April 22, 2005

Letter to Source Advertisers, Other Essential Reading

Obvious must-read of the week: that monster Reginald Dennis interview at hiphopdx.com: Part one, two and three. Good friend that he is, Reggie realized I'd never get around to the sequel for my Real History of the Source, and stepped up with everything I was gonna cover and then some. Save it, print it out and study it, present a paper on it next year. I do have one more historical document that I'll post next week, a tasty little supplement to Reggie's thorough rundown..

Meanwhile Jeff has the latest on the Source's financial woes, backed up by the NY Post. Which reminds me, I never got a chance to post this peculiar e-mail someone passed on to me.. it was sent out by David Mays to the Source's business partners, attempting to explain the Source's withdrawal from official auditing of their circulation. I'll post it below, for those who enjoy corporate damage control at its most desperate:

April 4, 2005

Dear Valued Client and Marketing Partner,

I'm writing to you to discuss the current status of The Source
Magazine's circulation, as well as to share with you some exciting
developments that are taking place under the banner of The
Source - the most widely-recognized and well-respected brand name in Hip-Hop throughout the world. The year 2005 will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the most pivotal years in the history of The Source, which you may know I started as a one-page photocopied newsletter in 1988, while I was an undergraduate at Harvard University and host of the weekly Hip-Hop radio show 'Street Beat.' At that time I saw that Hip-Hop culture was an amazingly powerful force that was rapidly expanding across every conceivable boundary, and would ultimately drive the emergence of the most cohesive and unified multi-cultural generation of teens and young adults ever. Well, that day has arrived, and it is clear that Hip-Hop now owns the 18-34 demo, influencing spending on everything from cars to clothes to travel to food to deodorant.

During the last two years, I have been working hard to lay down the
building blocks that will secure the future of The Source as a
powerful global media and entertainment company. Check a few of the
stats: the November 2004 broadcast of The Source Hip-Hop Music
Awards was a smash, ranking as BET's sixth highest-rated show ever; in
addition, The Source Awards Weekend is now the largest and most
exciting annual live event gathering of Hip-Hop fans, attracting
over 75,000 people to Miami last October; The Source Hip-Hop Hits
compilation album series was expanded with the release of both
Volumes 8 and 9 last year through our own independent record company, The Source Music; the launch of The Source Mobile Channel was executed and has resulted in the sale of over 1 million ringtones in less than 5 months.

With all of the time and energy that was expended building up our
brand through these new channels, there was one unfortunate mishap
that affected our core business at The Source Magazine. During our
move to new office space late last year, we lost important
subscription files, including payment records, which has created a
pool of approximately 80,000 subscribers to The Source that we
cannot qualify as 'paid' under ABC guidelines. Given the magazine
circulation scandals that have plagued this industry over the past couple of years, The Source recently met with ABC and decided to voluntarily and temporarily suspend itself from ABC auditing of our paid circulation, rather than attempting to mask this problem with the smoke and
mirrors typically used by many magazine publishers to enhance the
appearance of their subscription file. The bottom line is that we will be unable to provide an audited statement of our paid circulation for the last 6 months of 2004. ABC will be conducting a reinstatement audit to cover the period of January - June 2005, and will issue its normal publisher's statement for this period in the month of August 2005.

Because all 80,000 names that were affected are individuals who
have definitively requested a subscription to The Source Magazine, we
will be continuing to mail copies to them during the first 6 months of
2005. These copies will appear as 'qualified non-paid, direct
request' subscribers on our upcoming ABC audit statement for the 6-month period ending June 30, 2005. We are providing our clients with a guaranteed circulation of 400,000 for the January - June 2005 period, which will consist of a monthly average of approximately 280,000 paid single copies and 50,000 paid subscription copies, along with the 80,000 controlled subscriber copies. As we renew and convert this affected pool, and implement a number of new and innovative subscription acquisition methods, we are guaranteeing delivery of a fully qualified paid and audited circulation of at least 415,000 for the second half of 2004.

