AND THE WINNER IS Hillsong’s power in determining the sound of Christmas

Tweet

Angela Priestley

It's difficult to ignore the role of the Hillsong Church when determining who really runs Christmas in Australia. The Church not only commands the attention of its followers at this time of year, but can also dominate the music charts and put on some of the country's most extravagant Christmas pageants.
Around 20,000 people attend Hillsong Church services in Australia every week, a far cry from the 700,000 Catholics who regularly attend mass, according to a national count by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference in 2006 (although some studies suggest Catholic Church attendance has declined since then).

Still, the Catholic Church is no rival when it comes to garnering the attention of its followers through entertainment, particularly via the power of song.

Over the weekend, the Hillsong Church put on six shows of its version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, with 20,000 free tickets handed out for the event in the Church's Sydney heartland, Castle Hill.

This week, the Church is targeting the punters with the release of their Christmas CD, Born is the King. The album is currently sitting in the No. 20 spot on the ARIA charts, just behind The Acoustic Chapel Sessions. Its first single has amassed 268,000 views on YouTube.

It's not unusual for Hillsong albums to dominate the ARIA music charts, despite the fact many avid popular music listeners have never heard their tunes. ARIA Gold status has been granted to 18 CDs and eight Hillsong DVD's to date, with the Church able to boast a number of No. 1 ARIA hits, including their 2004 album, For All You've Done.

The 2011 music compilation, which features traditional Christmas songs as well as a number of tracks written by Hillsong musicians, is distributed by Hillsong Music Australia, the Church's own music label and sells for $15 online.

Hillsong Music Australia has sold more than 12 million records across the globe, following its first release in 1991 out of what was then known as the Hills Christian Life Centre in Baulkham Hills. While it predominantly relies on a team of volunteers, it employs 17 full-time staff, making it arguably one of the most successful independent music labels in the country. Its ultimate goal is to lead "people into an atmosphere of dynamic, powerful, and personal praise and worship," according to its mission statement online.

Senior Pastor Brian Houston is executive producer for the label and would see no shame in its success. Houston argued in his 2009 book, You Need More Money, that Christians should have a more positive view on money and wealth, and that they should seek to eliminate the "poverty mentality" that prevents them from enjoying their good fortunes.

Still, according to Houston, the latest release is not about record sales. "The purpose of this album - like all of our music - is to speak to the heart of people," he said in a statement. "The Christmas story is a message of hope and love; it is about family, faith and generosity and I believe that Australians have a lot to be hopeful for this year."

The Hillsong Church was not available to comment in time for today's deadline.

  
 Subscribe in a reader

Coke is full of rubbish - @Getup Seriously, 10c is piddling, it should be a $1

Tweet

GetUp!	18 December 2011 14:46
Reply-To: info@getup.org.au To: thestos@gmail.com
Have you seen the video starring you that everyone is talking about? You're the superhero, standing up to Coke's well funded campaign to stop recycling legislation -- a scheme that would see people refunded 10 cents for recycling cans and bottles. It would will deliver massive benefits: 330,000 tonnes more containers recycled; 2.4 billion litres of water saved and littering reduced by 30%. It's a win all round! Watch your video and spread the word: www.getup.org.au/coke-not-in-my-name ---Original email--- Dear Chris, It's a win, win, win for everyone - and it has you in a red spandex suit! What is it? It's our new recycling campaign, launching today with this action-packed video starring none other than you: www.getup.org.au/coke-not-in-my-name Imagine if when you bought a drink, you got 10 cents back when you returned the empty can or bottle when you're done. Sound simple? Well it is. It's done all over the world and delivers massive environmental and social benefits. But Coke is running a well-funded misinformation campaign against it, and has been harassing anyone trying to push for a refund recycling scheme that would reduce millions of tonnes of CO2 pollution and billions of litres of water. Not to mention removing lots of litter. We need a new superhero to stand up to Coke: you. Consider this email your bat signal, and star in your own superhero video: www.getup.org.au/coke-not-in-my-name A successful deposit and refund scheme on cans and bottles has been operating for 30 years in South Australia, and many other parts of the world. But when the Northern Territory parliament tried to introduce it for 2012, Coke and its allies were there harassing them with false claims about its impact. That means it's time for you to get out the red spandex and tell Coke they're full of rubbish! Thanks for being a hero, The GetUp team PS - NT Chief Minister Paul Henderson, on the receiving end of Coke's well funded campaign, has sent a letter to GetUp members calling for your help. Hear his call and become a superhero for recycling today, with this video starring none other than you. PPS - Apologies you may not be able to view this video on your mobile phone and those viewing the video with a slower internet may have to wait up to 20 seconds before the video plays. Be patient, it's worth it!

 
 Subscribe in a reader

Faceless net giants Google & Facebook writing own rule books

In the dark … trying to work out why their businesses have been blocked or suspended has confounded many online entrepreneurs. Photo: AP

Tweet

Businesses have little recourse - or human contact - when resolving disputes with Google or Facebook, write Julian Lee and Ben Grubb.

