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."

Comments

Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[xerph]

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.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[eggoeater]

...as much as $60,000 in advertising fees to promote a single song

...all of which is charged back to the artist, indebting them to the label until the release makes money.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[ron_ivi]

Personally, I'd kinda like it if all the ads got replaced by songs. The station would still need to worry about if the balance of good vs. sucky songs got played, in the same way they worry about advertisers that offend their listeners.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe this is actually coming up as news. The labels have been doing this for years under "Co-Op" and other scams. Ever heard an ad for Tower Records that runs for like a minute with the music playing? I can't remember the exact number but anything played on the radio for a certain duration (maybe 45 seconds - 1:00) gets registered as a spin in rotation. Label promo guys would literally use these "spins" as ammo to gets adds or increase the airplay on existing stations. This is Label promo 101.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Blakey Rat]

...all of which is charged back to the artist, indebting them to the label until the release makes money. ... the artist who knew the exact terms and conditions the instant they signed up with the label.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Zork the Almighty]

But not one instant earlier?

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[funk49]

I'll do you one better. The label promo dept decides they're having a hard time working the album at radio. So the band goes out on tour, and the label promo guy, in collusion with the band's manager, setup a team of kids around the country to go into record stores to buy the album. The retail stores report sales to radio and then the radio station either adds or bumps up the airplay because they think this is a "HIT". The kicker... the expense that is used to buy the artists albums is then billed back to the artist. The artist is paying to "buy" their own albums. This tactic has been going on since Elvis Presley was selling records. Lucious Jackson's career was built on this.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[proj_2501]

except that 'all promotion expenses' doesn't sound all that bad when you're having a fun signing party with the label's rep, who is as young and cool as your band!

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[MojoRilla]

... the artist who knew the exact terms and conditions the instant they signed up with the label.

Do artists have a viable choice?

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Don'tTreadOnMe]

So all 17-year-olds (such as Avril Lavigne) are wise enough to ignore the bullshit, read the small print, etc?

While I think it is unconscionable for a label to use such terms in their contracts, it is business, and any adult entering a business contract is presumed to either understand the terms, or to have obtained advice from a professional who understands the terms.

That said, if Avril really is 17, then she is not legally able to enter into a contract in most states in the US, and so can claim youth in order to have the contract voided. If she so chooses...

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[hambonewilkins]

Since Avril Lavigne is not 18, she couldn't sign a contract without a co-signer, probably her agent/lawyer/parents. These people should obviously know how to read a legal document.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[soulsteal]

Yeah, get a real job.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[NoData]

Yeah gee I dunno, perhaps continue the lot in life as 'starving artists' who truely love producing their art and would do it no matter what they got paid?

You mean exactly what most of them get after signing with a label?

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[RickHunter]

Nope. That's what oligopoly means. You can choose any label you want to as long as it's an RIAA label.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Talking Goat]

By the way... Which one's Pink? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[sumdumass]

That would vary from state to state. Some states might not even have an age of consent for signing contracts so someone young enough to read an write could possably sign a contract.. Common law might have placed an age limit on some situations and of couse some one taking advantage of someone would definatly be looked down on in a court if they ever wanted to get out of it.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[(trb001)]

Independant labels that will give them a better deal, or promoting themselves.

Look, I've listened to a lot of bands that have performed locally and then made their way up from there. Nothing says you have to get that recording contract immediately...play for awhile on the local circuit, probably holding down other jobs as well. Just because some people make it big/rich quick doesn't mean it's owed to you. Whatever happened to good, hard, honest work?

On the flip side, a great many bands do this. Most of the bands I listen to I got into because of their live shows (Andrew W.K., O.A.R.). These bands sold me on their music without even talking to a record label.

--trb

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[jayhawk88]

Yeah, and since these artists are legal and financial experts, or already have enough money to hire a reputable attorney and financial manager, it's all their fault that they get taken by record companies, isn't it?

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[wirehead78]

Instead of writing crappy music and trying to be superstars by selling their souls to the record company, maybe they could try writing honest music and making an honest living off it. It is possible.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[nwbvt]

Believe it or not, there are these things called 'indie labels' that many of us buy from. In fact, Brittney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, and a number of other crappy pop groups got famous with Zomba long before they were bought by BMG.

And I know I've said this a million times, but the RIAA does not own any labels. They are a trade group, not a record company. Big difference between the two.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[neosake]

By the way, Avril Lavigne is from Canada (yahoo artist profile), but you're right, legal age varies here too.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Total_Wimp]

This is fine, good and noble, but it leaves out the point of the article, advertising and distribution.

If lables control the airwaves, how do you get the word out that you have a great band? Many(most?)people who love music only rarely get out to hear it live. Their primary source of info about new sounds is the radio. If the major lables are paying to have the airwaves play their artists tunes, how do the little guys with no money get heard?

In theory, radio airplay is about the songs that people want to hear. According to this article, and a well-known history of corupt payola, its really about what the record lables want you to hear. If you could fix that, you'd be a lot closer to me buying into the argument that the little band has a choice about signing with a lable.

TW

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they have plenty of choices.

The biggest choice is to hire a f'n non-industry sponsored attorney. I have a good one that represents only artists and folks in that vein (I count in the 'vein' part as I support the artists through production and songwritting)...he immediately killed several standard clauses from my last few contracts and the lable didn't blink an eye. We modifed several others and included a few of our own (that needed some negotiation...luckily it was just papers being passed back and forth for a week).

Anyone that knows anything about the industry knows this is common practice. Any idiot that signs any piece of paper without someone there that is impartial (or more preferably only profits if you profit) deserves the bullshit they have signed.

As a member of the industry, I have no pitty for idiots that don't think they have a choice and are willing to sell their soul to get what they want. These kids effectly sell the rights to all their future profits in the hopes of fame. They soon learn you can't live off of fame alone and then bitch that the big bad record company screwed them over. I know several not so successful (in terms of sales) artists that live a LOT better than the kids I have to put up with because they had better representation -- they didn't get their albums whored like a motherfucker, but in the end, as its a living they were after and not fame and glory, they do well.

