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.

21 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. The more things change... by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    A brief history of the original 1950s payola scandal is here. Another interesting payola scandal that I don't think ever went anywhere is that Salon ran an article accusing the US government of payola for having Hollywood run anti-drug plots...

  2. Regular radio sucks anyways by viking099 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's why I usually only listen to NPR or CDs while I'm in my car. I can't stand the horribly limited playlists of the radio stations any more.
    Not to mention the 20+ minutes of ads (not including the DJ's yapping away) in every hour of music.
    And from what I've heard, Clear Channel can be a rough company to work for. The corp HQ selects the playlists and the DJ doesn't get to choose very many songs to play, unless they're working after 9:30 or 10:00 pm (and who's listening then anyways?)
    When I'm at work, I listen to Wolf FM. They've got some ads, but the ratio of music to ads is very high.

    1. Re:Regular radio sucks anyways by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I lost my last shred of faith in commercial radio when the 80s stations showed up. I really like 80s music, and you would think that with an entire decade to choose from, I wouldn't hear "Come on Eileen" and "Too Shy" every single day! But I do.

      Oh, they do give us the all-request lunch hour. As long as your request is on their "approved" list. I actually had a dj tell me that they couldn't play a tune (that he liked a lot and even had in the library) because New York wouldn't let them.

      There is no local radio anymore.

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

    2. Re:Regular radio sucks anyways by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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:

      1. Compete with 100,000 other bands to get a contract.

      2. Get signed.

      3. Now you get to compete for label attention with all of the artists already on the label - Madonna, U2, etc. Assuming you make the cut...

      4. Record and press the album. It gets released to college radio as a test balloon. If it flops, your career is over. If it does ok...

      5. Commercial release to limited major markets. If it does ok...

      6. Mass release to multiple outlets and a full-blown PR blitz.

      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.

  3. Well, of course... by dcigary · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

    --
    ...my Karma ran over your Dogma...
    1. Re:Well, of course... by bpfinn · · Score: 4, Funny
      According to Clear Channel research, I apparently want to hear:
      • Commercials
      • Chatty DJs
      • The same 4 songs every hour
  4. Re:RIAA cares? by mcwop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  5. The Have-A-Lots Vs. The-Have-Even-Mores by dave-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Pot, kettle, black by JoeWalsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Something doesn't really make sense by Skidge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Something doesn't really make sense by jonerik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      Good question. For one thing, it looks an awful lot like collusion, which is illegal under U.S. anti-trust laws. For another thing, it's been tried before - about twenty years ago - when record labels actually banded together to put indie promoters out of business. It almost worked, too, but so many artists (whose careers depend on airplay and the sales the airplay generates) complained that the labels were forced to back off.

    2. Re:Something doesn't really make sense by Ooblek · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The recording industry is not, contrary to popular belief, one large company. I keep wondering why the RIAA is claiming that "their" stuff is getting pirated, when they are really nothing more than the music-industry's version of the anti-software piracy association. A non-profit organization that has unlimited sources of fund to specifically exist to exterminate practices that are not in the interest of the members.

      The music industry, for the most part, does not control the radio stations. Getting your song played is an endeavour in marketing, costing money like any other marketing device does. Did you think that new songs got played on the radio because people actually liked them? No, someone does some sort of market analysis and them determines which artists get that kind of exposure. The catch is that the music publishers, like any other business, does not like to pay for this. So they try to get new artists to sign contracts that pretty much makes it so that the burden of funding the marketing effort is the artist's cost of doing business. This is essentially what Courtney Love was complaining about in that big speech she did that knocked the industry. I find it ironic that she found their practices against anything she learned in high-school economics and at the same time downplayed the importanct of extended education by claiming all P2P had was "college boy" music. I believe had she gone to college, she probably wouldn't have been backed in a corner and forced to sign a record contract that had all this marketing expense tacked onto it. No one forces the artists to sign their contracts. However, as you hear about how some of the most popular bands lived before signing (shoplifting in order to eat, squatting in abandonded buildings, etc), you understand why they sign the first paper stuck in front of them. Have a college education or alternative career as backup, then you have more leverage to say no to certain items in the contract. It also depends on your selected manager, who has a lot of power to screw the artist too. I used to work in music studios, and some of the managers are ex-roadies. Most roadies are dumb as a box of rocks. (Like the time the Fleetwoood Mac roadie couldn't figure out why the circuit breaker kept popping when he plugged 2 refrigerators into an outlet.)

      The whole payola thing got quashed, now they figured out a new way to get money to play music. They will figure out a new way to do it if their current way gets outlawed. The great thing about P2P is that you get to hear a lot of music that is not played on the radio. To tell the truth, I don't listen to the radio much anymore since I don't tend to like what they choose to play. If I had my choice, there would be a station that played Oakenfold, Sasha, Van Dyk, and all the other European artists that really know how to make music but have not gotten enough exposure in the US to make them mainstream. I guess this is what "college boy" music is....but I'll tell you, I'd rather listen to this than hear the "real music" that has Courtney Love droning and screaming into the microphone. (Who would have thought SHE would consider herself an audiophile?)

      (If you like Courtney Love and you are insulted by this, sorry, but get over it.)