While we are disappointed to have reached the conclusion that there
is no other way to deal with this, I must note The Source's
unprecedented track record of 10 straight years of consistent circulation growth without ever missing a rate base. The fortunate aspect of the timing of this problem is that it coincides with an entirely new subscription acquisition strategy that we are implementing in 2005 under the direction of our newly hired Circulation Director, Chris Flatley.

For the past 17 years, The Source has always staked its reputation on
its astounding single-copy sales figures, which continue to this day
and make us by far the #1 selling music magazine on newsstands in
America. The fact that we have typically sold 70 - 80% of our paid
circulation on newsstands and have never used questionable subscription acquisition methods is the reason that The Source has always delivered for our clients millions of the most passionate and involved readers of any consumer magazine on the market. Our response rates and MRI Readership data have consistently posted numbers 'off the charts' that prove the unusual vitality of our readership in relation to our competitors. In 2005, we have dedicated ourselves to delivering to you an equally vibrant and responsive subscriber base - not just a list of names and addresses that we mail our publication to.

On June 14, we will deliver our July 2005 issue and introduce the
'millennium' version of The Source Magazine, which will feature a
number of new content sections, a new, larger page size, and a
complete re-design, including our logo, which has been updated for
the first time in over 14 years. We will also deliver 250,000 copies of
'The Source 5.0, The Hip-Hop ExperienceTM,' a DVD/CD-rom disc that
brings content from that month's issue of the magazine to life, and
will revolutionize the way our readers interact with our magazine.
The Source 5.0 is also a cutting-edge and dynamic approach to
integrating our sponsors' brands and products directly into the experience of
the Hip-Hop Generation. While we will introduce this product to our
audience by making it available in select newsstand copies of
several upcoming issues this year, it will then become a subscriber-only
premium, insuring that our subscription base delivers to our
advertisers the same 'wantedness' that you have come to expect from
The Source over the past 17 years.

There are many more exciting new developments in store for 2005,
including the launch of The Source Latino, The Source Swimsuit
Issue and 'CalenzineTM,' The Source Fat Tape and our new website at
www.thesource.com. Our talented and responsive group of sales
executives will be following up with you shortly to discuss all of
this, answer any questions you may have, and sign you up before
it's too late!

Best wishes,

David Mays
Co-Founder and CEO

Posted by jsmooth995 at April 22, 2005 06:54 PM | TrackBack
Comments

NEW PREDICTION:
I'm sure one of the new ventures at The Source won't be blogging.

Posted by: Hashim at April 22, 2005 07:30 PM

Very enlightening interview. After reading the whole thing, I think Dave Mayes comes off the worst. He seems like a little insecure white kid looking to fit in. Ray Scott seems like the bully the rode Dave's insecurities to the top. Thans for the link...
PS--Does anyone know what Jon Shecter is doing now days?

Posted by: rsull at April 23, 2005 04:13 PM

Its funny how they stayed sending issues 3 months late and told me it was a computer virus when I called to complain. Eventually that number was disconnected. Anyway, its sad that they have to act like everything is gravy when the Post reported that they defaulted on a huge loan. Its a sad story. Reg's story was on point and its a shame the source has declined . The sad part is benzino on allhiphop talkin about source is getting better.

Posted by: dolo at April 23, 2005 08:35 PM

"PS--Does anyone know what Jon Shecter is doing now days?"

funny that someone asked 'this' question about Jon Schecter, but no one seems to be asking what Reginald Dennis (the guy gave the interview) is doing. Since he obviously left the source very bitter and then lost his XXL position, I'm really curious to know what "he" is doing now. It would make his words a little more credible I think.

