Slashdot Mirror
Shocked, Shocked at Payola
"It costs a record company about $250,000 just to launch a single on rock radio today. That doesn't guarantee success; it just gives the single access to the airwaves. If the song catches on and eventually crosses over to the mainstream Top-40 format, indie costs balloon to more than $1 million per song." Salon.com has a pair of articles on payola today: one on
the widening scandal
and one specifically on
a curious Clear Channel case. For context, here's
our latest payola story,
or if you want the background on why the labels hate the promoters but can't shake the habit,
my writeup from a year ago.
(If you want some beach reading on this topic, go check out
"Hit Men.")
Customers getting screwed by the RIAA whos getting screwed by Clean channel
WOO WOOO
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
What is this "beach" you speak of? It sounds suspiciously like something that involves "fresh air" and "natural light".
"More organs means more human." - Zim
Hearing this type of thing in combination with the ongoing rediculousness with regards to p2p file sharing. It demonstrates just how badly the entire music distribution channel needs to be replaced by something completely different.
I really don't see how this type of crap can continue for much longer. Radio stations should play songs that fit their genre and see if peoiple like it. I used to listen to the radio in hopes of finding something new, but all they play is what they are payed to play. I guess I'll just have to resort to listenning to my mp3's :)
Shouldn't it be the other way around? I thought radios had to pay the RIAA for each single played. Who's screwing who? Or is this some cartel keeping out the little players?
I'd launch a single for them for $1000. My only over head would be the disc, the duct tape, and the Estes Rocket.
So what? If the big industry is backing said band and it sells say 5 million copies of it's CD... At $15(USD) a CD if the company ONLY sees 10% of that, well..
Let's just say a million bucks out of 7.5 is pretty negligable, but we ALL know that they see more than 10% out of those CDs.
Cost to promote on a radio stations: $250K - $1M
Cost to promote on internet: approximately $0
Bye bye radio!
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
In another shocking story, the *sun rose in the east* this morning....
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
In the index, of course.
Best Slashdot Co
If the record companies have to pay so much to get broadcast radio to play their music, you think they'd be happy to let the internet radio stations do it for free.
...you get scandals, cheating, bribery, concentration of power, loss of diversity, etc. The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by it.
We need a balance between free enterprise and regulation. "Greed is good" is only true up to a point (and let's remember that the character who had that line in "Wall Street" was one of the bad guys.
Clear-Channel puts SO MANY ADS on their lame ass radio stations, it must cost so much to put on a single because no one will listen to their damned sprint commercials all morning long.
Here's a tip for clear-channel: You want more listeners? PLAY MORE F*cking music and less DUMB DUMB DUMB RETARD LOVING CRICKET COMMERCIALS@!!!&^$!
Linux is dead.
LU
I wonder if Elvis Presley's estate has anything to do with the wide popularity of The King's remix overseas?
Hmm, maybe it's just Disney's repopularization of his music through "Lilo and Stitch".
Either way - Disney or payola - it's downright evil...
All your music are belong to us!
That's my purse! I don't know you! -- Bobby Hill
I think, perhaps, the biggest problem with Clear Channels strangle hold over the airwaves is how many of us *gulp please spare me the flames* actually _enjoy_ stations like WKTU. Ok, so I may be a stereotypical 20-year-old-college-student-who-goes-to-way-too-ma ny-nightclubs BUT...I do enjoy the music they play. The recognizeable problem is that rather than allowing niche markets, Clear Channel obviously goes for the big profitable demographic groups, such as the one in which I freely admit I fall. (At the same time, I _LOVE_ Finlandia by Sibelius, along with many of his contemporaries, and there is no way I'd ever hear songs like that on a Clear Channel station)
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
They pay Clear Channel, yet shut down SomaFM for not paying more than they already do.
sulli
RTFJ.
What gets me is that on one hand, the labels are whining that the radio stations WON'T play their music, and on the other hand bitching that webcasters ARE playing their music.
Free exposure was there for them, but they shut it down!
I'm not sure exactly how the whole satellite radio thing works but don't they have their own radio stations for satellite radio (i.e., Clear Channel-free) with their own disc jockey's and whatnot? If so, I wonder how the payola involved in satellite radio compares with that of FM radio.
As with the sun's light
My mom was magnificent
Unquestionable
I'm not a Libertarian per se, but to tell you the truth I don't see the problem here. Why does the government need to step in and tell the market how it's "supposed" to work? If the public doesn't like the music being played on radio stations, don't listen. It really is as simple as that.
If a band can't afford to be played on the radio, then use other ways to promote. If their music's any good, then it might find a market. And maybe it won't. Big deal. No one is "owed" access to my ears.
Maybe someone can explain to me what the problem here is.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The RIAA is complaning monopolistic practices costing them more money. Talk of the pot calling the kettle black.
And I like to add:
So let's start spreading the word, especially to the music artists we know. Maybe it will change something...
Oh yea, I forgot: I have no ideas on how much can a CD cost in the US. Here in Europe they cost like 20 euros each (which is more or less 20 dollars..). And please forgive me for my bad English, I hope you got the point and won't start bitching me around for spelling. Cheers.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
People jump to the conclusion that Payola is a bad thing. Why? You say it doesn't allow small artists airtime. So what. If they're good, they can get a record contract and get on the air too. Music and Radio are businesses, not god-given rights. The music industry spends a lot of money finding (or making) what people want. Radio stations are businesses also. If they collect money from record companies - who have invested a lot of time and money in their artists - to give them airtime, what's the big deal?
If you don't like the crap they're trying to sell, listen to a different station, go buy music you do like, whatever.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
The state of radio throughout the Western world is shameful. As an "insider," I have seen all sorts of behaviour that would curdle your milk if you knew about it. We need to break the pattern of cheap, mass-produced pop music, and the best way to accomplish that is to subject broadcasters and music labels to the scrutiny they deserve.
"I'm a rocket man / Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." - Sir Elton John
Cost to a RECORD LABEL: near zero
Internet broadcasters are going to get screwed I'm sure (and I'm one of them so I'm, to say the least, a bit pissed). But record labels can do their own promotion on the Internet if they'd just let go of the past and embrace the new ways of doing business.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Statement of US Senator Russ Feingold on Market Concentration in the Radio, Concert, and Promotion Industries
"Thank you Mr. President. I rise today to voice my concerns about the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
...
In 1996, prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act, there were 5133 owners of radio stations. Today, for the Contemporary Hit Radio/Top 40 Formats, four radio station groups - Chancellor, Clear Channel, Infinity, and Capstar - control access to 63 percent of the format's 41 million listeners nationwide.
...
Many of the same corporations that own multiple radio stations in a given market wield their power through their ownership of a number of businesses related to the music industry. For example, the Clear Channel Corporation owns over 1200 radio companies, more than 700,000 billboards, various promotion companies, and venues across the United States. Also, just three years ago, in 1999, Clear Channel bought SFX productions, the nation's largest promotion company.
...
Ticket prices have gone up by nearly 50 percentage points more than consumer prices since passage of the Telecommunications Act - and that doesn't even include the facility fees, parking charges, box office charges or food and beverage increases.
...
It isn't just about who's talented, and who deserves to be played. It's about a shakedown, and that's just unacceptable, Mr. President, for the industry, for the artist, and for all of us as who listen."
Travis
This seems to me like the Cartel Leader screwing the local Mafia Boss, who is screwing the Dealer on the street.
I don't listen to a Clear Channel Station (I listen to 97.1 here in Tampa), and I haven't bought a CD in a year.
And Congress? Hell they'll side with the records companies.. aint no way in hell that Clear Channel can pay more to politicians than the Record Companies.
