Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Seeks Payola Inquiry
An Anonymous Coward writes "The big media story of the day seems to be that the RIAA, artists, and others in the industry are complaining that there are monopolies (such as Clear Channel) forming in the radio broadcast industry. The group is stating that the practice of "independent promotion" is really a new form of payola and that it is hitting the artists' bottom line directly." Another submitter writes in with another story on the subject and the industry's Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio.
Well, of course ClearChannel follows "what listeners want to hear". They TELL them what they want to hear. THEY make the play lists. Absoultely absurd response on the part of CC.
CC: "These are not the bands you are looking for"
PUB: "These are not the bands I am looking for"
CC: "You will listen to our drivel and enjoy it"
PUB: "I will listen to your drivel and enjoy it"
Even more confusing is why the industry is trying to kill internet radio. In that scenario they can send their material directly to the Internet radio DJ to get considered for play. Or better yet the labels could start their own stations. Instead they are making the Internet radio people cough up Payola to kill them off.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
No, see...they don't actually oppose payola. When there was more competition in the radio business, payola was cheaper because all the stations had to compete. Now that Clear Channel owns most of them, there's little competition, so payola costs more.
What RIAA really opposes is MORE payola. Not payola in general.
Boo hoo. They fought for deregulation and now they're feeling the bite in a purportedly free market of monopolies. Fuck them all. They made their bed, now sleep in it.
Am I supposed to lose sleep knowing that they've gotta pay their indies $10K/song/station to get an add because the stations are all owned by the same conglomerate when the record labels have joined into a conglomerate and engaged in price fixing?
I don't listen to radio (except for the independent, supersuave WFMU) and I can't wait until inevitability catches up with the RIAA.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Oh, so the industry that is effectively controlled by five companies is saying the radio industry is too concentrated?
Oh, boo hoo. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
"It is blatantly absurd that they attempt to hold the radio industry accountable for the creation or execution of business practices that they control," [Clear Channel spokesperson] Taylor said. "The money comes from them."
The recording industry is complaining that the recording industry is paying to have certain songs played on the radio. They why don't they just stop paying?
Of course, all the labels will have to agree to do this, since if all but one stops, and this payola really works, that one label will have tons of airplay.
because all four companies would have to stop paying at once, otherwise whoever stopped first would be screwed. nobody wants to be the first out of the gate on this one out of fear of retaliation from clear channel. so they had their industry lobbying group start whining that their monopoly is being hurt by another monopoly in a different industry.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
Tired of payola? Pissed off by the RIAA? Think our elected officials are owned by Hollywood? Then you need..... PIRATE RADIO! Irreverant, illegal, apolitical, and hard to find. Broadcast schedule? What's that? Lots of fun, tho, and guaranteed to pick up the corners of your mouth.
/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Pirate_Radio
The RIAA complaining about a monopoly. Heh, that just makes my day.
You really have to marvel at the arrogance of these people. They truly feel they can do whatever they want without consequence. Yeah I know, 50 years of history proves they have been able to so far, but even the dumbest dog will eventually attack it's master if it's beaten enough.
Yay, way to go. Post the same link that's in the main story, with the addition of a referral link, and hope nobody notices (and maybe gain some Karma as well).
=P
because they can give larger campaign donations.
an industry with many small players suffers from the fact that none of the players can give very much and most of them don't want to give any at all, because a) they don't need any news laws or b) they figure someone else will fight the fight for the industry.
in an industry with a few large players, however, each of the players can give very large donations, and they tend to stick together to a) fix prices for mutual benefit and b) buy the legislation they need in order to self-perpetuate.
congress knows this and adjusts the industry accordingly. for instance, deregulation is just congress's way of allowing an industry to clump together, creating large generous conglomerates. it makes congress's job much easier: fewer checks to cash, and each check is larger.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
...And it ain't payola.
.05 mhz of their frequency and driving circles around their transmitter should give their engineer a nice Excedrin headache...
