Slashdot Mirror
Labels Find New Method of Payola
rhadamanthus writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting on the newest 'legal' payola tactic put forth by the record industry: playing the song as an advertisement. It seems that while it is illegal to pay a radio station to play a song, it is not illegal to play a song as an ad. Quoth the article, 'The practice is legal as long as the station makes an on-air disclosure of the label's sponsorship -- typically with an introduction such as "And now, Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records."' Incidentally, that song was played 109 times in one week by Nashville station WQZQ-FM."
All five major record corporations have at least dabbled in the sales programs, industry sources said, with some reportedly paying as much as $60,000 in advertising fees to promote a single song.
This seems to be just one more underhanded tactic being utilized by the record labels these days.
a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
When it comes down to it, the labels are still effectively following the old outlawed practice of "paying for play", trying to hide behind a technicality in current US law. Though, that's something they seem to be doing a lot of these days.
In the latest twist, it's the radio stations themselves that have been reaching out to the labels, offering to play songs in the form of ads, often in the early morning hours when there tends to be an excess inventory of airtime. The practice is legal as long as the station makes an on-air disclosure of the label's sponsorship -- typically with an introduction such as "And now, Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records."
To be sure, Don't Tell Me is a bona fide hit, even without spins being bought and paid for. Radio stations must play a song many thousands of times for it to crack the Billboard top 10. Nonetheless, a few hundred spins here and there can move a song up a place or two in the rankings -- and ensure that it is climbing rather than falling on the charts.
Hmm. The only thing I am sure about is that the music industry is making the sheep believe that a song is a hit at the expense of their own customers.
"In our business, perception is reality," he said. "The minute you're down in spins, these program directors drop the record."
If it is played 40 times a week people are going to hear it and *believe* that it is popular. When it gets artificially vaulted to the top of the charts more people are going to *believe* that it is popular.
Now. Where did the money come from for them to pay the radio stations to "advertise" the song? Music buyers. That's right. The wonderful conglomerates are at it again. Telling the sheep what to think is good and paying to make sure they hear it and keep buying it. Do you really want to keep supporting conglomerates that use shady tactics and your money to make some songs more popular than others?
No? Then support freedom of music and stop the roundabout tactics, money wasting, and bullshit.
Seriously...who listens to the rubbish that passes for (music) radio these days?
I'd like to ammend my comment: they should be able to place ads in the form of songs, but these placement should NOT count as plays from the standpoint of rankings.
jrjBlog
I'd rather listen to a 5 minute Avril Lavigne song than 5 more minutes of ads (although it is a pretty close call.
I will venture to guess that b/c most people do not know it's an ad (or don't care) that they will not only accept the money for this and run the ad but they will also run their standard ads as well.
Lots of companies buy advertising to convince people to buy stuff they don't need. Why can't record companies do it?
paintball
Seems to me that playing the song on the radio, at the label's expense, would be the simplest way to promote album sales.
Hopefully this trend will continue, leaving the stations free to play a more interesting variety, if the mass-market crap they're playing now migrates to paid ads. Why play it for free when the labels are willing to pay for it?
Things like this just further my suspicion that more and more major label artists are merely puppets for the label. Heavily produced albums, lyrics oriented towards their target demographic, it's all so fake. Not all bands on major labels are bad, admittedly the corporate machine does make some decent tunes here and there.
Independent music seems to have a certain stigma attached to it still, kinda like the generic brand at the grocery. But check some indie stuff out, it's music by people for people.
I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
Well, it is already incredible tough for an independant to break through, now if you throw in big record money for pay for play it is that much tougher.
You have an almost monopoly, using monopoly money to give it an advantage over smaller competitors.
If practice like this is allowed you move in the direction of having music controlled by a few giant companies that dictate everything about how and what we listen too. Essentially we are already there and this reinforces the position.
Exactly... does this mean that if I had (for example) a vacuum cleaner company and I paid some studio to create a highly catchy jingle, and then paid for MASSIVE blanket advertising of my company in 30-second spots on all formats of radio across the US, that my jingle is eligible to be in the top 40 charts? It doesn't make any sense. Any paid advertising should not count as a "spin" since the radio station isn't playing what could be considered anything other than advertising, and advertisements aren't part of the assinine charting system. Seems like that logic, if enforced, would do a lot towards stifling this legalized Payola.
JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
Except that the airwaves are a public resource, ceded to radio stations under certain conditions (called laws).
So, when there's a law that says the radio stations can't accept money for playing a song, they should be punished when they break that law.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The law exists because the radio airwaves are theoretically a public trust. The government has parcelled out those wavelengths on your behalf, which is why you don't get to use them for your own broadcasts.