So fuck anyone that says otherwise...and fuck idiots like DownHill Battle who couldn't get a deal if their life depended on it because they never had the talent.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[smcn]

"Whatever happened to good, hard, honest work?"

On that note, since I've got karma to burn, whatever happened to music being considered an art form instead of just another trendy career choice?

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[gregmac]

Instead of writing crappy music and trying to be superstars by selling their souls to the record company, maybe they could try writing honest music and making an honest living off it.

Make sure you don't confuse producers with artists. A lot of acts, particularly pop music where there is just a single singer and no 'band' per-se, is written by a producer or a song writer employed by a major label (often being told "we need a nice fun summer hit song"). The producers then decide who they should get from their talent pool to sing it (ie: who will make it a hit, who hasn't released something in a while, who looks best in the video - which likely is already written - for this song).

These sorts of artists are basically scouted by the industry, and turned into stars. How is someone off the street, who would normally never make it anywhere, going to turn down an offer to become a big star and make a crapload more money than they're making now at mcdonalds?

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[sadler121]

Que the internet and P2P.

Sure the RIAA may control the airwaves, but (for the moment), they don't control the Internet. If a band wanted to get noticed nationaly all they would have to do is set up a web site, Bit Torrent there album, and let word of mouth do the rest, by spreading around flyers with the bands web site at every gig/concert.

The band would continue on locally, earning money from gigs/concerts, and as word spread around the Internet, more and more people would show up at gigs, and concerts, making more money for the band, evetually they would have a good cash base to do a tour and earn even more money that way.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Dizzle]

That doesn't change the fact that they are RIAA affiliated, making them at least in part an "RIAA label".

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[proj_2501]

Plenty of the composers still touted as musical geniuses today earned their money by composing ditties for kings.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[bad-badtz-maru]

At first I thought your sig was a goatse joke..

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Total_Wimp]

Actually, I agree with you.... once the infrastructure is in place. Right now internet radio quality is abysmal and only a tiny number of people can get it in their car. Once those problems are fixed, it'll be a whole new world.

The reason the major lables control the airwaves now is because of the limited supply of radio stations. The internet promises to one day fix that but right now it can only compete on an unlevel playing field.

TW

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Pxtl]

Yeah - I never understand how people can discuss that music in any creative context. How is it even an issue whether you like Avril as a musician or not? She's a friggin instrument in the producer's inventory, only marginally more important than the bass guitar.

The whole "pop stars" reality TV phenominon made it even more transparent, and people still don't care. At least the corporate shill bands of the '90s were involved in the writing process (even if half of the harmonizing and mixing was done by producers).

All I ask is that the songs be associated with the person who made the music, not some ditzy little flake who teens want to fuck.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[CommieOverlord]

Pink Floyd reference. "Have a Cigar" from 1975/6's "Wish You Here".

Roger Waters (bassist, main song writer) has an anti-music establishment issue (despite being one of the biggest acts in rock history and making a bazillion dollars out of it)

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[dr.badass]

Whatever happened to good, hard, honest work?

It got outsourced.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[atomly]

Steve Albini wrote an excellent article in The Baffler about this very thing a few years back that I still make all of my musician friends read. It's called Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[Cobralisk]

Baloney. I can go downtown on any given night, pay a small cover at any number of a dozen or more bars, and get in to hear live music from local talent.

That's great. I love live local music. However, in many places across the country, there are two major requirements for this kind of access:

• You must live in a metropolitan area.
• You must be at least 21 years of age to enter a bar.

16-20 year olds in suburbia are a major market for music. Due to forces outside of their control, the major music exposure they get is in the form of MTV and radio. This is in large part the reason that for this age group those in control of broadcast media dominate the listening habits of our youth. Broadcast media is controlled by an oligopoly (ClearChannel, Infinity...) financed by another oligopoly (Sony, BMG...) to deliver heavily marketed homogenous consumer fluff music. Tie-in some major branding (Pepsi), and there's just too much money at stake to allow youth to make their own choices about what they listen to. How many times have you caught yourself remembering the lyrics to a song you hate because its always being played around you?

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[nfotxn]

If lables control the airwaves, how do you get the word out that you have a great band? Weblogs, mix CDs, word of mouth, p2ps and indie media are very important. Also some of the more influential radio stations programs and DJs like Morning Becomes Ecclectic on KCRW and John Peel on the BBC are not controlled. Likewise many artists on major labels still pursue artistically credible careers without having their music paid to play and still get the distribution. If a band wants to persue a huge, global pop star career.. well, there aren't many choices. However musicians can still lead very normal lives, make a good income and stay artistically credible today too. The idea of major label control only works in the pop sphere. Right now we are in pop times but if the modern history of music tells us anything this will all come to pass soon. As hip-pop and slock-pop hits disco levels of excess all it will take is one watershed even like the Disco Demolition Night before people start printing their Avirl/Eminem/Britney Sucks t-shirts on cafepress. We actually have more choices than ever. Awareness of the greater world of music is what brings on this discussion. The major label hegemony conspiracy is always taken out of historical context.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[iminplaya]

If a band wanted to get noticed nationaly all they would have to do is set up a web site, Bit Torrent there album...

This is precisely what the RIAA is trying to prevent...by vilifying P2P and their attempts to have it banned. All this talk about piracy and kiddie porn is just a "wag the dog" thing. They're trying to outlaw self distribution.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[b0r0din]

It's never as easy as that.

First off, there are successful bands who never got airtime on MTV. There are very few of them, however, and most of them are still under big labels, like Phish.

Secondly, enough distribution and advertising to become a hot item without the major labels in our current culture is near impossible due to several things:

1) So-called Independants which are basically the new payola. You can't get on the radio because it's all owned by Clear Channel, hence why you hear the same 15 songs being played on every radio station. Even classic rock has sold out so you only hear like 5 bands on classic rock stations nowadays. Zeppelin, Aerosmith, AC/DC and two others.

2) An absolute stranglehold on the lawmaking institution due to heavy political lobbying.