Awesome!
Since I couldn't get this story submitted (too much Microsoft crap to fight through, apparently), this seems like a good place to pass on the story: Cuban says Yahoo!'s RIAA deal was designed to stifle competition
Mark Cuban:
As originally seen at: http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2002/06.htm l#24-jun-2002, although JWZ seems to have taken down that news post at the moment (?).
P.S. Does anyone else who lost moderator access on the Thread of Doom find that they can't get any stories submitted any more, or is it just me? I'm beginning to cultivate a healthy persecution complex :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Hilarious. Payola used to at least buy you a hit. Now all it does is get your foot in the door. For a quarter-mil you buy the chance to have a hit. At least Alan Freed gave you an honest hit for your money.
A fight between the 800 pound gorillas and the public suffers.
/. geek would love this station merely for the technical expertise that Bill Goldsmith pulled off when he set this up.
You could launch a record and get it played on the radio for cheaper but it won't be on Clear Channel. Clear Channel does all kinds of evil stuff besides that, like piping in remote DJs and making you think they are local.
This sort of battle was inevitable when the FCC lifted regulations on radio ownership.
The solution for you, the public might be to try to patronize stations that are not conglomerate owned.
I DO listen to one radio station that is both terrestrial and internet streaming: 97X out of Oxford Ohio. Here's some of the NEW stuff I'm enjoying..
Elvis Costello
Hives
Cornershop
Idelwild
Girls Against Boys
The complete playlist is here
Great music that is bucking the current cock-rock trend of Linkin Park, System of a Down, Korn, etc. being offered by local Washington DC suck ass radio in the form of WHFS and it's "Most Played" list. (It's not Clear Channel, It's CBS, just as bad)
Then there's Radio Paradise.
Any
Just boycott Clear Channel. Turn it off.....
You needn't follow the flock is you refuse to be part of it.
The entire major-label-commercial-radio biz is totally corrupt. You might as well make an effort to support independent bands, stations, and labels because there ain't no way this business is going to get cleaned up any time soon.
314-15-9265
We all know that ClearChannel has over 1200 stations across the country, and that they reach around 60% of the nation's population, but I have a question:
How many radio stations are there, total, in the US/World?
I have been unable to find the answer on the net, does anyone have a source?
Travis
As for real life payola, it has to be the main explanation why so much crappy music gets on the air.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
Since then, I listen to non-stop music, no commercials. And with P2P, I don't even have to go to the store for the CD anymore.
The only thing radio is good for is occasionally being entertained by talk radio and/or for traffic/weather reports when you are stuck in traffic.
So, if you don't like paying the millions of dollars to get marginal music shoved down peoples throats, Quit paying. Simple. Clear Channel still has to get its music somewhere doesn't it? SFX (the concert arm still needs to fill the venues. "The cream will rise"
Put those so called Indie promoters of of business, and let the market determine the hits, not the pay. Imagine, only good music gets played, (or stays on the charts), the public buys what they like, and your sales go back up.
Imagine, a business where the consumers actually gets to pick what they want to hear....can't be any worse than the 5% success rate you have now...and you can save millions on payola, and maybe even bribes...err campaign donations....
It seems that the the Deal that Yahoo struck with the RIAA a while back has an awful lot to do with the back room shennaniganns that were somewhat implicate in the CARP arrangement.
This deserves major news coverage of it's own.
Kurt Hanson of Save Internet Radio has a letter that he received from Mark Cuban, former owner of audionet.com/broadcast.com/Yahoo! Broadcast on how the Yahoo!-RIAA deal was structured. Read the entire letter here.
Bottom line:
- The voluntary royalty deal between Yahoo! and the RIAA that the Librarian of Congress announced as his template for the entire industry last week was a deal crafted by Yahoo! to shut out small webcasters and decrease competition.
- The villian in this story is not Yahoo! (They were simply being savvy businesspeople!) The villian is the CARP process by which this anti-broadcaster, anti-small-webcaster deal became the template for the industry
- As Mark Cuban says, they didn't want percent-of-revenue pricing art Broadcast.com Why? Because "it meant every "Tom , Dick, and Harry" webcaster could come in and undercut our pricing because we had revenue and they didn't".
End Result? We probably need to start screaming at Congress again."It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
So now the record companies are upset cause they are getting screwed by the radio stations? How does that feel baby? Who's your daddy? Pardon me while I go cry them a fucking river.
I think a while back the tech industry learned the lesson that "push" technlogy was only viable to a certain extent. People didn't mind getting headlines refreshed on their desktops or reminded of "buddies" logging on to IM systems, but they got annoyed pretty quick if they felt like something was getting rammed down their throats and they were getting raped monetarily.
The exact same lesson is getting played out on a much slower time scale in the music and film distribution business.
The payola problem simply highlights the inefficiencies built into the current distribution system. The weight of it creaks and the smell of it reeks.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
But I feel I should have a go at putting some numbers that I was once quoted out there for /.teers to shoot down. Here goes.
The music industry in the US releases about 30,000 albums every year in total. That's about 600 a week. You can verify this figure plenty of ways - including looking on the web. Now here's where the figures start to be pulled out of someone's arse. It's been said to me by people who should know that some number way smaller than 10% of these releases actually make money. This is the missing information that people like Courtney leave out of their diatribes against those bloodsuckers in "the industry".
So when records go off like a bomb, and record companies sit there raking in the profits, don't forget that these profits go to pay for the other 90% of albums that didn't make any cash.
The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway. Their annual reports are online, so you can check this stuff too.
Basically, I'm just a bit bored with hearing the same old charges raised and accepted without any support
So on to payola. Again, this is essentially a storm in a teacup, with lots of missing information that never seems to get presented. For example, payola is the same story as in the supermarket game.
Did you know that supermarkets make more money from placing the product on their shelves than they do from taking it off their shelves (ie selling it to you and me)? Standard stuff. So it is with payola. The radios make more money playing the music than squeezing in the ads. That's how they can afford to play that "nonstop hour of music" or whatever at lunchtime!
Of course record companies, or anyone, need to pay to get their products placed! I don't know why anyone thinks it is any different! The radios are businesses, and they can play what they like, so they play what is in their shareholders interests to play.
Flame away, but I don't understand the shocked gasps that always follows this kind of "revelation", just like I don't understand how people get away with painting the record companies as ravening beasts, when a simple look at the balance sheet tells you they are out there makin' deals just like every other business since the dawn of time. If they were super-profitable, don't you think everyone would be doing it?
Link - Online Tonight
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The music industry is really dumb. They shoot their foot one one hand and complain about it with another.
I think their biggest problem, is that they would like to control the entire industry from production to sales. Payola means they cede some of that control to the radio stations.
If they were really against payola, and appreciated that airplay is good, they would not be trying to shaft internet radio stations with ridiculous per song charges.
1. They know that they are unlikely to be able to dictate to Joe Indie what to play on his station, unless they are charging him silly money for the privilege of promoting their songs, and can use these exhorbitant fees as a bargaining tool.
2. With CC, they are finally faced with a bully as big as they are, who can tell them to pay up if they want their song played, or shut up and fsck off.
If the music was good, the whole issue would be moot. At the end of the day, its all about who controls what the public hear and subsequently buy (hard to buy something you haven't heard)
When they lose this control, they lose their ability to extort terms from musicians. In the past, Radio Dons (mafia style) would have been able to make or break a musician. Now Clear_C has that power.
If you are a musician, who do you sign your soul away to huh??
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!
...but if the record companies didn't release such sh*t, then they wouldn't have to PAY to get it played. Look at Limp Bizkit for example...if Interscope hadn't decided they wanted to make them popular, they wouldn't be, and we'd ALL be a lot happier.