In return, the radio stations are expected to play what you want to hear, with a certain (regulated) amount of time allowed for playing advertisements to support the process. If they were playing the music for pay, that would be increasing the advertising time, time that they're supposed to be spending on playing stuff in the public's interest for free.
That is the theory. Practice, of course, is somewhat different. It is certainly convenient that the FCC regulates the bandwidth; otherwise, loud and greedy broadcasters would take up every frequency, including the ones you use for Bluetooth, garage door openers, and wi-fi.
But vast swaths of spectrum are sold well below market price because you're not allowed to bid on it. They do limit how much of the spectrum can be owned by any one company, but it turns out to be surprisingly much.
and if the advertisement spans several pages it says "Paid Advertisement" on every page.
So i want a voice-over every 20 seconds saying, "This is a paid advertisement for Sh*tty Music of the Day"
hey, that way people won't Pirate(tm) the song off the radio.
Well there's the problem of the airwaves belonging to the public. I think if a radio station wants to accept payola they don't deserve a government enforced monopoly over a part of the airwaves.
Personally I'd like to see less FCC and some more democratic process where crap stations can be voted off the air and their radio license give to some more promising competitor.
If it was internet radio I wouldn't care because there isn't quite the scarcity of that medium.
More news at 11, to be followed by:
The sky is blue, an expose.
Water found to be wet.
Footage shows bears really do crap in the woods.
Honestly, payola is one of those things that's going to happen, like drinking and college kids smoking pot.
I'd rather the corruption be out in the open than live under the false belief that, gasp, good music might be favored by DJs.
Finally, it'd put an end to all the pollyannish stories lamenting that the purity of Big Corporate Music has been betrayed.
Check out my blog: My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
How is it unjust that promoters pay broadcasters to play particular tunes?
/. ideology, we are for free speech around here, and if you don't like what is being said, then you don't have to listen to it. So if a radio station plays a tune too much, or one which you don't like, then you don't have to listen to it. Turn off the radio or change the channel. Can someone please explain how it is that involvment of promotional motives somehow negates that principle of free speech ?
According to prevailing
Freedom means freedom. It doesn't mean freedom only when it suits your own anti-corporate agenda. Yes, for my taste, clearchannel stations play a too small selection, much of which is overpromoted crap. However, I am not prepared to abandon my principles in opposition to that crap. Stations should be free to make programming decisions based purely on profit motive and I should be free to turn the dial if I don't like it. That's how freedom works folks. People deciding things for themselves. Freedom is not a government regulator dictating how music programming should be decided.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
You people can't even get your villains straight.
Here is a press release from Hilary Rosen herself, right off the RIAA's website: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/013003.asp
Just because they won't let you download their songs for free does not mean that they are on the opposite side of every issue (although I'm betting some of you will quickly change your positions on payola once you here where Rosen really stands on the issue).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
(1) This also means that independant artists can advertise for their music the same way, and
(2) Radio stations can still be selective about what they're going to play.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Really, just what is so wrong with "payola," anyway? How is it different from any other form of advertising? If a radio station got no money from any source other than payola, at least then all the ads you'd hear on that station would be for products you've already proven yourself to be a member of the market for (i.e. music).
It seems to me that, once upon a time, the Billboard charts had some sort of meaning or value and it was important to know exactly which single was where on the charts, and it was really bad if a record label "rigged the game" with some kind of payola scheme. But these days, who gives a shit? We know music is a business... why isn't it allowed to advertise?
(And I'm saying this even though I'm one of the (apparent) Slashdot majority that wouldn't listen to most of the crap on the radio if they paid me.)
Breakfast served all day!
This was in the news when I was in college (95-99) with Limp Bizkit and continues on with any number of bands.
This isn't a new phenomena and isn't all that much "news" unless you were really under the impression that the radio was playing music that it likes and/or what people are calling in to hear.
It is just one big commercial enterprise anyway that forces it down your throat, playing on the human sheep tendancy to start to like it after the 500th time whether they want to or not.
Eventually the airplay makes the song overly annoying but they don't care since it potentially draws in new customers.
I haven't listened to the radio in a long time - for the same reason I would fast forward through commercials in TiVo.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
we do not condone special interests buying legislation
:D
You're funny!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Why is it that a MOVIE, with a much bigger budget, more staff, more expenditures can be sold on DVD for as low as $7 canadian yet I can't find any music CDs for under $10-$12 canadian?? Does this make sense? Does it cost more to produce an album of 11 music tracks, with 5 musicians a couple producers and sound engineers, than it does an entire big budget hollywood film????!
Ok, to make sure I got this right
A) Label pays radio station to play song
B) Radio station plays several less ads to play song
C) Because Song was played during ad time, Radio Station doesn't play it during regular Music time
D) Ignorant Masses (ie, Me) hear More music, Less ads, and are generally happy.