3) Media conglomeration. You can't be on MTV or VH1 (owned by the same HUGE conglomerate) without a major label behind you. You can't get nominated for a Grammy without one. You can have a great music video and they still wouldn't distribute it.

You also can't get on the cover of Rolling Stone or any major magazine, or even be a blurb in there, without someone covering you. Rolling Stone is NOT an independant media company. See media conglomerate. And they won't cover you unless you're up and coming AND on a major label.

4) Internet media conglomeration. Let's face it, you could search around on the internet but you won't find any concensus about up and coming bands except on those websites which are already owned by big media.

Face it, music industries have a verticle stranglehold on distribution because they own all forms of media and communication. Media conglomeration is a HUGE issue right now but one no one will talk about, and with politicians in their pockets it's useless. Notice how much the media wants you to believe there are only two possible parties, when there should be many more than that in this country. It's bread and circuses for the masses, let's face it. You can like indie bands but don't expect them to be popular without selling out to the man, which they'll be happy to do as most full-time bands can barely afford rent.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[geekee]

"Secondly, enough distribution and advertising to become a hot item without the major labels in our current culture is near impossible due to several things:"

This is not true. A large number of artists start out on small independent labels, and then sign on to one of the big 5 as their popoularity increases and they want more exposure. REM is one example I can think of off-hand. They used to be on IRS, then they moved to Warner Bros.

"2) An absolute stranglehold on the lawmaking institution due to heavy political lobbying."

When it's considered a crime for a label to pay for a radio station to play their song, that's hardly a stranglehold on politiicans. It seems more like a first amendment violation, and certainly an attack on free trade.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[ePhil_One]

They bribe the artist to sign away their rights with what are likely unneeded signing bonuses (unneeded in the sence that most bands would sign if a major record label said they would like to publish their songs). Most folks don't read and understand the finance contracts when they buy a car, why would anybody think a typical unsigned musician reads and understands a record contract that yesterday he would have paid you to get when a talent scout waives tens of thousands of dollars at him to sign on the dotted line. Its not like an NFL draft, where you have dozens of folks eager to sign you up. Tell that talent scout "You need to amend this part, where its gives you ownership of my soul" and you have to be prepared for him to walk away, after he finishes that good belly laugh.

Re:Record labels are still up to their old tricks

[NanoGator]

" Right now internet radio quality is abysmal..."

It is? Have you been checking it out in the last 2 years?

Yay, feed the sheep!

[garcia]

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.

Re:Yay, feed the sheep!

[gl4ss]

tells enough about the industry of 'making' a hit, rather than a hit being a hit because it's good.

when they use money to make hits.. I fail to see why I should give them money for that.

ba ba baaaaaaa.

Re:Yay, feed the sheep!

[ooby]

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. When a song is played every hour for days at a time, people tend to think the song is played out. That probably hurts the sales of the song in the long run, IMHO. If I hear the song over and over, I'm not going to buy the album and here it some more. Of course, you could easily optimize via calculas the amount of "advertising" to do to increase the charts if you knew the functional relationship between the amount of times "advertised"/unit time and the record sales/unit time.

Re:Yay, feed the sheep!

[tsg]

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.

Well, the sheep have to be willing to be led. People who purchase music solely because it is popular deserve what they get.

Re:Yay, feed the sheep!

[JadeNB]

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.

Aside from the obvious automatic `rich corporations = evil', I can't seem to get as outraged about this issue as apparently I should. I especially can't manage to get worked up about the point raised in the parent post -- what ill consequences will follow if people believe a song is more popular than it is? Maybe they'll buy crap, but if they're basing their music-buying decisions solely on what's popular (legitimately or otherwise) they would have bought crap anyway.

Re:Yay, feed the sheep!

[blueskies]

Well, people's buying habits don't matter too much unless your part of the under 18 crowd. Read what Crosby has to say about the music industry (the whole article is a good read):

"When was the last time you went to the record store? Ah-hah! That's, that's how it works, buddy. It's the kids go to the record store, and the kids are -- I was going to say "stupid," but they're not. They're just ignorant. And many of them will evolve, you know, from really dumb stuff, because the dumb music is sort of like a joke that's only funny once. And you can only go to a Justin Timberlake concert once. You go a second time, you see the same thing -- maybe they got new fireworks, but Justin ain't got nothing new to say, okay?

And, so, then you start to evolve up....But somewhere in there, you wind up loving music, and you evolve up to a level where you go after somebody who can really do it..."

Re:Yay, feed the sheep!

[Yewbert]

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.

Here's a point I was babbling about in another thread: I sense that more and more people are coming around to the idea that they don't give a sh1t what's "popular" anymore. When that stance sinks in (and when the "listening audience" becomes collectivelly sophisti-muh-cated enough to know how to find stuff they DO like), this kind of 'advertising' mechanism will become unsustainable, unprofitable, and help take down the RIAA-pwn3d part of the industry, hallelujah and amen.

And, a big thumbs-up to your links to Furthurnet and SharingtheGroove - and might I throw in a BitTorrent here and a thankewe to artists everywhere who allow taping and trading?

Does anyone still listen to radio?

[Brian Knotts]

Seriously...who listens to the rubbish that passes for (music) radio these days?

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[mrwonton]

Agreed. Music radio sucks. If I want music, I'll listen to what I want when I want it with my own music collection. As a news outlet, radio stations such as NPR are still great sources for news, especially on the move... At least NPR hasn't been fawning over Reagan 24/7 for the last few days.

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do - to the tune of indie stations put forth by the local university, as well as the classic rock stations.

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[a whoabot]

I hear it at work(I'm a student working at a fast food place for my summer job, at least for now).

The restaurant has a policy of having it only on an available "pop" station. When I work an 8 hour day shift I'll hear the same "song" 3 times sometimes. To be naive: this is a radio station that apparently doesn't even have enough music to fill up an 8 hour spot, so they have to repeat songs. I've got enough casettes just in my car to fill up a four day spot, and I'm not a radio station. And I'd guarantee I'd actually play something that, at least, resembled music.