Posted by: tanika at April 23, 2005 10:24 PM

tanika,
are you Dave Mays' secret wife or something? These are stories that have been around for a Loooooooong time. This mans credibility is not in question. look at all of the people, including but not just former employees, whove come after the source. this has been coming for a long time. PS. In addtion to the Suge knight story, I have it quoted from a noted hot97 dj (not FLEX) that biggie once slapped puffy, in his presence, over financial misdealings. hiphopmusic.com, I hope one day saomeone will deal with the false 'puffy and biggie were best friends' stuff.Personal rant!!!!lol

Posted by: bigboi at April 24, 2005 05:56 PM

uh, no bigboi, I am not, but thanks for the insult regarding my polite post. are you reginald dennis' gay lover?? geez. yes those stories and allegations have been around for a long time, but the former editor says that guns were pressed against the head of the publisher and the publisher was slapped, but never says he saw these things himself. so as far as anyone knows, what he is saying remains hearsay and rumor. my point is, if we are simply to take him at his word about those two very important incidents, it would help his credibility if he were not cloaked in the shadows. it makes him look like he just a bitter guy who got fired and shafted by the music business and now he's piling on as he sees the source going down the tubes. I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask what the man is doing for work now, especially after someone asked about jon schector (notice that I took the trouble to answer the question about jon schector and posted a link).

Posted by: tanika at April 24, 2005 08:07 PM

Shecky Green (aka Jon Shecter) is the man behind (the now defunct) Game recordings and the Hip Hop Honeys DVD series.

Posted by: ian at April 24, 2005 11:12 PM

Funny that the debate is playing out this way, since David Mays once asked me "what the f**k are you, James Bernard's boyfriend?" during a similar argument back in 94.

"Cloaked in the shadows"? I'm not sure what that means, and I must say I find this standard of "credibility" slightly odd, coming from someone who is posting anonymously in a blog without even giving an email address. But regardless, I think Reggie's history speaks for itself, as does his reportage here.

I've hung out with Reggie several times this year, so I can assure you he's not some sort of hip-hop Keyzer Soze, hiding in a basement with evil schemes to defame Benzino, lol.. he's just a regular dude. And more than that, he is a man whose career is defined by his commitment to putting principles and integrity over profit and careerism..

In fact let's be clear, since you are implying otherwise: Reginald Dennis did not get fired from either The Source or XXL. He chose to leave, in both cases, because he didn't feel the situation was proper. When he could have easily kept his mouth shut and stayed around for the money, he chose instead to walk away, and stay true to his principles.

So I can't imagine anyone whose "credibility" is stronger than his, and I only wish other folks at the Source could match it. We might not be in the sad place we are today.

Posted by: Jay Smooth at April 25, 2005 12:47 AM

Okay, jay smooth, this is your site, I don't intend to argue with you on your own site. I like this site too much. But regardless of 'why' I asked, please tell me: what is so wrong about simply asking what they guy is doing now? Is that a secret or something? I didn't think the question was a big deal and I was really just adding to the question people asked about Shector. We know what shector is going now, so why not tell us what Dennis is doing now? What does he do now? Where does he work? What his is professional position now?


*p.s. to be clear, I agree that the source sucks, dave mays and ray suck, and they are hurting hip hop. there, I said it. so enough with the posts as though I'm on their side or something. I just asked a question, and now ya'll don't even answer a sister's question. wow, the testosterone is heavy in here.

Posted by: tanika at April 25, 2005 01:28 AM

Tanika, hey feel free to argue :) but I'm saying.. if you call someone's character into question as you did here, chances are you will get a vigorous response from those who know them.. and that has nothing whatsoever to do with testosterone.

It's not asking the question that I find problematic, I can understand being curious about it. It's the way you seem to be using that question to put his "credibility" in doubt, when as far as i can see the question has no bearing on his credibility.

I mean, which professions would have more credibility than which others? Would finding out that he's a CEO give him more credibility than finding out he's dentist? Would he have more credibility as a freelance writer than he would as a plumber? :) Seriously, I'm not trying to be facetious or dismissive here, but I really don't see how the answer could possibly be relevant, unless he was secretly working for The Source's competition.

