Payola settlement
tiger_blurp
275 Posts
Government to collect $12.5 million in payola settlementAssociated Press WriterBy JOHN DUNBAR5 March 2007WASHINGTON (AP) - Exasperated listeners weary of hearing the same songs over and over on the radio may have something to cheer about: a pair of innovative deals that could shake up the music playlists of some of the nation's largest radio-station chains.Four major radio broadcast companies have tentatively agreed to pay the government $12.5 million and provide 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime for independent record labels and local artists in separate settlements aimed at curbing the persistent practice known as "payola," according to sources.Payola -- generally defined as radio stations accepting cash or other consideration from record companies in exchange for airplay -- has been around as long as the radio industry and was made illegal following a series of scandals in the late 1950s.Two Federal Communications Commission officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because final language has not been approved by the full commission, said the monetary settlement is part of a consent decree between the FCC and Clear Channel Communications Inc., CBS Radio, Entercom Communications Corp. and Citadel Broadcasting Corp.The settlement between the government and the four broadcasters was reached in conjunction with a separate deal designed to lead to more airtime for smaller record companies and their lesser-known artists as well as local musicians.The American Association of Independent Music, a group of independent record labels, has received a commitment from the same four broadcasters for the free airtime, the sources said.In addition to airplay, the broadcasters and the independent labels have also negotiated a set of "rules of engagement" that will guide how record company representatives and radio programmers interact.The free airtime would be granted to companies not owned or controlled by one of the nation's four dominant music labels -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and EMI Group.The practice of payola, or "pay-for-play," has evolved over the years and become more difficult to track.In recent years, "independent record promoters" have acted as middlemen to deliver payments to radio stations in exchange for airplay. Other forms of inducement include lavish prizes meant for listeners that wind up going to station employees; promises by record companies of concerts by well-known artists in exchange for airplay; and payments for promotional expenses and station equipment.Under the FCC consent decree, broadcasters would agree to closer scrutiny in their dealings with record companies, including limits on gifts, a promise to keep a database of all items of value supplied by those companies, the employment of independent compliance officers to make sure stations are following the rules and even a new "payola hotline" for employees to report infractions.Broadcasters admit to no wrongdoing under the three-year settlement, which has not yet been made public.
Comments
There are a lot of issues. Payola would be fine if there is a sliding scale say Indie vs. Corporate rates like most magazines do to fill advertising space. However in the case of Payola its always been the space goes to the highest buyer. So if you are an indie with a limited budget you are squeezed out of Major radio play. Even if you are a popular local indie, and have a following, because you can not afford the payola rate the larger stations in your area "command" you can't get in the rotation. Meanwhile a major Label can come in there and shove an artist that no one in that area cares about on the radio 1000 times a day, because they are paying for the spins. Plus add to that, that there is alot of money in having your record spun and it becomes a whole new ballgame as far as getting records on the radio.
Its not as blatant as it used to be and really alot of the majors don't directly participate in Payola anymore. But its still around. There was a case last year I know of a DJ that was fired for taking $100 (weak) to play a record at a major station. Plus I know of a label rep that was fired for getting caught outright Payola.
Wu -
Who's the victim? Well, to use your analogy, a radio station is NOT, in fact, like a shoe store unless your shoe store happens to be only one of a handful of shoe stores in the entire city. At that point, if you have that much sway over public choice then the basics of anti-trust/monopoly concerns would be perfectly valid. If shoe vendors can't get product into your store simply b/c they're not slipping enough money to you, in theory, you're actually working against the idea that supply meets demand. Not like I really trust free market ideologies anyway but in this case, that's how I understand the basic logic of why payola = bad.
None of this denies that the regulation of radio (or just media in America in general) isn't rife with contradictions and limitations. But just because the system is wildly imperfect doesn't, therefore, mean that payola isn't worth going after.
Doc Dub:
Radio is not like a retail store. Your analogy here really doesn't work. Perhaps you think radio should be treated as just another retail entity, in which case, the same arguments for deregulation may work. But I think because radio is a MEDIA entity (no matter how retail it has become) changes the perception of both the public and government in terms of what it can/should be regulating.
A radio station shouldn't charge labels for product placement in their playlists. That's what they have ADVERTISERS for.
with respect, your argument is way more "commie" than mine. state controlled media vs. free market.
but I'm not name-calling. I'm just saying your argument only makes sense to the extent that anyone can open a radio station and get their product heard. they can't. radio frequencies are a gov't-regulated, limited commodity.
Wu,
Part of the reason it's illegal is do to the fact that radio stations report songs based on popularity ("Spins")
From wiki:
In the American music industry, the practice of record companies paying money for the broadcast of records on music radio is called payola, if the song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast. The practice is illegal in the U.S.
Under United States law, 47 U.S.C. ?? 317, a radio station always has had the ability to play a specific song in exchange for money; however, this must be disclosed on the air as being sponsored airtime, and that play of the song should not be reported as a "spin". Some radio stations report spins of the newest and most popular songs to industry publications, which are then published.[/b] The number of times the songs are played can influence other stations around the country to play or pass on a particular song. On influential stations (and particularly on television) payola can become so commonplace that it becomes difficult for artists to get their records/videos played without offering some sort of payment. The term gets its name as a take-off of the names of some early record-playing machines, such as Victrola. (These names in their turn stem from pianola, c.1896, the trademark name of a player piano, the ending perhaps abstracted from viola and meant as a diminutive suffix.)
Alan Freed???a disc jockey and early supporter of rock and roll???saw his career and reputation greatly harmed by a payola scandal. Another early disc jockey who was nearly derailed by the payola scandal was Dick Clark, but he avoided trouble by selling his stake in a record company and cooperating with authorities.