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[dintendo]

Yes, some people still do. I run a show out of the local university here, and we've plenty of listeners, because we a) make our own playlists and our own decisions, b) actually consider playing what people want to hear, and c) generally play nothing but good music--no corporate bullshit.

I do agree with your sentiments to some extent that before I discovered indie/nonprofit radio stations such as my own and a few under the Pacifica banner, I hated all radio and preferred the noise of my car engine to anything they were playing over the airwaves.

But once you've started listening to public radio, my friends, you'll never look back.

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[L. VeGas]

Seriously...who listens to the rubbish that passes for (music) radio these days?

Well excuse me, Captain Pompousolous. No, of course none of the uber Slashdot readers would ever actually listen to RADIO.

If you're not streaming indie og's on your 802.11g network to your home-built audio appliance, well, you're just a SHEEP. baaa baa baa

As a matter of fact, I feel so strongly about this, I'm going to refuse to actually get a life, and instead will spend all day in my mom's basement. That will show those record companies.

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[mrwonton]

I love liberal propaganda you insensative clod!

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[tverbeek]

I still listen to radio. For the past decade and a half, my tuner has alternated between a nearby NPR/PRI afilliate and our local community radio station. The latter features music selected by volunteer programmers from an eclectic library of folk, blues, jazz, rock, and world beat; no commercials (just brief "day sponsor" announcements read a dozen times over the course of the day, and a semi-annual pledge drive); and a rule against repeating any track that's been played in the last few days. I'm pretty out of touch with what's being pushed on commercial radio these days (I have no idea who this Avril person mentioned in the article is), but I don't miss it one bit.

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[PCM2]

I've got enough casettes just in my car to fill up a four day spot

What's a cassette?

Re:Does anyone still listen to radio?

[waynelorentz]

Seriously...who listens to the rubbish that passes for (music) radio these days?

What kind of stupid question is that? Millions of people listen to radio, or the radio companies wouldn't spend billions creating, buying, and running radio stations. Duh.

Maybe you're overcompensating for your inferiority complex. Or maybe you don't have a local station you like. One's perception of the quality of radio depends on two things -- where you live, and what you like. You sound like some wanna-be uber geek who's more interested in pretending to have superior tastes to the masses while streaming his 1337 P2P 256K OGGS.

I like classical and jazz music. Fortunately, I happen to live in Chicago where there is a great jazz station (not one of those "smooth jazz" jukeboxes), and a pretty good classical station, plus assorted college stations that occasionally play classical.

I don't have the time, money, space, or inclination to buy every jazz or classical CD out there. So I listen to the radio. They're the DJs, so I let them do their jobs.

Because the stations in whatever town you live in don't suit your exact taste doesn't mean all radio is bad. Just because something is the majority of your experience, doesn't mean it's the experience of the majority.

Why is this a problem

[jrj102]

I'm sure this will get modded down as flamebait... but isn't this just an effective form of advertisement for the record or digital download? If the Mattress Superstore down the street can buy ad time on the radio, why not record labels? 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 understand why traditional payola is verbotten, but this seems like a legitimate ad placement. Indeed, given how inexpensive radio advertising is at the local level (outside of drive time) I'm surprised small local bands haven't already grabbed onto this idea.

I know the RIAA and such is evil, but come on... as my grandfather used to say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Re:Why is this a problem

[jrj102]

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.

Re:Why is this a problem

[garcia]

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.

Re:Why is this a problem

[joe52]

What I don't understand is why Billboard would count a paid advertisement as a spin for the purposes of producing their charts.

It's one thing to pay for advertising so that people will hear a new song, it's another thing altogether if those "ads" can influence the numbers in the Billboard charts.

Re:Why is this a problem

[eggoeater]

Your argument makes sense on the surface, but what doesn't make sense is the amount of money they're putting into a sales model that's 50 years old. If they had half a brain, they'd play a snipit on the radio (15 secs is bound to be much cheaper than 3 minutes) and entice the listener to visit their web site and download the whole song for 50 cents... or three for a dollar.

Re:Why is this a problem

[jrj102]

Fair enough... but do you understand how cheap radio ads are during off-peak hours? We're talking like $5-10 per minute or less.

Heck... you can even get ads played on major cable networks-- CNN, Spike, etc. during off hours for prices in the $5 range...

Here's an article about it.

Re:Why is this a problem

[generica1]

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.

Music Infomercial

[acomj]

I see a lot of this on TV. Shows with audiences and amazing products that will change your life. Its one big paid advertisement.

How is this any different? Except they have to pay for a lot of time (2-3 minutes) of ad time.

Not new

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way this is new. I have a very small record label and this is something we've been talking about and doing for quite some time now.

Obligatory UHF quote

[Throtex]

"You think I care about the pea-brained yokels of this town. I can't stand those sniveling maggots! They make me want to puke. But there is one good thing about broadcasting to a town full of mindless sheep: I always know I've got them exactly where I want them."
- R.J. Fletcher, "UHF"

Re:Obligatory UHF quote

[Altus]

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.

Re:Obligatory UHF quote

[Frizzle Fry]

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.

Wouldn't you think...

[FluffyG]

that if someone has to pay a radio station to play a song, then chances are that the song is not that good?

usually a song sells itself to people and any good song shouldn't have to pay to be played.. if the listeners want to hear it, they will play it but they would be playing it for the wrong reasons if paid.

Is this Article saying...

[funkdid]

that Record Companies can skirt their way around the Law?

Hmmm interesting. We should keep an eye on these fellows. With this kind of business practice there's no telling what they might try. ~sarcasm~

The law is weird.

[rice_burners_suck]

This is an interesting legal story. I suppose this kind of policy is similar to the one that allows you to place an article in a magazine, with the words, "paid advertisement," or something similar at the top of each page.

It seems kind of strange that the law should require any of this. If you want to charge for airtime on your radio station, you should be able to. And if nobody wants to pay you, then tough Schitt.

Re:The law is weird.

[Moofie]

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.