  8. The answer is... by r_j_prahad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/

  9. Clear Channel Station List by cheesyfru · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not to side with the RIAA (shudder), but Clear Channel is a pretty ugly company. You probably listen to them now and don't even know it. There's a station list available at http://www.cjr.org/owners/clearchannel.asp

  10. Which is funnier? by edremy · · Score: 4, Funny
    RIAA complaining about ClearChannel?

    -or-

    The president of Kazaa complaining that people are pirating their software by using programs like KazaaLite?

    All I have to say is BWAHAHAWHAHWHAW!

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  11. Salon summaries on Payola by abischof · · Score: 4, Informative
    For reasons I'm unsure of, Salon really seems to really be on top of the poison that is payola:
    • Pay for play "Why does radio suck? Because most stations play only the songs the record companies pay them to. And things are going to get worse"
    • Fighting pay-for-play "Sources in the music industry call for a federal clampdown on the new payola"
    • The "Bootylicious" gambit "Can a hot new single from Destiny's Child help Columbia Records crack the indie promoters' control of pop radio?"
    • Payola City "In the wild world of urban radio, money buys hits -- and nobody asks questions. "

    Man, that reminds me -- I really ought to subscribe to Salon :-/.

    PS Since ClearChannel has a large stake in XM Radio, I completely expect XM Radio to support payola >:-[. But, does anyone know if SiriusRadio also support payola? I'm thinking of subscribing, but I wouldn't want to do so if they're corrupt as well.

    --

    Alex Bischoff
    HTML/CSS coder for hire

  12. Another distribution channel by Animats · · Score: 4, Funny
    Gee, maybe the RIAA should try distributing their material free over the Internet, to work around the radio monopoly....

    Clear Channel's motto is "How many ways has Clear Channel reached you today". And you thought Microsoft was obnoxious. Their corporate creed is "We believe the ultimate measure of our success is to provide a superior value to our stockholders.".

    Clear Channel even owns Rush Limbaugh. He was a big help in getting Congress to remove all limitations on one company owning all the radio stations.

  13. RIAA true motivation by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...And it ain't payola.

    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 +- .05 mhz of their frequency and driving circles around their transmitter should give their engineer a nice Excedrin headache...

    --
    Who did what now?
  14. This is Good News by cybermage · · Score: 4, Insightful
    While the nature of this story sounds mighty hypocritical on the RIAA's part, you've got to love the results. Consider the potential outcomes:
    • (definite) Two antitrust-violating groups burn serious money attacking each other. Money that could be used for evil purposes.
    • (possible) Payola through "independent promoters" gets banned. Radio station formats may open up a bit.
    • (possible) More people, driven by disgust at the practices of either group seek out independent labels and/or stations.
    • (possible) This is one more iron in the fire for RIAA's legal staff. While they're paying attention to this, some kid in Kansas is burning a mix CD for his girlfriend...and getting away with it.
    • (possible) Federal prosecutors decide to "follow the money" and end up prosecuting members of the RIAA for being responsible for funding these practices.

    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.
  15. Something that's just occurred to me by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. The good old days of radio pre-digital ... by KelsoLundeen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is off-topic (more or less), but I felt an urge to contribute my own personal experience in the pre-digital radio industry:

    I used to work for an FM station, too -- KQ102 in Canton, Missouri -- and it was pretty interesting. It was from 1988-1989 -- and seemed to be the time right before "digital" took over everything FM.

    Everything we played was on 45s -- vinyl -- and each 45 was rated according to its "tempo."

    There were thousands of 45s at the station and about ten different tempo numbers. A #1 song was really, really fast -- and a number 10 was really, really slow.

    Someone listened to all the music and -- based on the tempo -- placed them into the appropriate tempo bin.

    Now, our mission was to look down at our playlist and play songs of varying tempo. We had markings like 1-5-8, or 2-6-10 to indicate the next three songs (fast, medium, slow) and breaks for each commercial or public service announcement.

    The idea was that you were supposed to take a 45 from the front of the bin, play it, and then put it in the back of the bin. Of course, it didn't work like that, since our playlist was based on tempo and not song titles -- so all the shitty stuff was in the back of the bins never to be touched, and all the good stuff was in the front.

    And we only had to hit our commercials plus or minus two minutes -- and give our top of the hour station announcements within 60 seconds plus or minus -- so we had a *lot* of leeway to play what we felt like, when we felt like it. It was fantastic, actually.

    We broadcast out of a tiny white house that had been converted into a radio station. Transmitter in the living room, main booth in one bedroom, production studio in the other, and the sales office in the kitchen.

    And we had a *huge* listener base. I used to do a lot of Friday and Saturday night shifts -- from 8pm to 2am -- and, man, I had groupies. I couldn't fucking believe it. People would hear your voice -- on account they'd be playing you at parties and in their car -- and they'd drop by in droves to see what you looked like. It was sick and bizarre, but it was loads of fun. We'd be sitting in the booth and staring out the window into the backyard and see all these people back there, waving and trying to get your attention.

    It was really a bizarre thing but amazingly exciting. The fact that we were spinning 45s, playing more or less what we wanted (within reason) made for some amazing nights of music.

    Sadly, KQ102 was put out of business by the rise of digital and the fact that they were one of the last stations in the area to still use vinyl. We actually had *turntables* -- as if we were a college radio station. It was a trip.

    Great fun. Huge listener base. Gave away lots of prizes and cash.

    But it was pretty much stomped out by corporate radio.