone?  They are still around but no one calls them artists anymore, or at least few people do. Beyond graduating arts school, there are few publicly acknowledged ways to determine true artists. Complacency kicked in, so we made an easier more binary system of identifying people as either “professionals” or “hobbyists.” Professionals get paid for their craft, hobbyists don’t.  It seems simple enough, but there are some inherent problems with this method of classification in our modern times.

First is a gap in skill.  I work with two “hobby” bakers at Grip. Though they are Director of Production and Sr. Interactive Developer by profession, their baking skills far exceed most professional bakers I’ve bought from. From my experience, being a professional doesn’t necessarily correlate with skill level. Which is why dismissing hobbyists’ skill for lacking “professional” experience can be detrimental to any form of art or craft.

In his book Drive, Daniel Pink says that “mastery is an asymptote.”  You can get infinitely close to mastery, but one can never totally reach it.  The pursuit of mastery – the path to elevating skill to art – is long and difficult. Blithely acknowledging artistry undermines what it means: striving for peak outputs.

As our economies shift from national to international, we can no longer afford to have people that are just “good enough.” Worldwide, millions are vying to be considered “good enough.” Our skill sets are our greatest social commodity.

What is required is an acknowledgment that skill and value are more valuable than speed and cost-effectiveness.  We need people who live and breathe their craft.

We need a renaissance of artistry.

Curtis Joseph is one of the most successful goaltenders in NHL history, and an Olympic gold medalist, and was a mainstay for the Toronto Maple Leafs both on and off the ice. Brian Lawton is a former professional hockey player who bummed around the NHL, AHL and IHL without any real relative success.

Curtis Joseph didn’t start playing hockey until high school, and went undrafted. Brian Lawton’s name was often used in comparisons to hallowed hockey legends like Howe and Gretzky. He was drafted #1 overall in 1983 and is considered one of the greatest busts in NHL history.

The moral of this NHL history lesson is that even the highest expectations and the greatest of potential does not a superstar make. Similarly, some of the greats have come from the most unsuspecting and unassuming origins.

When I first set out to crack the advertising industry, I was dogged by an overwhelming unease: I didn’t go to a portfolio school or even graduate from an advertising program. I felt like I wouldn’t even get the time of day from an industry that I perceived to value such education as the be all end all, and that any other experience was tantamount to being raised by wolves.

This conclusion, as I now know, couldn’t be farther from the truth. Some of the greatest creative directors went to school for chemical engineering, or physical education, or didn’t go to school at all. A quick look at any agency’s LinkedIn network further illustrates the diversity of the educational and experiential backgrounds of their employees.

Great ideas and hard work, and a sense for the industry do not abide by the compartmentalized nature of formal education. The reality is that the right balance of effort, creativity, and charisma are the common bonds of advertisers, not a pre-prescribed diploma that acts as your permanent and immediate passkey.

And maybe this is a key component of the much debated “future of advertising.” As the background of employees continues to diversify, what benefits will creative industries reap from these changes? While we’re concerned with the changing face of the CW/AD partnership, why don’t we debate the merits of a partnership between an anthropologist, an ergonomic engineer and a thesis candidate in Russian lit? So often, advertisers look for thinkers from outside of the box. What happens when we get thinkers from a whole different warehouse?

I should make it clear, this is not meant to knock advertising programs; the instructors and curriculum are in place to let talented people become truly great. Nor do I suggest that the next ad superstar is going to be a dark horse from some seemingly unrelated discipline. Sidney Crosby has been lighting it up since he could skate, obliterated his expectations and is one of the most dominant players in the league today. And me? I peaked around age 7 while playing for the blue team, and don’t expect to get the nod from Ron Wilson anytime soon.