Radio stations will play what the people want to hear without being paid for it, but that isn't what the record companies would have us believe. There was a special on 20/20 a few weeks ago about this, and the most pathetic thing was how the RIAA made it sound like the horrible radio station bullies were forcing them to pay to get their music played.
Amen.
And furthermore, as a nobody amateur musician, I have to emphasize that we need to support our local musicians at the grass roots level more, especially whenever we find any our local artists putting out "hit quality" songs. The quality of most new "music" on the store shelves these days sucks shoedirt. The record companies keep crying that free sharing / piracy of songs on the Internet is killing their business. That's bullcrap, the reason why they're not selling anything is because what they're selling stinks. We need a revival of the kind of music that came from the 1950's thru 1970's: vocal groups that write their own stuff not artifically manufactured boy and girl bands, classic R&B, the original "Motown" sounds (some of the best music ever created on the planet IMHO), classic rock and old-style pop. When those styles of music start being recorded again, we will see a revival of the music industry.
I suppose the next logical step would be for record companies to pay radio stations NOT to play their competitor's songs. ("Here's $500,000 to play our songs, and another $500,000 not to play that Sony stuff.")
So which company was it where the techies flew first class? Sounds like an urban myth to me.
exec #1: Boy, who would have thought our payola efforts would have come back to haunt us like this?
exec #2: Not me! Sure miss the old days when a smaller amount of our billions bought way more influence.
exec #1: This whole consolidated radio network thing stinks. I wish we could just get rid of radio.
exec #2: But we NEED radio to keep distributing free music so people will want to buy CDs!
exec #1: I know. I just can't get around that. If only there were some other avenue for distributing our music freely so that people could listen to it and decide they want to buy it.
[silence]
exec #2: Well, the good news is that we've managed to successfully shut down Napster and some of its ilk. At least we'll have more money from those sales we would have lost to make the payola!
exec #1: Maybe we could sue Clear Channel, or lobby congress for a new law that would favor us! You're brilliant, #2!
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
You could compile a list of what songs they were going to play! Half of them played the same thing. I remember them playing a Dead-eye Dick song so many times, one time I listened to it four times in a row, simply changing the station. This was not an isolated incident-- frequently (at least twice a week) two stations would play the same song at the same time.
Its even worse now. There are three stations who play the same songs in almost the same order. They play a two hour block of popular music that is then essentially repeated, ALL DAY. The "mix" stations, which portend to play music from the 60's through today, apparently believe there was only about 80 songs ever written in 40 years.
I'm not stupid. I notice that mix stations all play the same songs. I notice other things too. Like when a different old song is put into the loop. "Oh, they played something different for a change" Then I change to another station after the song is over, and "mysteriously", ANOTHER station is playing the same song that was ignored for 20 years. Then I get the privelege of being bombarded by it for about 3 months.
Every artist has 1-3 songs they will play on the radio, and that is all they will play, EVER. Jesus Christ, just play something off the rest of the CD, please!
This is whole process is cyclical. The RIAA pays Clear Channel to play songs. So the RIAA is going to do very strict demographics to get the most bang for their buck. It's in Clear Channel's best intrest to play those songs, to maximze their own profits. In both parties eyes, once you get a song that catches on (ie anything from Brittney, N'Stink, Creed) keep craming it down the consumers throat. The more it's played, the more merchendise and concert tickets can be sold, benefitting back to the RIAA. It's kinda funny that once they get people addicted to this 'ear crack', that they're surprised people will do anything to get it.
Now, the problem with Internet Radio. Since the RIAA has no 'control' over the play lists, those demographics go out the window. Now instead of concentrating only on few marquee bands, maximizing their exposure, they have to try to spread out thir money, which is inefficient. It's really not bad for the RIAA that the Internet stations are broadcasting, the RIAA just doesn't like losing control of their music.
Of course this has been going on for years. Kickbacks and payola have existed ever since roack radio started. Countless managers would pay off regional managers to get artists like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Chuck Barry played more than the competition. The whole system has been locked down so tightly now, there squeezing every penny out, and squeezing the small bands.
Now that they essentially have a monopoly (or a duopoly), the government may need to step in and do something.
--
"Of course that's just my opinion."
Here you go moderators... does this make it ON TOPIC?!? (Same story submitted)
Clear Channel Seeks Direct Connection to Record Labels
By CHUCK PHILIPS
Los Angeles Times
Friday, March 9, 2001
Clear Channel Communications, the nation's largest radio broadcaster, wants a share of the tens of millions of dollars in record company
promotional funds that go to independent promoters--and sometimes smack of payola.
The move is sending a shudder through the major labels, which see legal and ethical problems with paying money directly to broadcasters to help get their artists on the air.
The initiative, which the company expects to roll out around May, reflects a fundamental shift of power in the record business. In the past, powerful record labels were accused of bribing deejays operating at small, independent radio stations to influence what songs got airplay.
Industry mergers have moved the balance of power to radio groups, which today have the clout to launch a song simultaneously in scores of markets across the country--or consign it to oblivion.
Clear Channel, which controls 1,200 radio stations and owns the world's biggest concert promoter, hopes to generate more than $20 million
annually by selling chainwide advertising packages, research and a variety of airplay data to labels whose songs are played on its stations.
Clear Channel plans to sell ads to labels that would air immediately after the station plays the latest song by one of their artists. The brief ad would identify the artist who performed the preceding song, a practice that many stations have dropped.
Clear Channel said it would sell such an ad only if programmers had already determined the song was a hit. Sources say the company is pitching ads at $1,000 a pop that would run on 60-some stations.
Critics contend that the broadcast giant is using its newfound leverage as the nation's largest chain to extract deals from record labels that appear to sidestep payola laws.
"Clear Channel is trying to skirt the law, using its power to shake down record companies in what amounts to legal payola," said Steve Rendall,
senior analyst for the New York-based media watchdog group FAIR.
Record company officials say they are reluctant to buck Clear Channel, with its dominant market position in radio and concert promotion, but
they are uncertain how effective the new promotions will be.
Radio industry sources say there is another reason: Record companies could lose the power they already have to influence airplay at Clear
Channel stations under the current system with independent agents.
And a direct play-for-pay arrangement between record company and radio broadcaster could be illegal.
Radio Group's Plan Eliminates Middleman
Randy Michaels, chief executive of the San Antonio-based broadcast giant, acknowledged that the plan would probably rattle some cages in
the music industry, but he insists the program is legal and not just a new corporate version of payola.
"We're been moving very slowly in launching this initiative, trying to make sure we dot all the i's and cross all the t's in terms of the legal
issues," said Michaels, who is scheduled to deliver the keynote address Saturday at Radio & Records' annual convention in Los Angeles.
"The fact is the industry spends a tremendous amount of money promoting records to our radio stations, and what we have here is an opportunity
to take some of that money in right through the front door and put it on our books," Michaels said. "We've come up with some innovative ways to
generate new revenue streams for our shareholders' benefit. And in the process, I think we can save the labels money by cutting out all of these middlemen."
Radio airplay is the most powerful promotional tool for record companies. Many people buy records based solely on what they hear on the
radio. Federal law prohibits radio stations from taking money or anything of value in exchange for playing songs without disclosing the payment to listeners.
Record labels have long skirted payola laws by shelling out millions of dollars each year to independent consultants who can dangle money, audio equipment, luxury cars and exotic vacations before station personnel.
Independent promoters, who function as a buffer between labels and radio personnel, typically do not pay cash for airplay of specific songs but
circumvent payola law by providing stations with annual promotion budgets.