Re:The law is weird.

[happyfrogcow]

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.

Re:The law is weird.

[alphaseven]

If you want to charge for airtime on your radio station, you should be able to. And if nobody wants to pay you, then tough Schitt.

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.

That's got to be expensive!

[hartba]

With 30 seconds of air time costing a few hundred dollars on even the smaller radio stations, I wonder how much it costs to play a three minute song? I don't see how it really matters in the scheme of things though. We're already inundated with this crap as it is. Why someone would want to pay to have it played when so many stations are paying royalties to play it on their own? Someone wake me up when a decent radio station hits the air. Then maybe I'll care if someone is getting payola.

Re:That's got to be expensive!

[harlows_monkeys]

With 30 seconds of air time costing a few hundred dollars on even the smaller radio stations, I wonder how much it costs to play a three minute song?

6 * a few hundred dollars?

How is this any different than P2P?

[Mz6]

They want us to listen to this music. However, we still have to make up our own minds about whether we like it enough to buy the entire album or not. Wouldn't the record labels perhaps save their advertising dollars by promoting a special download of Avril's song somewhere? Instead we get to have this song shoved to our, already bleeding, ears.

So what's the problem?

[raehl]

Lots of companies buy advertising to convince people to buy stuff they don't need. Why can't record companies do it?

And this is bad how?

[Rorschach1]

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?

Re:And this is bad how?

[tverbeek]

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.

Far more likely they'd just gravitate to an entirely pay-for-play model. Especially when the people paying the station's bills (the purveyors of the aforementioned mass-market crap) start to complain about the free airtime the station is giving to their competitors.

Why is this bad?

[TheFlyingGoat]

I don't mean this as flamebait... I guess I just don't understand why paying for airtime is disallowed to begin with. I think the RIAA has a lot of underhanded tactics, and skirting laws is yet another one, but I don't know why there's a law to begin with. Seems like we all love to champion open competition and free markets as long as people stay within the rules, why is paying a radio station to play music any different? Perhaps I just need a lesson in radio economics. :/

Re:Why is this bad?

[Black Jack Hyde]

The practice of paying for play insures that only songs with cash behind them ever get onto a radio playlist. If you've ever been to a club and had a band blast you off your feet with a great song, and they don't have a Sony behind them with wads of cash, you can forget about ever hearing them on the radio.

Now, this wouldn't be too horrible if the well-financed record companies showed a bit more skill with regards to A&R. They don't. You're going to get Velvet Revolver's "Slither" shoved into your earholes over and over until you decide to go out and buy 'Contraband'; you will then find that "Slither" is the only good song on the CD and you just paid $14 for a single and a bunch of B-sides.

(I made this mistake when Jane's Addiction released "Strays" and told myself that there'd be a lot of songs like 'Just Because' on the CD. Bye bye $14.)

I understand where you're going with regards to open competition. But in the music industry there is no real competition beyond the megacorp labels. I'm sure there are A&R people who "get it" but can't get certain bands into a given label's fold no matter how hard they try.

Re:Why is this bad?

[jfengel]

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.

Re:Why is this bad?

[Secrity]

The FCC rules regarding payola started as a reaction to cheating on TV gameshows. There was a big scandal in 1958 because many of the hugely popular TV quiz shows were rigged. One big factor was that, in the minds of many people at the time, is that quiz shows were a type of gambling and were therefore 'dirty'. The US Supreme court had just four years earlier removed TV quiz shows from the category of gambling. The draconian FCC rules that were designed to prevent TV gameshow cheating also got applied to radio airplay. Have you ever wondered why some TV shows say something to the effect that somebody gave promotional consideration (they either paid or provided merchandise in exchange for mention on the show), when it is perfectly obvious that they must have given them something for the on-air plugs? The same FCC rules apply to both TV and radio. Illegal payola is essentially the giving of money or merchandise in exchange for airtime if the giving of the money or merchandise is not disclosed. TV shows can get into trouble for "product placement" items if there is no mention of the product being provided and the items are not returned. This is the reason that some older TV shows have a notice saying who provided the cars used on the show, as the cars were provided by the manufacturer and they were not returned. This is also part of the reason that some TV shows say who provided the clothing worn by the actors.

Re:Why is this bad?

[AB3A]

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.

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.

is your favorite band actually the band?

[h0mer]

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.

So can I offer it up for download to 1 million...

[Bif Powell]

...of my close friends if I name it "Metallica - One - By Geffen records.mp3"?

How about playing it as an ad to myself

[mosabua]

Doesnt that mean I could play any recordings as an ad to myself? And it would be totally legal to play without paying for the stream or whereever the file comes from?

Just gotta hear that ad again ;-)

Monopoly reinforcement that is what.

[guidryp]

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.

I've heard of this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard about this strategy being used a year or two ago, and if I remember it actually hurt the sales.. the radio station insisted on the full 'any opinions expressed in this piece are not nesecerily blah blah blah....' and the song wasn't that great to begin with, so it managed to drive people from buying their album....

Reece,

Billboard Criteria

[Lechter]

So, I'm still wondering: if the "song" is really an "advertisement" for the purposes of regulation, why does it count towards a billboard rating?

And if adds do count, why isn't Moby the top rated artist of all time (by virtue of his popularity on Madison Ave.)?

Legalize Payola!

[Badam]

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 crying that the purity of Big Corporate Music has been betrayed.

Why I switched to Sirius almost two years ago!

[neowolf]

No commercials (except for promoting their own stuff sometimes- like "Check out stream xxx for this!" type stuff), and as far as I can tell- no pay for play. Lots of variety, lots of station choices, no commercials, I can listen to the same station all across the country (I do a couple big road-trips a year). I love satellite radio! I can't stand the Clear Channel-ish crap that local radio in Denver (and most other major cities) has become.

Re:Why I switched to Sirius almost two years ago!

[jpmkm]

oooh sirius has xxx streams? I just might have to subscribe now.