• Web minnow takes on Google over ban

Australians use them more than any other websites and to many they have become essential services, oiling the wheels of life and commerce at the click of a mouse.

But when Google or Facebook no longer wants you, it can be all but impossible to find out why, as internet entrepreneur Mark Bowyer and others have found to their cost.

Earlier this year Google banned ads from his travel website, Rusty Compass, because it said the site "poses a risk of generating invalid activity".

Almost four months and an appeals process later Bowyer is none the wiser as to what that means but is acutely aware of his dependence on an "arbitrary, algorithmic, human-free" service.

At every step Bowyer has been forced to communicate with the company through its website.

"I feel utterly powerless," says Bowyer, who says he is daunted by how much he depends on Google's services for his fledgling business - a website that offers independent travel advice to travellers to south-east Asia - from powering the search engine, providing analytics and directing traffic its way.
He is still unable to fathom what ''invalid activity'' Google is referring to, speculating that because a large proportion of his traffic comes from Asia - where ''click farms'' are often located - Google suspects he might be paying people to click on his ads.

"Of course, Google has the right to decide who it does business with. It doesn't have the right to terminate commercial arrangements mid-stream, withhold funds due, and run a closed appeal process that provides no information to the appellant," says Bowyer, a co-founder of the travel firm Travel Indochina.

Google has "redistributed" the $120 he earnt from advertising back to advertisers. He has consistently denied click fraud, even posing the rhetorical question to Google in his appeal: "Why would I take such a risk for such a low return?

"Since Google enjoys such extraordinary market power, it should be serious about its internal processes and the transparency and credibility of its appeal processes. And, pardon my naivety, but the introduction of a human face would be a good start."

Bowyer's dispute is similar to the three-year-long one the founder of the Aussie Tech Head podcast and website, Glenn Goodman, has had with Google over his Adsense account.

In 2008 Goodman accrued $100 in revenue from Google ads in the first six months of his business. But on the eve of getting the first payment he was suspended. Since the suspension he has submitted online appeals once every 12 months up until this year, when he phoned Google's Sydney reception. The receptionist merely advised him of the Adsense appeals procedure. ''I have given up,'' he says.
Like Bowyer, he says he's never clicked on his own ads and has no idea why he was suspended.

"It is very frustrating and to this day I do not know why my account was targeted," he says, adding that it has affected other methods of receiving ad revenue through Google such as through the video-sharing website YouTube and Feedburner, which inserts ads into RSS feeds.

"I was well aware of fraudulent clicks, and it wasn't due to this. It is due to another reason that at this stage is only known to Google.''

Google is not shy about letting users know it may not even get back to them, pointing out in emails to Goodman that it might take some time and that there is no guarantee his account will ever be reinstated.

They now face being permanently shut out of Google's network of publishers - which cover 70 per cent of the world's websites and in Australia generates about $700 million in ad revenue a year.
Goodman and Bowyer are joined in their frustration by Corinna Slade, a vocal supporter of horse racing and, in particular, jumps racing.


Slade runs a Facebook group for her business Australian Thoroughbreds, which sells and syndicates racehorses and has over 2000 members. On two occasions her personal page has been suspended and she has been prevented from using many of Facebook's services after what she suspects was animal activists reporting her for breaches of Facebook's terms and conditions.


The suspension of her personal account has prevented her from posting messages on her business Facebook page as she is the sole administrator.

Slade claims she tried to contact Facebook several times but "there is no place on Facebook where you can send an email or appeal the decision to lock a profile down''. Upon being told that she had "violated" Facebook's policies she was then diverted to a page which told her the duration of a block "varies depending on the nature of the offence, ranging from a few hours to a few days''. It also states that Facebook will ''not lift this block for you until the entire penalty time has elapsed'', offering no appeals process.

Slade says Facebook should have a way of being contacted or a proper appeals process. ''This contravenes freedom of speech, which I thought was a big deal in the USA, where Facebook is based.''
Facebook said it didn't ''comment on specific cases'' and directed Fairfax to the same webpage Slade was sent. Asked about its appeals process, it provided a link to a contact form for use only by users of an account that has been disabled for violating its policies.

But the Freehills emeritus partner Bob Baxt said Google's activity in particular might contravene consumer law which has been changed recently to strengthen unconscionable conduct - a legal concept that describes the harsh treatment by one party, usually a larger, more powerful entity, towards another smaller party.

Not knowing the full facts of the case, Baxt says: "If this is true and money is also being withheld by a merchant then it could contravene Australian consumer law. Taking someone's money, then telling them that they can no longer use that service and accusing them of some crime or breach but without giving them the reasons why could also contravene the act.

"This is the type of scenario that I think would be of interest to the ACCC [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission]."

Websites can be suspended for a variety of reasons, from posting racist or violent material to infringing copyright and tampering with its Adsense code. Google would not comment on specific cases - nor would it reveal how many sites it suspended - but a spokesman said users who posed a "risk to its advertisers" needed to be purged in order to "protect the health of its network".

A Google spokesman said that advertisers, publishers and users preferred to contact the company via its website but that "trained specialists" thoroughly investigated cases.

jlee@smh.com.au

 Subscribe in a reader