Last fall, Clear Channel issued an internal edict barring programmers at its stations from renewing any contracts with independent promoters. As the company began kicking around ideas for its music initiative, Clear Channel initially considered installing an in-house promotion czar who would act as the radio giant's exclusive liaison with the music industry, Michaels said.
In recent weeks, however, Michaels said the company has backed away from running its own record promotion arm and is now contemplating cutting an exclusive promotion pact with a third party. Michaels confirmed that at least two independent promoters have put in bids that could add more than $20 million to its bottom line.
The bet in the industry is that Clear Channel will ultimately cut an exclusive pact with Cincinnati-based Tri-State Promotions, which is run by Michaels' longtime friends Bill Skull and Lenny Lyons.
"We haven't made any decisions yet," Michaels said. "Of course, Tri-State is the devil I know, and on the trust scale, they rate the highest in my book. I've been doing business with them a long time, and that's where the comfort zone is. But we are still studying every option. Our plan is not exactly ripe yet. It's a work in progress, but we should be able to announce something within a month."
Michaels said the company's think tank has come up with a variety of revenue-generating ideas, including selling research to labels based on
reaction to records played on its stations. Clear Channel currently owns several research firms that monitor the response of listeners and program directors to new songs in most major Top 40, urban and adult contemporary radio markets across the nation. The company hopes eventually to charge labels for access to that information.
"We are trying to test the appetite of the labels for real information that comes directly from us, not just guessing by some third-party independent," Michaels said. "We don't have anything in mind that would tie the payment from record labels to airplay for specific titles. We
may well sell information about what we are playing. We may well also sell research that would help guide labels to the songs that we believe have the greatest hit potential."
Michaels acknowledged that the think tank has even considered selling late-night commercial time directly to labels for the purpose of
promoting new songs.
"The argument would go like this: Would you rather hear a couple used-car commercials and carpet store ads in a row or a song that the
record companies believe has hit potential?" Michaels said. "If we do it, of course we would run all the appropriate announcements required by
law so that everyone would realize we got paid to play the record."
'Zero Tolerance for Payola' Since Problems
Although some executives inside of Clear Channel's think tank believe the company ought to launch its own record label, Michaels said he has
already nixed that idea. He said running a label would present too many conflicts and possible problems for Clear Channel with payola laws.
Clear Channel was fined $8,000 last fall by the Federal Communications Commission for a promotion offered by a company it acquired that guaranteed airplay of a song by pop singer Bryan Adams in exchange for a series of free performances at its radio station concerts.
Michaels said the promotion occurred before Clear Channel purchased the station and would never happen again. In fact, he said the company's stiff anti-payola stance recently resulted in the dismissal of two program directors.
"We have zero tolerance for payola here," Michaels said. "We had to let a couple of guys go this year because their effectiveness had been
compromised. The fact is the program director's job is a tough one. The sales department is all over him. Corporate management keeps pushing him. Sometimes, it's like his only friend is the record promoter, and occasionally they can be swayed by that.
"What I'm trying to do here is ensure that our employees make decisions based on objective data only," Michaels said.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I have an article on the same topic submitted but undecided upon - and from the way I read things, there's some other shady business practices happening in addition to the things you mentioned -- Cuban goes on to state that he had worked with Yahoo to undercut the royalty payout as well by using multicasting and then only paying royalties based on the single stream being broadcast, and forcing those webcasters who needed percentage-of-revenue rates to subsist and were bound and determined to stay on the air to pay fees to Yahoo to have their material broadcast.
This whole mess just reeks of Mafia boss tactics. You pay us a "protection" fee, and we'll make sure your bandwidth doesn't get cut off.
Oh, and for a good read on the whole "media control" thing, check out The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian. It was written in the 80s, but has been updated since to include new mediums of communication. Very interesting read.
--
I'd mod you +1 funny if I could!
I should have clarified that I was intending for this to be from the perspective of the record labels, not the artists (since the record labels are the ones paying out these $250L-$1M fees).
I, as a record label set up a webcasting site. I broadcast a number of channels depending on the variety of music I wish to promite. All of the channels would exclusively feature artists on my label, thus costing me zero to broadcast in royalties.
There would certainly be a cost to set up and maintain this service, but if you distribute that cost over the cost of promoting all of those artists, it does provide a substantial cost savings. Perhaps not quite zero but substantially cheaper than the fees that clear channel is wanting.
The problem, of course, for the labels is that this approach is untested and thus risky. The record labels abhore risk.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Hey, Mr. DJ, I Thought You Said We Had a Deal:
I could never sleep my way to the top
'Cause my alarm clock always wakes me right up
And since my options had been whittled away
I struck a bargain with my radio DJ
I said I'd like this song to be number one
He said "I'd really really like to help you my son"
And then I knew that I would have him to thank
Because he asked me how much I had in the bank
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
He said the record wouldn't have to be hot
And no one ever seemed to care if it's not
It would depend on something else that I've got
And that the other ones who'd given it a shot
Had seen a modest sum grow geometrically
And then they had forgiven themselves
Because the net reward had justified
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives*
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
Well, I told you about the world (its address)
I wonder when they're gonna clean up the mess
You know the rabid child is still tuning in
Chess piece face's patience must be wearing thin
Because they haven't played this song on the air
Not that anyone but me even cared
And the Disk Jockey has moved out of town
The district courthouse says he's nowhere to be found
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
...and improve radio at the same time.
If we got organized and all chipped in the cash, maybe we could PAY the radio stations to stop broadcasting certain crap.
Maybe we could, say, limit classic rock stations to only playing Zeppelin 12 times a day, or possibly even rid the universe of Britney Spears "music" -- then she'd have to be more honest with us and actually launch her porn career.
We could set up a voting system and a paypal account, and utilize micropayments and public opinion to pay the stations not to play this crap.
It could work, I tell you....
I was wondering if we could subvert the system... say collect money to add Vivaldi to a rock station and bluegrass to rap stations. May be a project for rtmark.com.
this is very unsurprising. what can you expect when 4 out of every 5 radio stations in the USA are owned by the same company?
hell, if i was Clear Channel i'd make it cost $500,000... what are the record companies going to do -- not release singles on the radio?
behold the train wreck that happens in an industry where monopolies are legal.
If you're interested in music with some sort of relevance, you might check out WBER - 90.5FM.
darius
A story:
"Any land you want, you gotta rent it from the state. They'll hunt you down and take it away otherwise. They accept or refuse rents for political and pork reasons; they decide based on what you plan to do, which vested interests and campaign contributors you might threaten. Supposedly they aren't allowed to tell you what you may and may not put on your land, but in reality they'll refuse your rent and reposess your property unless you do things their way. In fact they can do that to you, any time, push you right off your land and take if for themselves or their favourites for any reason or no reason, and you can't complain because it's not your land, you're just renting. Naturally a few big boys hold most of the land, and anyone who wants to get anything done has to go through them, and boy does it cost but they're not scared of the market, there is no market except them and a few other good buddies, and they all play the same game. And don't even think of trying some technical innovation in land use, that might worry city hall."
Anyone see any similarity between that and the radio licensing scheme?
Time for a free market and private property in the EM spectrum.
..I understand our interest(as a comunity) with the RIAA and how they go after copying, p2p, etc.. but does this article really belong on /.?
,in the past, /. has struck a nice ballance between technology, and the political aspects of technology. This article has nothing to do with technology at all.
/. to become another 2600.
yeah, I know I don't have to read it, but I thing that
I just don't want
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So the RIAA complains at how much if costs to get Radio stations to play a song, yet they want to force internet broadcasters to pay THEM to promote their songs?