Shooting yourself in the foot

[c.r.o.c.o]

I used to listen to the FM music radio stations all the time about 10-15 years ago, when I was a kid. I never listened to the mainstream genres of the day, being more interested in 60s and 70s rock, blues, jazz. It was bad enough that the playlists seemed to only get smaller and the number of commercials were increasing, but you could still hear great songs.

Now I can't remember when it was the last time I did that. Even in my car, I only listen to the AM news stations, and even that mostly for the traffic reports (living in Toronto it's suicide not to, you can get stuck for hours on the 401 if you're not aware of accidents). With the consolidation under ClearChannel and Standard Radio, sometimes I can't even tell the difference between stations, they're ALL playing the same music more or less.

Now that the RIAA, and probably the CRIA (the RIAA's Canadian offspring) soon, are paying to have the same song played constantly, they have pretty much guaranteed I will never listen to music on the radio again.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

New world of music...

[Infernon]

First off, everything that the labels are doing is perfectly legal and its up to the a. radio station to make the decision or b. the consumer to make the decision.
While there are very few of us that don't prefer radio today, there are those that are perfectly happy listening to the same song over and over again regardless of how good it is.
I think that's one of the key items. The norm is now 'created' by those with the money to influence it. If it's playing on the radio 90 percent of the time, it must be popular. Right? There's almost nothing in the way of choice of genre, but then again, I suppose there never was. Aren't we supposed to be moving forward?
These are just my views anyway...
One thing that holds true is that playing the same song over and over again, regardless of how good it is, destroys it -- and it's seems to be common practice.
Personally, I think that very little music today shows anything in the way of innovation or talent. There are a handful of artists that I enjoy listening too, but I'm happy to be able to put whatever I want into my CD player and listen to it. When my fiance tells me that she wants to listen to the radio instead, I CRINGE.
In the end, it's up to the sheep and we're all subjected to what they'll follow, so buckle up:)

For all you do...

[zakezuke]

this Bud's(TM) for you. -Anheuser-Busch St. Louis Missouri

I'm not sharing a music file...

[Dave21212]

I'm not sharing a music file... I'm sharing a commercial !

Okay, Googled it, can't find the law, but I did find several interesting sites with commercials !

Anyone know the relevant laws ??? (Yeah, IANAFL).

seems to me that we've got it all wrong

[slew]

Instead of fighting the music labels, perhaps what people should lobby billboard magazine to set up an anonymous mp3 download tracker for each "official" mp3 version of a specific song.

Then the labels would then have an incentive for more people to download and listen to a specific "official" version of a song so that their rating points would go higher. This would likely put the appropriate down-pressure on the price of that "official" tagged version of a song (maybe even inspire "free-download" days)...

Note that this is all slightly tongue-in-cheek since the privacy experts will likely frown on this and probably the only reason for stunts like this (and other like prince giving away free cds at concerts) is that someone, somewhere has a weird performance bonus clause written a contract that makes this profitable for them, but of course probably less money from the person on the other side of the contract.

The record business is a pretty low-down business with all sorts of wacky contracts people use to screw each other out of the every shrinking money pie. I doubt it is possible to extrapolate the next wierd behavior before the contract people catch up to it...

Its all a hook

[t_allardyce]

Most of the music these days is really just a hook, listen to it a few times and you'll want to keep listening, you dont give a flying fuck for the lyrics, singer or anything else about the song, the verse is just filler until you get to the catchy chorus, the melody is reused and repeated (copy and paste). No-one gives a crap about the lyrics of some queen bitch or boy-band they are as cliche to the point where you can most of the time guess the end of each line. The singers sound exactly the same in each of their categories and they all share in their inflated egos about doing something special. Its all about making money, and I just have nothing to do with it, if i get hooked on a song, theres no chance in fuck that im actually going to go and pay for it.

Re:I might care

[Paulrothrock]

Radio? Isn't that what WiFi, Bluetooth, and GSM use? You can listen to music for free over it? How come nobody told me???

does that then mean that ...

[gustavoguevara]

I can change the filename of the song to
"Avril Lavigne's Don't Tell Me, presented by Arista Records.mp3"
and I instantly have a legal mp3??

I LOVE THIS SONG - a paraphrase

[MacFury]

I have to listen to this damn song a couple of times a day at work. For those of you lucky enough not to have heard it...the lyrics go something like this:

You take me out and pay for it
I tell you things you're gonna get
When it comes time to screw
I say not with you!
I can lie take your money and cheat
But don't treat me like a piece of meat!
Don't tell me what to do!
I'm going to go have sex with your abusive friend in a week or two.

Music/Radio industry corrupt.

[gekkotron]

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.

Legalize Payola!

[Badam]

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.

Free Advertising?

[polyp2000]

Okay, fair dinkum RIAA, I will give you free advertising; In fact you dont even have to supply me with tunes; Ill rip them myself and play them to my friends; Hey maybe since Im advertising your tunes for free, maybe you could offset the cost by reducing the price of CDs...

nick ...

This is bad because why ?

[Jodka]

How is it unjust that promoters pay broadcasters to play particular tunes?

According to prevailing /. 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 ?

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.

Re:This is bad because why ?

[nitemayr]

The problem comes in when this comes from a conglomerate such as Clear channel, who, in some smaller markets is really the only choice in radio...there is your "why this is bad" It's not he concept of pay to play it is the fact that using this concept the choice is no longer there it's listen to this or listen to nothing, and that's not really a choice.

Re:This is bad because why ?

[msblack]

A problem with this line of reasoning is that assumes the free market should determine all outcomes. Corporoate wealth at the expense of social cause. Unfortunately, this is often a poor way to determine policy because only those with resources will benefit. The airwaves are a public resource, not the private property of Clear Channel or Viacom, et. al. As such, the airwaves should reflect minority opinions and give airtime for those without the resources to buy all the airtime.

Re:This is bad because why ?

[nightsweat]

The radio station is using public airwaves to do this. As part of the contract between the public and broadcast interests, a company is allowed to use the public airwaves in a manner deemed suitable by the people as expressed by the laws of the land and the rules of the agency regulating those airwaves. We've decided as a country that payola is bad, so it's bad.