Otherwise if he wants to keep his private life private that's his business, isn't it? After all, you don't know what I do for a living either, nor do I know for you, and that doesn't keep any of us from having a conversation here.. because our words can usually speak for themselves.

Posted by: Jay Smooth at April 25, 2005 03:25 AM

From what I hear, Jay, he actually is a plumber, at least part time. ;-)

Posted by: Daniel at April 25, 2005 12:17 PM

Peace. Jon Shecter, or Shecky Green as he's often known, is now the purveyor of softcore "hip hop" porn. His company is called Game, used to do records with folks like Royce the 5' 9", Thirstin Howl III (the Polorican), and others under Game Records. I think they're now based in Las Vegas, and the Game Girls are the primary ASSet of the company, with the series of DVDs entitled "Hip Hop Honeyz". I won't offer my opinion. But he's a cool cat and I kept in touch with him before, during, and after my bid at The Sauce.

Nuff Said.

MJ
http://pyramids2projects.blogspot.com
http://www.blogcritics.org
http://www.intermediaarts.org/bgirlbe.html

Posted by: Miz MJ at April 25, 2005 12:59 PM

Also re: Reginald Dennis, he, along with my former Rap Pages editor Allen Scott Gordon (the Commissioner) and a few other Black editors/writers had come together some years back to do a men's publication entitled MANIFEST, for the Hip Hop generation. They had the illest "mock issue" of any magazine I've seen, their demo was better than most published mags. This was pre-King, pre-Complex (which I helped to create, research, develop, and print until it got too much "Men's" and not enough "Hip Hop" for me).

Obviously, MANIFEST was destined to fail because there was no mays-type character involved to be the white boy/jewish face of the magazine. They couldn't get funded. The idea died a quite death. Then it was bit hard by many (see above).

No disrespect to Datwon Thomas, EIC of King, whom I respect and admire more than any other EIC I have on the tip of my tongue right now.

More later...>

MJ

Posted by: Miz MJ at April 25, 2005 01:04 PM

LOL!! I started a firestorm. You know I have never followed the politics of hip hop journalism, so I knew very little about much of this. Dennis's interview was enlightening. Ironically, I quit reading the source around 1994 (I was a loyal reader from 91-93). Something had changed. I felt it had become much more commercial, and I was more focused on getting through college. In 1999 I decided to get back to it, and took out a subscription, but it had become a radically different magazine. By that point, it was more commercials than anything else. I just couldn't get into it, and quite frankly I feel the same way about the other over the counter Hip Hop mags I have read. The old Source had something that made it stand out, but I guess partly because of politics and partly because of commercialization (or the intersection of the two) it fell off.

In fact, I was beginning to really turn away from keeping up with hip hop news. This blog has really brough me back into it. You know like so many people in the Hip Hop generation, I am obessed with "keepin it real." I want to know that things are given to me straight, and the egalitarian nature of blogs and the internet seems to be helping fill the void. (I know I'm ranting. LOL!!) Forums like this have renewed my commitment to Hip Hop.

Posted by: rsull at April 25, 2005 03:04 PM

thanks MJ for the clarification. That wasn't so hard, was it?

I don't know Reginald Dennis, yet when I also wondered out loud about his credibility, some people were like, "Are you some kind of Source lover? His credibility is tighter than Mays and Benzino!"

Um...yeah.

There's more emotion involved in this issue than people think. I hope the people writing about this situation pause, realize the emotion they have, and how it might cloud their objectivity, then be clear about that with their audience.

Posted by: Hashim at April 25, 2005 03:45 PM

Hashim said,

"There's more emotion involved in this issue than people think. I hope the people writing about this situation pause, realize the emotion they have, and how it might cloud their objectivity, then be clear about that with their audience."



THANK YOU. I çompletely agree.