Part of the story here is that Clear Channel is also in the "Concert Promotion" business. I put the term in quotes because it's more like legalized racketeering. Their standard procedure, regardless of what specific business they're working in, is to make as much for them regardless of the damage it does to their customers, business partners, and the public. Their theory is, what's good for us is good for us, fuck all others. (I can already see the knee-jerk "the market will decide" Rush Limbaugh clones racing for the reply button about how this is a good thing...Read-on first, please.)
So CC will do things like leverage all their businesses... So, if you want to play a concert at the desirable venues (ie. Not a shitty dive bar) in XXX City, you'll have to have a "music promotion" contract with WXYZ to get your tunes played, a concert prmotion contract with CC Entertainment which also includes a budget for ads on WXYZ, agree to do these other CC shows in other cities, AND do it all for what CC is offering.
In other words, CC is victimizing the RIAA membership the same way the RIAA members victimize their customers. (Ie. Accept our lowball offer to do a conecert, or get no airplay the month you play at a competing venue vs. Pay $19 for a CD we paid $2 to create.)
What we're getting ready for is a battle royale of influence and political contributions, as the two big behemoths who both think they own Congress and have a constitutional right to their obsolete business models go toe to toe, trying to see who can spend the most to get their way.
If I didn't know that this battle will only result in the consumer being screwed even further, I'd say get some popcorn and enjoy the show. As it is, I'd say go pirate some music on Kazaa and start your own pirate radio station.
Or just jam CC properties, if you don't feel like you'd make a good air personality... Tuning your 50 watt transmitter to +-
Who did what now?
It is possible to dislike the RIAA and love this at the same time. It's like a machiavellian wet dream. Couldn't have achieved better if we'd planned it.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
How many US citizens does the RIAA represent? No, I don't mean how many artist or backroom techies or even corporate weasels in suits, because it's not actually representing them. The RIAA (rather the labels that comprise it) are businesses. As such, they represent their owners, not their employees, and not third parties relying on them to market their talents or products. Answering only to shareholders is a fiduciary duty for a publically traded company. If happy employees are the key to financial success, great, but if sacking 95% of them becomes a smarter move, they'll do that without batting an eye. The RIAA represents only the shareholders (or private owners) of the companies that comprise it.
So, does anyone actually know how many US citizens are shareholders in the music businesses that comprise the RIAA? Do these US citizens know? Do they know or care that their ownership legitimizes RIAA demands on Capital Hill?
I ask this because I keep hearing about how much money the RIAA represents, and there seems to be some sort of connection between this and the political influence that they have. Now, in a democracy, this can't be true, because then your vote would count more depending on your income, right? And that's not how a democracy works, is it?
So, let's hear it. Does anyone know how many US citizens the RIAA actually represents (that's US shareholders, not employees)? I'd really like to hear someone in government asking this, because it might (not likely, but perhaps) make Jane Investor start asking exactly where her financial representatives have been gambli^H^H^H^H^H^H investing her money on the stock market, and who she's legitimizing with her investment.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I work at a student-run radio station, and you wouldn't believe how great the state of music is in america. We get tons of music everyday from great independent artists. But if you listen to Clear-Channel, you're likely to think that American music has reached an all-time low.
And Clear Channel is the company that imposed a ban on about a 1000 songs after September. It hurts artists when their music isn't played anymore.
RIAA offers bribe. "Look everyone, THEY ARE TAKING BRIBES!" Why are people so stupid? The groups also criticized broadcasting giants, such as industry leader Clear Channel, which owns 1,225 stations nationwide, for flexing their "sheer market power" in ways that can "make or break a hit song." Yeah, nobody wants industry giants to use "sheer market power" to determine the fate of others. Apparently it's bad if such an action crushes a song, but not an artist. Or maybe they should just come out and say that everything that doesn't result in profit for them should be illegal.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Well there are 2 ideas to Clear Channels empire before you make judgement.
#1. Clear Channel is vulnerable to commercial radio stations they don't own. (Facts coming)
#2. There will always be someone out there ready to throw them out of power.