No one cares what you broadcast on your home stereo(well, maybe the RIAA), but when you use our airwaves, you play by our rules.

Re:This is bad because why ?

[nitemayr]

Sheesh, It's not the lack of outlets, it's the lack of variety. Of course they are entitled to it, they are not guarenteed it, you dolt. You are entitled to eventualy own a car and a house, but if you don't leave your house and get a job or you know, inherit, they you won't get one. I'm not asking for the entertainment fairy to visit each and every community in the US of A, but I am asking the Government to prevent any one body, who is not a licensed broadcaster, from buying X percentage of airtime on a given outlet. (Ryan Seacrest can only go so many places at once sigh

Licensed broadcasters can make said decisions, but it seems to me that the content of said ads should conform to advertising rules.

Now you're thinking, but what about all of those infomercials, fatty? Yeah, you got me. I'm not sure what to say about that. Except, I'm glad to be Canadian, where we have Canadian content rules that guarentee me some form of Candian Entertainment each hour. Yay Canada!

As it happens, you do seem to want to regulate what people hear ayway, or at least your FCC does.

Given the text of the article, it seems possible that a given concern, say, I dunno, maybe Maggie Thatcher got herself the three dollars it costs to buy 24 hours of air time in Barrow. Stick with me here this gets good. Then, those guys who are forced, through lack of bandwidth/cash to listen to the radio for entertainment (the fricking horror) and they are then subsequently forced to listen to the same bilious mouth that spawned your intellect. You can see where things would rapidly go downhill for good old Barrow. I mean imagine it:

"is that stupid c*#t still on the air?"
"yeah, but she paid for it so it is oh kay"
"Wanna go amuse ourselves with the locals again?"
"Sure"

Yes, they do in fact fail to capitalize their sentences, true.

You can see the potential problems for poor old Barrow now, huh? No? You live in Barow you say? No wonder the moose look worried (I've seen the Moose out there, take that as a compliment)

(Hey, I'm not looking to raise the level of debate. I just wanna bring it down to a size small enough that I can drag it into the toilet and give it a swirly)

And if you have read this far and didn't at least smile, I failed and concede defeat...ah me

Come on people

[nwbvt]

Listening to you people one would think that record labels support spending money just to get their songs played on the radio. The fact of the matter is that this is a practice pushed by the big bad radio stations in order to get money, not by the big bad record labels to lose money. The labels have even launched challenges against payola. Believe it or not, they prefer to get their songs played for free.

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).

Why is it...

[gillbates]

Why is it that the RIAA will pay a radio station $60,000 to play their songs, and then turn around and sue a 12 year old girl for effectively "rebroadcasting" their advertisement?

So, fans get sued by the RIAA for downloading the same music the RIAA paid a radio station to broadcast. How can one be piracy, but not the other? After all, why would I buy the CD if the radio plays it all the time? Doesn't it occur to the RIAA that music fans have no need to buy the CD if the radio station is always playing a particular artist's music?

I'm kind of curious as if there are any slashdotters brave enough to distribute mp3's of these "commercials" (in their entirety, of course...) and then send the RIAA and invoice for every file downloaded...

Re:Why is it...

[faust2097]

"Doesn't it occur to the RIAA that music fans have no need to buy the CD if the radio station is always playing a particular artist's music?"

Ah, you're going down the rabbit hole now. The major labels do this so that acts that they don't own don't get airplay. This is serious, calculated stuff going on. The labels keep just a broad enough variety of artists so that they're covered in all the main markets and demographics and then restrict what's played to only include their material. By limiting what is played on the air their consumers aren't even aware of non-major artists.

Quoth Anthony Pratkanis:

"You cannot control what people think. You can, however, control what they think about."

Two things not to forget...

[abertoll]

(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.

A Viable Choice?

[SteveM]

Do artists have a viable choice?

Perhaps, see here for Robert Fripp's solution.

SteveM

I don't get what's wrong with it!

[PCM2]

This seems to be just one more underhanded tactic being utilized by the record labels these days.

Jesus -- damned if they do and damned if they don't. The number 1 complaint I hear from musicians who sign to small labels is that the label did nothing to promote their music. Here's a label that's spending $60,000 to get a song on the air. What's wrong with that? Seems like that's one label that's doing its job. Even if it ultimately does get charged back to the artist, like some other posters are complaining about, that's an album that's going to net millions of dollars of sales -- and, if you buy the Slashdot line that all music you hear on the radio is crap, I guess we have the marketing to thank for every single last one of those dollars. If I were the artist, I wouldn't call that $60,000 that's charged to me a ripoff, I'd call it a pretty good investment.

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.)

Why not cut out the middleman?

[Atario]

Why don't the labels simply buy (or create) radio stations for themselves? Then they could skip the ad-placement phase and cut right to the playing of stuff they want to push.

Come to think of it, why not buy (or create) record stores too?

How about venues for concerts?

Are there some sort of laws against record labels owning radio stations/record stores/performance venues?

I mean, c'mon, if you're going to tell people what to like and then charge them to get it, do it right.

Payola Exists Anyway

[The Excluded Middle]

While direct payola was made illegal quite a long time ago, it still exists. This is probably not a shock for the more jaded people here. But the extent that it is implemented might be shocking to some that are not in music.

In fact, nothing gets on commercial radio without being paid for. The only exceptions are college radio, and specialty shows like Dr. Demento and local music shows (such as local Anaestetic on WXRT in Chicago).

How does it work if it's illegal? It's actually very simple. Each radio station is locked in with an "Independent Promoter" who helps the labels get their songs played on the radio. The IPs, as they're called in the industry, are also not supposed to pay for songs to be played, but they do anyway, under the table. Also promotions such as vacations and other items end up going to Radio CEOs rather than listeners. The IPs are more like a toll authority for each station. Often, they make exclusive contracts with stations so that they are the sole IP for a particular station. Since they're "Independent" the law does not take them into account.

This is well documented in the industry, and I'd recommend reading Pay For Play if you're interested in the topic.