Before they may have been able to let internet radio provide them with free promotion of a single or even pay them a small tithe to ensure their song got played. Yet instead they attack their last hope against the radio stations and antagonize them. So now even if they stopped trying to push the fees, I doubt any of these stations would be willing to help them out anymore.
The RIAA, by effectively removing themselves from the competition on internet radio, ensure now that non RIAA artists will only be played on the internet now. See my sig for a really cool station which plays only non RIAA music. They are gladly thumbing their noses at the RIAA and the labels they are working with are more than happy to allow them to play for free because they know it promotes their CD sales without them having to go through the RIAA or Clear Channel. That is the future of music. The RIAA dug their own hole here and then made it so deep they can't hope to climb back out of it. I hope they have fun rotting in it.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
From the Salon article:
Clear Channel programmers deny they would ever tamper with what goes out over the airwaves in order to make a buck.
That strikes me as odd. I always thought the purpose of setting up play lists was to provide a mix of music the audience would like so you could make a buck.
But aparently, play lists don't mean much in the grand scheme of things, when you have a near monopoly in a market that does'nt easily allow new entrys.
The Internet is generally stupid
...why don't you people observe that while radio *ownership* was deregulated, radio *broadcasting* is as tightly controlled as ever.
Setting up a local FM radio station has been cheaper for the last 15 years than most internet-based radio today. I broadcasted pirate FM radio in junior high-school using a rig that cost me less than $100.
Why can four companies control 60% of the radio market? Because the FCC has established extremely high barriers to entry. So new radio stations require investments of millions of dollars. Withour regulation on ownership, but with high barriers to entry, oligopoly is inevitable. It's microeconomics 102.
'Net radio and sat radio are good paths out, but we could also see significant improvements in radio diversity by simply allowing localized homesteading of frequencies without "broadcast purchase" policies taken by the FCC now.
Imagine an open-ended cooperative of home-based rebroadcast stations on an FM frequency that relayed an internet radio station. Imagine being able to tune your home broadcast station to a 'net radio source for 20 hours a day, then come home and do your own show.
Before people start screaming for "trust-busting" of Clear Channel, how about screaming for deregulation of frequency allocation? I'd love to see how long the payola scheme would last in a world of nerds with $100 FM broadcast stations doing a relay of Radio Free Slashdot.
Any Washington DCer knows that WHFS (CBS) is the only decent alternative to ClearChannel's DC101. It's hilarious to listen to Elliot in the Morning knock on ClearChannel almost daily (and the fact that the mega-corporation can't do anything about it without causing a public outcry).
Just my 2 cents.
- Cary
Well that's deservant. I was hoping that we could some how see where they put all this money they say they are losing from people DLing mp3's. It's funny that they still claim a profit in the midst of all this DLing. I fact in a German study they said that 53% of people DL music and 67% of those people said that they bought the album because they DLed it first. Well it's only right that the promoters get their share of the money. Not that I personally think $250K is how much it should cost to start a song down the singles road. It's just another thing for the music industry to bitch about. Music industry: "I'm a 500 Billion dollar a year industry." Radio & Promotion: "We'd like to help you to sell some of those CD's. It'll be $250,000 to get one song started." Music Industry: "You mean I have to pay you? This album has the potential of selling Platinum and you want $250,000 to help out? That means I only make 2 Billion off this album. Don't you think $250000 is a bit too much?" Zomby
from M4 Radio: all indie music all the time
Q: What is Indie Music?
A: Any band or a style of music that is either not yet signed to a major music company or if they are signed to a small independent label.
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
That annoying sound-maker box which, (on all the stations where this might be an issue), spews the following percentages:
35% Irritating as hell advertising.
25% Irritating as hell DJ chatter and monster truck promotions.
10% Music, (if you're lucky).
30% Over-produced, dumb-ass noise, (best suited for attention-deficit hampster people who are permanently wrapped up in an artificial state of love-related angst.)
--And nearly all of which is mind-programming nonsense anyway, designed to fill people with misery-inducing behavior patterns. And these days it's so obvious. "Hit me baby, one more time." --I mean, for crying out loud!
With a very few exceptions, most stations which run on the commercial system are pretty crumby. Those stations which don't suck are run by sensible people who don't play the payola game. Canada's CBC Radio 1 kicks major ass, has NO advertising, and won't melt your brain. Actual, "I laughed, I cried, I was informed and entertained," content. Try it, and you'll realize just how fried your brain was on that other shit.
People don't realize McDonnald's food and the rest of the consumer crap they inhale is actually of extremely poor quality until they treat themselves to something good for a few weeks. --The other day, out of a desperation for fluids, I drank some Coke for the first time in over two years and was dumbfounded by just how awful it tasted. And I'm not just saying that; The stuff actually left a powerful petro-chemical after-taste in my mouth for half an hour. I couldn't believe that I used to consider the stuff a treat when I was younger. Honestly; have the changed the formula, or something?
-Fantastic Lad
There is one simple, effective and reasonably sound way of dealing with the payola problem - legalize it. Sounds unfair you think? Think again. As long as we accept music as an industry there will be money in it. And anytime you have large amounts of money circulating around, someone is going to try and stick their hand out. There is no business reason why it shouldn't be radio station owners wanting some of that money and that's why payola continues, despite the numerous attempts to stop it.
Look at the facts for a minute. Every time the politicians have tried to deal with the payola problem it re-emerges, maybe months or years later, but it always comes back. Maybe there are some new changes, some new twists, but still basically it's the same old system. Why does this happen? Simple. Airtime for a music radio station is essentially one big commercial. If I, as a radio station owner, play a song off a record I know that a certain percentage of my listeners will go out and buy that record. Airtime = Advertising, simple as that. So it's natural that at some point I'm going to want to make money off that airtime, as much money as I can. It's America, right? There's nothing unnatural or unlawful about wanting to make a buck, especially if record companies are willing to pay. And they will, every time. Again we ask, why? Because they know to that every time I play their music during regular hours a certain number of listeners will go out and by the album. My playing their records sells more records so they will pay, every time. It's advertising, they know it, I know it and so should everyone else.
It's inescapable in a society that perceives money and music going hand in hand that we are not going to ever have a 'level' playing field for people without money. Want to help artists get away from the money issue? Stop paying for music. Why should we worry about artists if we're willing to let money dictate terms everywhere else in music? Is it because we're concerned about the quality of music available on the airwaves? Hardly, if we we're really concerned about that we wouldn't have let companies like Clear Channel become the 800 ton gorilla they are, able to dictate terms to everyone, quality be dammed. As a nation we've elected to let money and music live comfortably together so why should we worry about issues like payola? In any system were money and music are so close we will see payola emerge, why can't we just learn to accept it as an inevitable part of doing business in the music industry?
Possibly. If I concentrate and try hard enough I believe it is possible. I must focus my chi energy and call on the divine wind and the spirits of the forefathers. Only then can true lameness be achieved.
Paraphrasing Marge Simpson: And if replying to my own posts and blathering about my takes on moderation is lame, then I guess I'm just a big lame.
I'll withhold my opinion on AC's who post anonymously to flame others at this moment.
"More organs means more human." - Zim
(what is it called this week? DALEK?)
Exterminate! Exterminate!
Sorry, couldn't pass up the Dr. Who reference from your post.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
Clear Channel will probably buy their own record label and cut out the middlemen entirely. They already own concert venues, so they're into creating content now. So expect "Recorded Live at the Clear Channel Pavillion...".
Yes, the RIAA screws the hell out of broadcasters but, in turn, as the article points out, the broadcasters, via the indies, are screwing the hell, and then some, out of the RIAA members. The end result is that you pay x to be allowed to play a song and get y (where y is vastly greater than x) to get it heard.