The facts I speak of are from personal experience. My father owns a well respected radio station in my area (Northern Ohio). CC has bought up all the surrounding stations except my fathers. Their first attempt at taking my father's station ended in much trouble for them. I don't know how many of you are aware, but you can only own so many stations in a given area that are X amount of miles apart. Well this gave CC a problem and they had to remove their offer to my father. However, it is quite obvious that CC wants my father's station due to all the business we receive from their broadcasting areas. We've even put on shows with popular recording artists right there in CC's face (their station areas). We receive so much of the business that their stations should be receiving that we in a sense dominate the area. Like I said, CC isn't as powerful as they look. Now to go on to topic, many artists may find CC more inviting due to it's owning of so many stations, but what I'm sure they will see is the fact that CC has no dominance in many of its areas. This leads to it being financially idiotic to ever make such a deal with CC. If I were gatorade, why would I have the loser of the race sponsor my drink?
I live in Connecticut. Sometimes, that alone is depressing. However, when Clear Channel broadcasting owns 70% of all radio stations in your listeneng area, life just sucks. Retarded, automaton-like DJ's with no local knowledge and a 20 song rotating playlist between endless advertisements. I have boycotted all Clear Channel Stations and I think everyone else should too. They suck.
--Always, I mean never..., No I mean always check your references.--
I thought about mentioning college radio, but didn't because it wasn't really related to my initial gripe. Since you bring it up, however...
With the exception of smaller schools whose transmitters are very low power or cable-broadcast only, even college radio has become increasingly programmed and wooed by major label interests. On the one hand, they aren't really beholden to anyone yet, so you do sometimes get unique and alternative music. More and more, though, I've found that most college radio is simply playing the stuff that's on its way to Clear Channel because the labels swoop in and throw a bunch of swag at the students who gleefully go along because they're now talking with the "big boys." The majors use College as a test bed for new albums. It's the minor leage of commercial radio.
I highly recommend the book "Confessions of a Record Producer" by the pseudonymous Moses Avalon. He outlines what really happens when you get signed. Here's a rough paraphrase from memory:
If you want proof of concept, go to your closest major university station (UCLA, NYU, UT, whatever) with your latest album and try to get it on the playlist. It won't happen except at schools that are too small for labels to bother with, or schools that have a fierce indepent streak in their culture (e.g. Berkeley).
Yes there are college stations that are still diverse. I think San Jose State is one of those (I never knew if I was going to hear thrash metal, techno, or yodeling), but they are getting fewer and farther between, and with the increasing economic pressure on Universities, look for additional "corporate sponsorship" to bleed over from the football program.
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
Yeah, well if the record companies so concerned about the artist then perhaps the record companies should foot the bill of promoting the product themselves.
This is so transparent. The RIAA is tired of paying the payola system that they themselves helped set up. There is ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about this complaint that actually helps the artist. It's just another way for the record companies to cut more of their cost and rack in even more of their ill gotten cash while doing nothing to help the people who actually write and perform the music.
I just don't get it. The RIAA is getting killed by Clear Channel because CC is so big. Yet by requesting huge payments from webcasters they are moving to raise the bar for entry into the broadcasting business, assuring that only companies the size of CC can play in the game.
If the RIAA was smart, they would be using tens of thousands of foot soldiers (i.e. small webcasters) in their war against CC. They would try to get their music played as much as possible instead of trying to control who does play it.
Diversification! Don't rely on the two-ton gorilla, instead rely on 20,000 monkeys, because if you lose a monkey or two, you still can get the job done, but if you lose your gorilla you're screwed.
Its as though the marketing VPs and the accounting VPs at the RIAA don't talk to each other. The marketing VPs should be getting as many people to buy CDs as possible, and the best way is by getting people to hear the music.
The accounting VPs are trying to figure out how to get more money in their coffers, and their best shot at it is to charge people more for playing their music. They haven't figured out that charging people will cause less to play the music, and that will kill CD sales because people won't listen.
They truly deserve this mess if they can't see that.
Ralph