The practice was criticized in the chorus of the Dead Kennedys song "Pull My Strings," a parody of the song "My Sharona" ("My Payola") sung to a crowd of music industry leaders during a music award ceremony.
The They Might Be Giants song "Hey, Mr. DJ, I Thought You Said We Had A Deal" is another song about the practice. It is narrated from the point of view of a na??ve and inexperienced music artist who has been coerced by a disc jockey into paying for airplay -- the disc jockey then disappears and does not deliver on his promise.
To my knowledge payola doesnt excist in Denmark however I might be wrong though.
Peace,
Dress
I was just playing with the whole dolo commie thing. I'm not sure how my argument=state controlled. I think that there out to be a real victim if we're gonna call it a crime. Since the market allows that some will have more than others, it seems logical we would apply that concept to radio stations. I can't see why the number of spins thing is important since they are not making up numbers. Who cares why they spin a record? If others are persuaded to act based on what Hot 97 is doing that's on them.
well OK, but then you'de probably disagree with most antitrust legislation.
Word. I don't know if Dr. Wu is just trying to be provocative but riding for payola is just weird to me.
Dude, did you not read the above post? It's not illegal to pay a radio station to play the song. But it is illegal to do it and not have it be known.
It's like, when someone (IE: Billboard) posts the most popular songs in the country. It shouldn't be the songs that the labels want to be the most popular, but what the people have been asking the radio station for.
For RIAA purposes it does not matter whether someone paid to play or not.
Payola is equal to Advertising... You pay to play. You are missing the local aspect of the issue too. What may fly in North Carolina may not fly in LA. Under the payola system in combination with the condensing of media outlets into a few hands means that the Labels can push an artist they have invested in, to a community whether or not the community is interested in it. Furthermore there is a TON of money in spins (A hit single can generate more profit than album sales), plus add in the fact that the perception an artist is popular can be skewed simply by the amount of spins they receive... Take the way that artists manipulate(d) soundscan in the past. Its similar. Artists like Master P (off the top example I could think of) pay stores to soundscan their product to give them the perception of being more popular than they are. Paying to play. Whether or not those CDs sell or not is irrelevent. The key is to boost that Artist's stock value to either get a major deal, get licensing, or just boost the Label's perception to the market and other companies. Its all linked together and really does not benefit anyone except to create a type of bubble where artists/labels/songs are viewed as musc more popular than they realy are.
Also don't think that labels are not paying mom and pops (moreso in the past) to soundscan. They give them free product in exchange for the scans. its not direct cash payment but if you are a store and don't have to buy the product... Do the Math.
And the victim in this case is............
To me this is like personal pot use. Somewhere someone got a bug up his ass about this and now doods are doing real time for doobie. Ridicilis.
Offhand, the consumer's ability to make a choice based on all of the viable options. The ability of new music or new artists to help change the music landscape. Alot of them get more esoteric but overall its not very democratic and takes the airwaves (which are supposed to belong to the people) and allows companies to dictate what is listened to without any kind of repercussions.
When did the gov't get in the business of insuring that artists should have the opportunity to "change the music landscapr". Every anti-payola argument boils down to "it ain't fair". This is the kind of reasoning that drives me nuts. That is the way of the market. Nike drops prices to run off other shoes companies. Is it a bullying tactic, sure. Is it perfectly legal, you betcha. Just because someone has an advantage does not make it wrong. In fact, I would argue that's what spurs innovation. Indy street teams are out hustling records because they can't afford to pay for advertising like the big guys.
Its not a LEGAL advantage the way they do it. Thats the point. Read again about the rules regarding Licensing the airwaves from the Feds/US population. There are rules and restrictions in order for those companies to use and make money off of them. One of those is noted above. If they want to pay to get their music on they have to let it be known. When they don't that is a direct conflict of interest between the companies goals to profit and the purpose of the radio airwaves to first and foremost be a "voice of the people".
The retail comparison is not equal. Manufacturers can do pretty much what they want up to creating monopolies in order to survive. However if you are a company taht licenses or contracts with the government in some way there are usually a LONG string of stipulations, especially when it comes to something that is "owned" by the people. Look at logging on national parks as a better example. they can only do x,y,z because they are working on public lands. Radio is private industry licensing out a Publicly/Government owned asset.
I would love to see where's it's written in law that radio waves must be used as a "voice of the people". This sounds like nonsense, very well meaning nonsense albeit. Look if we had a BBC style system then your arguments would make sense.
As for the park service comparison you are flat our wrong. All lessees face restrictions on usage. When I rent garages to tenants I tell them they can't use it for an auto repair shop. Those are my terms, take it or leave it. Radio is a retail business (yes one that operates over publicly owned airwaves). Stations are allowed to play whatever the fuck they want to unless it meets obscenity definitions. So why do we care if they are taking dough to play Mariah? It just makes no sense.
I will say this one more time, there is no compelling interest to mandate that radio stations equally consider playing underground vs corporate artists any more than we should make Christian stations consider playing AC/DC. And I seriously doubt that there are any regulations that say they have to give equal consideration.
PAYOLA LAWS MAKE NO SENSE. DONT KNOCK THE HUSTLE.
Oh, as for publicly announcing payment, my guess is that radio stations are more worried about this than record labels.
But you just contradicted yourelf. Part of the licensing out of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES again is no payola. Its also to serve as an emergency station, and they have to do station identification every 20-30 minutes. There are a whole host of things they have to do, so YES it is like anything else you lease, run for, or do for the government. You noted it yourself. Take it or leave it. O
verall it is a longer term effects that you need to look at. If it becomes pay to play and who gives a fuck if someone pays for their airtime, then guess what, Bill Gates could pay every station to just play Microsoft Commercials all day, because you know... PAY TO PLAY.