So, if the net broadcasters had known how the game was played, the answer would be to sign up with indies and get paid handsomely for doing it.
What about all the independant music? The net broadcasters want to play their own stuff, not corporate playlist crud? That's cool. The independant labels are complaining they can't get airtime. So, easy answer, both sides get out of the incestuous mess... The independants tell the RIAA where to stick their "representation" and release their music under a license that allows it to be played for free by the independant stations.
Yeah, the music industry is a mess. Yes, everyone's getting screwed and, you know what, they're screwing other people back again to recoup those costs. The only apparent reason the net broadcasters and the independant labels is because they're playing the existing game badly and not making up their own ones.
While it is messy, that's how the game is played. You either play the game, make up your own one with others who'd like to play it your new way, or go out of business. It's a shame that the net broadcasters have chosen to go out of business rather than invent their own game and tell the RIAA where to stick it.
You know, a guy called Linus didn't like the monopoly in another field. Fortunately, he tried to change it, rather than [just] bitch.
wouldn't the broadcaster still being paying all those rights to ASCAP, BMI etc? That'd be the back breaker for me. IF you're going to do the "pirate" radio (we have one here) I guess you're not paying the fees, but I guarantee that Powell won't let anybody on the air without paying mucho bucks to somebody.
So if you're a webcaster you have to pay the RIAA if you want to play their songs, but if you're a radio station the RIAA pays you??
Oh. And after working to shut down webcasters, NOW the RIAA is bitching about having to pay radio stations to get their songs out because it's the only medium?
Cry me a fucking river.
Like we need another keiretsu (-:
We have a corporation similar to Clearchannel up here in Canada. The CHUM group pretty much controls pop culture here. Picture ClearChannel owning MTV.
S
Ha. Since the labels created the payola system, they created a problem that would stab them in the back years later.
Events leading up to their problem:
1: Labels create payola system.
2: Indies go out of control with payola, raise prices.
3: Small indies are bought up by Clear Channel, raise prices sky-high, CD prices go up.
4: Napster is created, millions swap files because CDs are too expensive.
5: Economic downturn, combined with payola prices from indies going up make CDs unappealing to purchase. RIAA blames file-sharing, shuts down Napster.
The RIAA and labels are wrong to blame file-sharing for their troubles. I believe the increasing payola prices are in part, to blame for the steadily rising cost of CDs in the past 20 years. What was $11.95 two decades ago is now $19.95, an increase caused by the extravagant payolas imposed by the indies. But who created payola? THE LABELS. As a result, people can't or are not cant afford to buy their CDs, and turn to free music in the file-sharing networks. The labels get in trouble and start looking for scapegoats during the downturn of CD sales. They blame file-sharing networks, and try to shut them down. Then they brainwash Moby in to blaming us techies for thier drop in sales. What they don't realize is, WE ARENT THE PROBLEM, and neither are file-sharing networks. They screwed themselves, and they'll have to fix it.
Just a correction, the single that the author called "Save the Night" is actually entitled "Save Tonight". Sigh, I usually find Salon to be a good read, but that seems like a sloppy mistake to me.
I should care about the state of radiio these days, but I don't. I gave up in dispair about nine years ago. I neveer listen to the radio anymore. My receiver has no antenna on it, niether does the radio tuner in my Hauppage card, nor any other radio-able device in my house (save for one boom-box).
Radio is a wasteland of banal crap stepped on by idiot DJs that think I give a shit about what lame jokes they want to tell while I'm trying to listen to music.
I long for the days of Album Oriented radio, or old-school FM radio where the DJ told you what you had just listened to, told you what you were about to listen to and then shut the hell up BEFORE starting the next song!
Shit, I'd just like to have some variety on the radio! Every station plays the exact same songs as every other within it's target demographic. You never hear anything different. It's really sad when the one song they play by Artist X is the worst song on the CD it was on.
It's really sad. I used to listen to the radio about nine hours a day. Now, I don't bother unless the local NPR station is covering a local event (like the Alaska Folk Festival).
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
The general sentiment regarding FM radio these days seems to be: it sucks.
With radio stations having to pay an increasingly large fee for each song on the playlist, it's no wonder that they play a much smaller selection of songs than they used to (say, back in the 80s).
Clear Channel claims (paraphrasing) "We're just playing what people want to hear". However, there are several really interesting side-results of these shrinking playlists.
First, we have to lay down some facts. The first is that fewer people are listening to the radio, period. The second is that for those who do listen to the radio, they are listening for shorter and shorter periods.
Now let's assume you're a casual radio listener as most people are. What kinds of songs are you going to request most? Probably the ones you've been hearing recently that you like. No diversity in songplay equals everybody requesting the same thing, and everybody requesting the same thing means radio stations play the same crap over and over again (which is fine by them, since they don't have to pay out extra cash for more songs on their playlist). In a sense, it's cyclic: people request what they know, and stations play what they request.
From one perspective, Clear Channel is correct when they say they are playing what people want to hear. But that's taking a small picture view, because when taken in a larger context the statistics really are supporting the fact that people don't want to hear the radio at all! Ask any radio listener what the biggest problem with radio today and he'll tell you lack of variety. Thus, the sucking. And the more sucking there is, the fewer people will listen.
Here's another interesting thing that I haven't seen discussed: How this affects CD sales. Let's consider 2 scenarios. In scenario A, the radio station is playing 60 tunes in regular rotation and a few classics, and replace songs in rotation at the rate of 10 per week. In scenario B, the radio station is playing 30 tunes in regular rotation, plus a few classics and replace songs in the rotation at the rate of 2 per week. Which station is going to generate more CD sales?
Let's assume (for the sake of simplicity) that each station has exactly 1000 listeners. Each listener has a 1/10 chance of liking a song enough to buy a CD. Each listener is also going to listen for 120 songs in week 1, and 120 songs in week 2.
The people listening to station B hear each song 4 times during each week. They are exposed to 32 songs (30 from week 1, plus the extra 2 rotated in during week 2), and buy an average of 3.2 CDs due to this. 3.2 * 1000 = 3200 CDs sold.
The people listening to station A hear each song twice during each week. They are exposed to 70 songs, and buy an average of 7 CDs due to this. 7 * 1000 = 7000 CDs sold.
This, of course, is a very simplified case, as it doesn't take into account disposable income, but neither does it take into account song burnout (when you like a song but are so sick of it you never want to hear it again), but I think it makes it's point. Oh, and in case you didn't get it, radio stations today are like station B.
As a result the music labels complain that people aren't buying music and point their fingers at Napster, I don't buy it as the sole reason. I point my finger at station B and say "people are listening to the radio less than ever and being exposed to less music than ever. What did you expect!?"
... but radio won't play "Kant is Dead" 'cuz it's not on the play list. Ah, radio. Anecdotes flood in when I think of radio.
... yes, I've once again activated my ASW-1000 mk. IV (Automotive Sonic Weapon). With it, I can submit myself to the alleged songs of P.Diddy, J.Lo, or some duo of P.Diddy and J.Lo (nothing else seems to issue from the device) until I soon start to bleed from the eyes, ears and nose. Then I turn it off, unable to withstand further punishment, but having already proven manfully that I can put up with a lot.
... and I drove with a sense of deja vu every day, since they were playing essentially the same songs as in 1994.
... after all, those are the only Rush songs they play. Every year, more rock-n-roll in the same venue is created, and still they play a core of 40 to 60 of the same songs. Over(over(over(...))).