Ya know, I might be stupid, but I'll never publically condon someone bussiness practices if they make my life and life in general better.
--Cam
All jocks think about is sports. All nerds think about is sex.
No, "idiocy" is failing to grasp the simple fact that the airwaves are a public resource that is being abused by Greedy Corporate Bastards(TM).
And you'll make amazing music no one will ever hear.
A distributor isnt' about recording, it's about promoting and "distibuting".
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
If you don't want to tour, and you don't want to promote your own band, you pay very dearly to have someone else do it, because it's a major gamble. I listen to local groups and smaller labels because they believe in their own craft enough to produce good work _and_ promote it.
You don't deserve anything because you're in a band, even if your sound is earth-shatteringly brilliant. Work for it or stop playing gigs. Pretty damn simple.
If you are tired of the RIAA controlling what you listen to, then learn how to sing.
I get a lot more enjoyment out of listening to my friends sing (and singing with them) old songs, sad songs, happy songs, silly song, whatever, than out of my music CDs.
Its live, its free, its even good sometimes.
So drink a few beers, gather round a camp fire, close your eyes and sing. Or play a guitar, learn to drum, pick up a kazoo, banjo, or tamborine, or even how to clap in time.
We have become a world that doesn't know how to entertain ourselves. If it isn't shiny, plastic, flashing, miniature, or if our neighbors (you know, those people on TV) don't have it then we don't want it.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Whoa! You're mixing an awful lot of stuff in the same pot here.
First, according to current policy at the FCC, the airwaves are NOT a public trust. They're more like real-estate zoned for business.
Second, the FCC zones various bands and assigns licenses so that listeners can know where to "go" to hear what they're seeking. They don't regulate content. They are a zoning board of the airwaves.
Here's the rub: If a few small groups end up controlling access to most of the available channels in an area of the US, that's their investment. It's hardly any different than a city zoning for newspaper printing and allowing only enough such slots that one or two publishers is pretty much all that anyone can expect to find.
Now, regarding the new payola: Well, if you put your name on it, it's no different than someone placing an ad designed to look just like regular news print on one whole page of the newspaper. The key is that people understand that it is not the newspaper publisher, but a customer who is writing this stuff.
I happen to take a very dim view of most broadcasters. NPR is innovative, but they still seek listeners just like everyone else.
The problem is that radio is such a big business that everyone is trying to be everything to all listeners. It doesn't fly. Real creativity is not something that most people appreciate much. Real creativity will annoy most people but enthrall a few.
However, as a mass media source, radio can't afford to broadcast stuff like that. Any attempt to please everyone all the time is likely to please nobody most of the time.
And now you know why radio sucks.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
> radio stations such as NPR are still great sources for news
NPR lobbied against Low Power FM radio stations. This limits competition and supports the status quo of radio consolidation (Their brother PBS network acknowledges radio consolidation as a problem, how ironic!). Just something to remember when they start one of their pledge drives.
quote:
The women are trying so hard to embellish that they're totally off-key
If I hear another warbaling wonder I think I will puke... I am so sick of this recent trend of female vocalists to make their voices warble, taking them way the fuck off key and making them hard to listen to... all just to mask the fact that their voices are bland and borring...
get someone with some friggin pipes, not these pathetic wannabes.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Why bother, clear channel found a legal way around it. Buy the radio stations, issue the top ten list based on AIRTIME, not sales, issue play lists to your radio stations, then sit back touting the TOP 10 list that you created along with verifiable but meaningless measurements. The masses of Sheeple with flock to the record stores to consume.... Venal, Greedy, and short-sighted but still technically legal :(
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I've heard this before and it is ridiculous. The throwaway pop music of the fifties (for example) was as bad as the throwaway pop music of today. The problem is that we don't remember the bad stuff from the past because it gets forgotten, whereas the bad music of today is right there in front of you.
In addition, I get annoyed by people who compare the music of "the 70s" (for example) to the music of "today" and are upset that the best stuff they could come up with from an entire decade is better than the best stuff they can come up with from the last six months. Honestly, I don't know how this could ever seem like a fair comparison.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
the RIAA does not own any labels. They are a trade group, not a record company.
The OPEC does not own any refineries. It is a trade group, not a refinery.
Yet OPEC and RIAA still manage to dictate terms in their respective industries.
http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Music/9807/07/payol a/
I've heard other songs played this way: framed as a commercial, with a different voice than the DJ announcing the band, track, and "presented by Rottenlabel" or something like that over the beginning and end of the song. I wouldn't call it common, but I've definitely heard it a few times and it's never been Limp Bizkit nor Avril Lavigne.
Can't say I really like it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the practice gets still more commonplace.