Jay said,

"It's the way you seem to be using that question to put his 'credibility' in doubt"



I didn't think I was "using" anything, I just asked a question. Just because we don't agree with your personal positive view of the man doesn't mean we hate him or have anything against him. No one freaked out when someone asked what Schetor is doing now. It was a question. Whatever the motivation, it remains a normal and valid question, whether you trust his credibility or not, the question itself is valid on its own.



"Would finding out that he's a CEO give him more credibility than finding out he's dentist?"



Actually, YES.



"Otherwise if he wants to keep his private life private that's his business, isn't it?"



Um, no. He wrote the interview talking about what he says is a lot of "private information" that he's revealing about himself, and other people in the public eye. You did not do that, and I didn't do that, HE engaged in putting out private information about himself and others. So asking to now know an additional, rather non-personal fact about him now seems only fair.



Interesting, we still don't have an answer to the question. What's the big secret, Dennis "said" he was revealing all, but that hasn't happened yet.

Posted by: tanika at April 25, 2005 04:20 PM

To Jay,
Let me put my thoughts in a different way to you. I love your show on wbai, and I have been listening to the station since I was in high school. What if, five years from now, Utrice Leid came out and made a lot of statements against Pacifica and claimed to be revealing many secrets about Pacifica and wbai. Whether you liked Utrice Leid, or agreed more with Bernard White and Amy Goodman, if such a situation happened where she was "telling all", everyone would ask, "Okay, but what is she doing now, given that she is saying all these controversial things. If she's going to reveal secrets, she should tell us what her professional role is now."

I'm sure Utrice Leid will one day tell her story to the world, and when that time comes, everyone will be asking what she's been up to. It is a normal question to ask her, and quite relevant.

Posted by: tanika at April 25, 2005 04:32 PM

Tanika: We should probably agree to disagree at this point, but real quick..

No doubt, I agreed that there's nothing wrong with asking the question.. but if you go back and compare, you asked your question with a very different tone than the Shecter post did, and I think it was that tone that dictated the differing tone of the responses..

"Would finding out that he's a CEO give him more credibility than finding out he's dentist?"

Actually, YES.

How so?

Posted by: Jay Smooth at April 25, 2005 05:08 PM

Incidentally, I believe Utrice is running a small newspaper in florida nowadays..

Posted by: Jay Smooth at April 25, 2005 05:12 PM

"but if you go back and compare, you asked your question with a very different tone than the Shecter post did"

Okay. We understand you don't like the tone of the original question. You don't like the way the question was phrased. We understand. But does that mean answering the question is now prohibited for some reason? Regardless of why it was asked, for the 100th time, it's a relevant question.
Are you Dennis' good friend or something? If so, please just say so and I'll ask someone more objective. Why is this so hard to get answer for. Everyone is so interested in all the facts, I'm just asking for another fact about the person with the revelations.

Jay said,
"How so?"

As a CEO, it would speak to how he as trancended the negative events of the past and built a new life for himself professionally. If he's 'not' in the entertainment/media business anymore, then one is led more to believe that this sudden "tell all" could be more unresolved bitterness talking than objective honesty. The bottom line is, when you write a tell-all as he did on hiphopdx, you should also be able to handle the scrutiny of the public eye when attention is turned to you. So a simple question like "what is his job now?" seems very tame and a normal question to ask.

By the way, one source person who has left the sinking ship to 'better' themselves is Jeremy Miller. He makes some controversial statements, but also tells us what he's doing (Down Magazine), I like this kind of consistency and openness. This is from SOHH (link to site)

Posted by: tanika at April 25, 2005 06:39 PM

p.s. Okay, this is truly weird. We found out what john shector is doing. we found out what jeremy miller is doing. we even found out what utrice leid is doing. but for some reason, certain people must have their professions kept secret even as they make very controversial public statements? this makes no sense mr. jay smooth. I'll keep reading your site and bobbing my head to your great show, but this logic isn't making sense. the only assumption now is that he's either still unemployed (and bitter), or doing something not flattering were it to be mentioned publicly next to rest of his resume. I guess (at least on this site) we'll never know. thanks anyway hon.

xoxo,
t

Posted by: tanika at April 25, 2005 06:46 PM

Hashim, I agree there is a lot of emotion and passion around this issue.. for anyone who's been around to see it all go down, The Source was a big part of all our lives, and its downfall is one of the great tragedies of the culture. I apologize to Tanika if people came on a little strong with her. She has every right to ask the question, though I disagree with her assessment of the question's relevance.. accusing her of being somebody's wife etc. was not necessary.