I get into my truck and on occasion stare at some blocky instrument with all sorts of cool-looking dials and indicators. "What's that?" I wonder. I hit the left dial and suddenly I'm under a malodorous sonic assault. "Aha!" I exclaim, remembering
I remember commuting to work in Massachusetts in the 90s. Specifically, I recall once driving for a period of some months in 1994, and had the car radio on to alleviate the boredom. After some years of job-hopping, I found myself on another long commute in 1996, and once again turned to my trusty friend the radio. What did I hear, but a wasteland of Ric Astley, Fabulous Thunderbirds and Alanis Morrisette
The primary and traditional rock station here in town thinks that about 40 to 60 of rock songs from the 70s constitutes the entirety of the rock history of that era. From them I've learned that the band Rush only made 2 songs
Anecdotes aside, I can clearly see that after the fine (though Punk-tinged) diversity of the 80s which itself followed the expansion of 70s rock-n-roll and even disco, the 90s became a scientifically-analyzed and -designed marketing era filled with Grunge rock and what I call "Demographic Music". After the 90s, we were essentially just listening to the "psst!" and "fssh!" sounds of gases issuing from radio's rotting corpse. I know they were gases, since radio just stunk. Due to so-called economics (which is really just corporate policies gone out of control) the play lists of virtually any station became very small. You can call in and request whatever you want, but those requests are only honored when they have enough matches on the play lists (as I have been told by folks who work in radio stations). The radio public are just an audience that corporate radio really doesn't think much about after having run demographic analyses. The "audience" is just a pipeline that enables the flow of ad money.
Radio is dead, nothing to see here, just move along. Radio is just as dead as a family Saturday outing to the (now extremely overpriced) ballpark. No wonder Napster became so massive.
For laughs, I'd suggest legislation that would take back some "we the people" control of the airwaves by mandating 1hr of local-indie talent, plus another 1hr of nationwide-indie talent. But what's the point in that? Clear Channel et al would never allow that. "Clear Channel" is a correct name -- it's certainly a channel clear of any real music.
[also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
So, don't go. Don't listen to those stations. -shrug- You, as the consumer, make choices that affect that business.
If you weren't willing to pay that much to go to a concert, they wouldn't be charging that much. If nobody goes, they won't make any money. But, they know that people love to whine about these things, but in reality, you'll keep listening to the station,and you'll keep buying tickets.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
Radio has become something that has ceased to matter in my world. In an attempt to make sure that everything is palatable, they (radio and the record industry) have made sure that it all sounds the same.
So now it has become monopolized and irrelevant, unacessible and dull. Now they want to do something about it.
Too late. Perhaps, they can look into the RIAA's heavy-handed tactics while they're at it.
Though I'm not holding my breath...
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
A note on the CBC: Large Canadian media promoters, like CanWest (I believe part of the Global Empire, at least the names appear in the same tripe much of the time) have been lobbying to have public funding from CBC scrapped, or CBC scrapped altogether. Their rationale is that the government shouldn't be involved in broadcasting, but in reality CanWest is merely a chief importer of the exact type of American crap of which you speak.
All of the Canadians reading this should be aware that a prized possession of ours, one of our last bastions of defence against American mediocrity, is being threatened. As for what you can do about it, see this link [friendscb.org].
2. SomaFM and others MUST write contracts for their indie and unsigned artists to distribute their music at reasonable or zero royalties. I understand that he has a day job - maybe he can find a pro bono lawyer to develop a standard contract for the various labels who, like him, would like nothing better than to fuck the RIAA with a rusty spike.
sulli
RTFJ.
I think the RIAA should stop its bitchin, if they want to get brintey spears on the top of the radio, then they should have to pay millions if not billions. The RIAA is finally feeling the burn for being bastards and trying to squees independant music off the radio. Blaming clear channel is blaming the person that was given a bribe, not the bastard with a damn agenda.
Clear Channel may not scrupulious, but the RIAA is definatinately at fault here.
My current favorite band, Gov't Mule, can hardly buy airplay, yet they've been pretty successful. It helps that they let people record their shows & trade the recordings online.
Here in Minneapolis, there's a thriving local music scene. The only airplay most of the local acts get is on a few weekly, hour long shows on some stations that showcase local music.
Gotta love Bay Area Radio though:
KSJO (The Rock): ClearChannel
KCNL (Channel 104.9): ClearChannel
KMEL: ClearChannel
KYLD (Wild 94.9): ClearChannel
KIOI (Star 101.3): ClearChannel
KLLC (Alice): Viacom
KITS (Live 105): Viacom
KSAN (The Bone): Susquehanna (whoever they are)
KFOG: Susquehanna
Thank god for the free market system.
You can easily arrive at the one in ten rule yourself, if you do a little web research. It's surely the leaast controversial thing I said!
Yes, but at a venue where the concessions are vastly overpriced, parking sucks, and where THEY WONT LET YOU BRING IN YOUR OWN WATER.
August, 2001. Willie Nelson picnic. 102F outside, and they were allowing each person to bring in ONE 16oz bottle of water. Otherwise, you were free to buy their bottled water, or refill from the ONE water fountain that is available to the public. Hmmm. Seems CC is finding other "Alternative Revenue Streams" in their live performance venue as well.
Gh0d, I hate commercial music radio (especially in Minneapolis).
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
I have to give a shout out to Seattle's KEXP , the University of Washington college station. KEXP (was KCMU) is an excellent college music station with a huge variety of music, but lots of indie rock and some techno/beats at night. They are 90.3 FM in Seattle, but they also stream live on the internet. They support MP3, RealAudio, and WMA. They even have an uncompressed, CD-quality (better than FM quality) audio stream.
cpeterso
Basically, as long as its legal, the Top 40 will be bought and sold. Not that the abolishment of the practice will get good artists like Liquid Tension Experiment on the chart; the radio demands a certain format to pay for itself.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Sounds like the music industry needs to do a better job with market research. If I manufactured a product (and it *is* manufactured product) with only a 10% yield, I think I'd take a serious look at what I was doing wrong and change my strategy a bit.
xjosh
Too bad it's indie music broadcast in a non-open format. (Windows media) It doesn't seem to work very well on my indie os.
Because noone will listen to radio.
Clear channel declared, like every one else that anti monopoly restrictions keep them from truly serving their customers.
Now that they have a virtual monopoly radio sucks really badly, and fewer and fewer people listen.
I am sure clear channel execs are blaming internet filesharing for all of this as we speak.
so how is this gonna work?
If they give complete deregulation all the signals will destroy each other, and clear channel would make sure theirs are the strongest.
Ifthey still somwhow sold licences clear channel would buy them all.
Maybe they can institute some kind of bandwidth sharing, but that usually requires modified radio recievers. So every one will have to buy a new car radio.
file sharing is not a perfect alternative of radio because there the record companies cannot controlwhat you hear.
They can makeit avilable, yes but it is your choice to dl it and lsiten to it, they cant force it on you.
Yeah, but the deal is the airwaves are owned by the public, and licensees of said airwaves should be serving the public good. If you take the radio stations out of the equation, then who the hell cares. However, they are very much part of the equation.
sigs are a waste of space
...like on the show "WKRP": Cocaine in record jackets.
that 90% of records dont make money claimis complete bs.
How expensive is to manufacture a damn music cd anyways. Its pretty cheap considering its being made by a huge volume repeat player.
And those cds are being sold at costs 20 - 40 times their value.
Then how do all those albums fail to make money after selling thousands of copies? Well its easy - its what economists call rent seekers - various execs, agents, promoters, advertising execs, etc that have secured nice little chokepoints in the distribution chain and demand payment whenever something passes trough them.