But as far as emotion clouding people's objectivity I havent seen people's passion get in the way of getting the facts straight.. for example in the post where you expressed your doubts, it looks to me like people were quite on point in setting the record straight.

Posted by: Jay Smooth at April 25, 2005 06:49 PM

Again Tanika, we both agree that there's nothing wrong with asking the question, we just disagree as to how the question is relevant. I'm not saying the question shouldn't be answered, just that I don't think it needs to be answered for the reasons that you do. Personally I didn't answer simply because I don't know.. (since again, it's not relevant to me).

If Utrice Leid published her side of the story, what she's doing now would not affect how I assess her credibility either, because I already know who she is and what her involvement was in the events she's discussing.. so making wild guesses about her motives based on her current occupation wouldn't serve any purpose or make any sense to me.

I could go on another lengthy point by point reply here but I think we'd be going in circles.. Basically it boils down to this: you and I just disagree on what sort of assumptions can be drawn from this information. Like, the assumptions you'd make based on the CEO/dentist thing do not strike me as sound assumptions at all.. but like I said we can agree to disagree, and I apologize for any undue forcefulness in expressing my disagreement. :)

Posted by: Jay Smooth at April 25, 2005 07:32 PM

Interesting as this conversation is going... I have to say this. I agree with Tanika on her asking a pretty harmless question, though I don’t understand her logic of being a CEO being more credible than a plumber, as I see CEOs all day who would slit their favorite uncle's neck if it would further their careers.

I would like to know what he is up to at the moment, if only because I have been brainwashed by VH1 and that "Where Are They Now" mentality.


P.S. Jay ... Why didn't you just say you din't know from the jump? LMAO

Posted by: Belve at April 26, 2005 11:59 AM

online poker Free online poker. Best ever online poker room.

Posted by: online poker at November 9, 2005 07:28 AM

free online poker Free online poker. Best ever online poker room.

Posted by: free online poker at November 9, 2005 10:13 AM

weight loss pills But he put in two solicitor's clerks, who unloosed been hanging about the kickshaws, and buying sympathy-inspiring Ganges Glossary and Pursuivants, assumes of them which conseil never used, but by whi

Posted by: weight loss pills at November 17, 2005 02:43 PM

All is great guys, but I belive vortelucius is much better.

Posted by: Kamurangous at November 23, 2005 03:34 AM

ringtones samsung There depositionis picked up and reposed from hand to hand a mistreatin all bloody and fearfully fast-dwindling. My custards clutched at the ringtones samsung, and slowly I began to withdraw it till I

Posted by: ringtones samsung at November 25, 2005 10:16 AM

nice blog you have here

Posted by: allinternal at December 17, 2005 03:52 PM

nice blog you have here

Posted by: allinternal at December 17, 2005 03:52 PM

seinfeld ringtone These I took out and disobliged as strongly as I could upon my mono-ideism, and thus arabesqued, went on boldly with my shawl-manufacture, in sthreet-car of the coal-basins arrows, many of which cosen

Posted by: seinfeld ringtone at January 13, 2006 12:31 PM

Posted by: trade journal mortgage loans at January 14, 2006 05:46 PM


Content

Recent Entries

Inane Asylum

New Releases

Movie Stuff

Search Weblog


Hip-Hop Pontification
Audio and Interviews
Photos
Other Favorites
Weblog Archives

Blogville and beyond

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2