So there you have it. The whole distribution chain is due for a shakeup. Hopefully the internetwill help with that.
s that they made with the CARP/RIAA deal recently. They in fact did not want hobby/small business webcasters to all go belly up, so they made provisions specifically for them so they dont get run into the ground. They will basically have to pay jack and squat under it. Your favorite techno shoutcast will still be around...
I actually listen to KFOG most of the time, and have rarely been disappointed by them or their programming. They put on all kinds of small live shows to replay them on the air ("Live from the archives"), have a good variety of music, their DJs are accessible, nice people both on the phone and in person, one of their shows (10 at 10) is good enough that it's synidcated across the country, and, most importantly:
Susquehanna is a group of only 4 stations, all in the Bay Area, grown out of KFOG and KNBR (an AM talk radio/sports station).
They currently own:
KFOG - wide variety of rock
KSAN (the Bone) - stupid name, but decent classic rock variety
KNBR - talk radio, sports (all the Giants games)
KCTC - AM station, don't know anything about it
KFOG was one of the first major stations to stream all their normal broadcasts, and continue to do so.
In my mind, companies like Susquehanna are the kinds of radio we should be asking for. They have the local roots, they have decent programming, a fun staff, do cool community events, etc. But most importantly, they are large enough to have the clout to pay royalties on new music if they want to, but are NOT bland uniform pablum like most of Clear Channel's stations.
What would be so bad about that? Advertising is a self-propagating wave.
A solution to the problem with music today
The record industry tried to stiff the artists a few years ago by having musical recordings declared "works for hire." The mechanical reprodcution rights then reverted to the label instead of the artist after 26 years. For more information, check out http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
"Is my cock big enough. Is my brain small enough. For you, to make me a star. Give me a toot, Ill sell you my soul. Pull my strings and Il'll go far. .... my payola, my payola." - Pull My Strings - Dead Kennedys
"can't afford an army" is simply no excuse for conduct unbecoming of real soldiers.
Until they Palestinians start acting as such, they should be viewed as the criminals that they are. They have no nobility. Their means don't justify their end, no matter how reasonable (or even noble) that end might seem.
Palestinian "freedom fighters" go out of their way to create an appearance of impropriety. The rest of the world should not go out of it's way to see nobility in their actions.
You have no real clue what your accusations imply.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Nah. Homesteading has a long history in the common law. For instance, a party broadcasting on a given frequency for a given amount of time over a given area would hold de facto rights over that frequency in that area. Abandonment rules aren't tough to establish either. Turn on your radio, and check and see what percentage of available FM frequencies are actually in use. This gives you some idea of number of competing stations that *could* exist if not for the FCC.
"Stop being a consumer because it's all crap."
How does such a conclusion imply the use of critical thinking? What value would such a course of action serve? If you choose to stop being a consumer, your just going to be classified as a kook and ignored. You will be effectively giving the industry over to the Robber Barons while minimizing the effect of your own buying power.
While it's nice to be arrogant enough to think that your prefered product will be able to plod along successfully without any reasonable chance at good promotion. Such assumptions are naieve and ultimately counterproductive.
How do you expect quality product to remain on the market when all of the best promotion venues are choked off in one way or another?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The "hordes of yarmulka-wearing, Torah-toting suicide bombers blowing up Palestinian children on their way to school" were doing this from the late 1930's until 1948. They stopped after they got their own independant nation. Clearly terrorism does work, you just have to paint over the evidence after you've won.
Subverting the meta-moderating system since 2003
Not everyone NEEDS to.
The only thing that is really relevant is what models work as better, or nearly as well as the old models. The fact that a particular author is losing sleep at night because he now knows that people are consuming his work without paying is simply irrelevant.
Even in old media, there are plenty of methods to avoid payment for consumption. Infact, we're discussing one right now.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"These people are no less statist than the people they criticize."
Yeah, I've noticed. Which is why the post languishes unmoderated while "soak the rich!!! ban the capitali$t pigs!!! give us freebies and we don't care who has to pay for them!!!" lunacy gets "+5 proper Chairman Mao thought".
The poor poor music industry. I suppose the CEOs will have to crawl back to their cardboard boxes and cry their little hearts out about how they have always "done it for the music." WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
You're just shifting the cost to the consumer.... like that'll work.
Buckets,
pompomtom
"There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
I own an independant house music label in Chicago (www.oliverecords.com). We operate under the same business rules as the big labels, albeit with less money. Without radio play, record reviews, magazine interviews, and tons of store level promotions, its unlikely a record will sell enough to pay for itself. All of this is initially payed for by the label, to be eventually recouped from record sales. This means the Artist actually ends up paying for _all_ of it. Before an artist sees a dollar, all advances, marketing and production costs are deducted from sales. Often the artist ends up with nothing beyond the advance (which is an advance, so royalties don't start kickin in until the advance is recouped). What many people outside the industry dont realize is that there is no free marketing. Small labels have little chance of making a profit with all of the bigger competition about, and everyone has to pay for that essential PR.
Eric Boehlert has some "unique" journalistic techniques, so I think maybe the story should be taken with skeptical eye. This is not to say I like current radio. My pick for good music would have to be a public radio station: WYEP.
Is one of the more clueful senators around ... I'm glad that I'm from wisconsin so I can continue to vote for him in elections. He was also against the patriot act being the only senator to vote against it, at least he managed to get an amendment to limit it to 5 years (I believe) at least.
All almost everyone here is doing is complaining about how the airwaves are public and that we should demand what is on them. What most of you don't realize is that the public does. Albeit, indirectly. A good example is with the type of shows that I know are prevelant on the radio stations where I live. It's a "most requested" show. They usually happen sometime in the late evening(8 or 9 p.m.). They are comprised entirely of what songs are the most requested of the day. Calling up and requesting a song you want to hear doesn't just tell the radio station, "Hey I want to hear this song!" It also let's them know that you like this song and would probably like to hear it on a more regular basis. It's called research. You give them your opinions and they respond. If you want large changes in what the radio plays, get a bunch of people together and keep flooding with the radio stations with requests for underplayed songs.
The majority of us hear are most likely in the minority. At least in some aspect. Everyone talks about certain songs being overplayed. Those songs aren't overplayed simply because the radio stations just say, "I think I'll play this song way too much." Okay, so maybe payola is involved to get the ball rolling, but people keep adding momentum to it to keep it going. They give the song positive feedback, which tells the radio station to play that song more because it's more likely to attract more listeners. On the other hand, if the song sucks, people won't request it, which tells the radio station to stop playing it.
So payola isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just exposure. There is a balance between what people want to hear and what the record companies are trying to get us to hear.
Ahhh responding to trolls. There is nothing quite as enjoyable.
By the way, my friend, the word is spelled "l-o-s-e-r", only one o. Unless you really do think I am one who "looses" things.
Keep up the good work!
"More organs means more human." - Zim
Yes, it's true. Most of the 13 year olds I see listen to what is usually considered "classic rock" than to the mass-produced pap the record industry puts out nowadays. The new stuff is just plain unlistenable.
I can see it now; in a couple of years, Time/Warner teams up with Pixar and produces the first-ever completely computer-generated "boy band," which will exist only as ones and zeroes, from the external appearances right down to the voices. Perhaps even the music itself would be computer-generated at some point, like Orwell's 1984 pulp novels.
This, of course, would generate massive revenue for Time/Warner, since there is no band to contract, no egos to massage, no drug problems to rehab, and no artists to pay royalties to. The music, however, would be superficial on a level not even Britney Spears has sunk to yet, and best of all (for the record company, not the consumer), disposable.
The state of CGI isn't that far away from the artificial boy band, folks.
Republicans are idiots.