I learned this from a lot of research. I am in an independent band, and so when we made our first album, I researched this to find out how to get on Commercial radio. I was very surprised to find out the truth. I have a collection of links on our website if you are interested in more articles on this topic.

By the way, as a musician, I'd rather that they abolish the laws on Payola. I want the payments to be on the table, rather than under it. After all, companies pay to get their items on shelves of grocery stores and consumer stores like Best Buy. Is it so shocking that radio is any different? There is too much money bet on bands to succeed that there would be any doubt that airtime is paid for. IPs are an unintended, legislated middleman. They serve no legitimate purpose, and in fact, make it even more expensive to get played on the radio. Let me be specific: If my band's music somehow got played on a radio station, the IP's would bill my band. If we didn't pay, they'd rip it from the playlist. IP's are the enemies of good music, and radio, and I want the artificial legislation that created them to be abolished.

This has been going on for years

[AssFace]

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.

Of Course

[copponex]

It costs $2,000 to buy a computer and eight input interface with software to make a demo record. You can buy 1,000 CDs with color labels and jewel cases for about $950. One of the best mastering engineers in the world, Rodney Mills, can be hired for $10 per song minute.

+$2,000
+$0,950
+$0,500
-------
$3,450

This is, of course, assuming you already have instruments and a couple of mics. My guess is that most of the bands who have no viable option also have no viable talent without PR and good photography.

Re:Of Course

[king-manic]

And you'll make amazing music no one will ever hear.

A distributor isnt' about recording, it's about promoting and "distibuting".

Re:Of Course

[Anonymous Coward]

"My guess is that most of the bands who have no viable option also have no viable talent without PR and good photography."

OK so they have a CD. Now try getting it played by a radio station DJ. Most likely response is "Sorry I get tons of CD's, many with label backing and free t-shirts too." OR worse still "I loved your demo cd but the radio station I work for is owned by Clear Channle Communications and I could lose my job playing your stuff on air." Add in the fact that they have less choices of stations to choose from because of the segmentation of stations and you have a lot of closed doors.

Traditional radio is dying anyways and XM is even harder to get on. So you need live gigs and video to really set yourself above the fierce competition and be heard. Sorry but your figures don't add up to sucess in that regard now a days.

It is slightly better here in Canada because of Candian content rules that promote Canadian artists. Also Clear Chan bozos are stiffled here by media ownership rules. Unfortunately the cream of this support goes to US companies who promote Canadian artists leaving little for the little guys that are just as talented if not more so. It really is sad that you now need lots of money just to be heard but it is a sad fact of life.

Disclaimer I have seen some really great acts fail only becuase thet did not have label support. After funding one group out of my own pocket, I have seen firsthand how hard it can be to get radio play.

Even harder still is getting an association between the band's songs and the band without extensive video and radio play. Getting gigs at good venus can also be very hard especially in prime times durring the summer. Finally cracking CD sales is a mountainous challenge that few independents can do let alone the amateurs.

Re:OK, so let's get Billboard's attention

[Alsee]

we do not condone special interests buying legislation

You're funny! :D

-

They do, don't they?

[EvilStein]

At least XM has "Playboy Radio" or something. heh.

That's kind of like listening to a golf game on the radio.

Lemmie Get this Right

[CamMac]

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

Re:Why is Payola BAD(tm)?????

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

F*** the record companies

[Electric Eye]

I hope they all DIE. As a fan of non-popular music, I can't stand what radio has become. Generic garbage to sell generic, untalented garbage. I never listen to anything other than the news and Howard Stern. A big fuck you to ALL corporate record execs and anyone in between.
PBS (Frontline) did a GREAT series abou;the status of the music biz today. Head over to pbs.org and take a look. Some great info.

Success isn't a right.

[copponex]

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.

Learn to sing

[jhines0042]

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.

Wait, hold the phone here, stop the presses

[DrugCheese]

You mean to tell me, that we made a law, and giant corperations stepped around it like a pile of shit in the road??

brainwashing?

[theCat]

Sort of OT, but here's something I never really understood; the notion that banging people over the head with something makes it...popular? What's up with that? If I'm listening to the radio, and the station is playing the same 32 songs all day, I change the station. If I start to hear a song all the time to the point were hearing the first 8 notes immediately fills my head with the entire song to the exclusion of all other thought, I change the station. That kind of over-n-over-n-over-n-WTF-again gets on my *nerves* man.

But I guess I actually *listen* to the radio when it is on and I take control of the thing when it annoys me. I also pay attention to other aspects of my environment, like who is walking behind me and strange sounds outside. It's an instinct for self preservation, a hold over from ancient times. Protects me from surprise, and I guess from being brainwashed as well, cuz none of my clothes have designer logos on them.

Peoples' instincts must be dulled to nothing. Their minds idling over like mill wheels, round and round grinding the same grist all day. Why does anyone put up with being treated like a mass of thoughtless pulp by hungry, tentacled corporations who want your money, and hence your labor?

Is this a hazard that comes with soft living? Or maybe 15,000 years of evolution without meaningful predators coming after you all the time? Or did TV and consumerism really, finally, destroy our minds?

NPR is part of the problem.

[KevinDumpsCore]

> 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.

The Residents did this in the early '80s

[funpaul]

They bought 40 one-minute chunks of commercial airtime on KFRC-AM radio in San Francisco, and played every track of their brilliant 1980 LP The Commercial Album.

"Commercial Radio" was the perfect format for The Commercial Album because every track is exactly 60 seconds long.

Viva The Residents!

They're replacing the ads with music...!?!?

[eathan13]

I may be alone in this, but I'd rather hear some crap new song than another McDonald's commercial...

BBC Radio

[Seft]

Of course, if you live in the UK, you can listen to the BBC. No adverts, so all you hear is what the DJs like. Not in the UK? Listen Online

Payola ?!?!

[Archfeld]

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 :(

Not every town has such an FM station

[tepples]

Where can one get something like KCRW in a moving vehicle outside of California? Has mobile Internet access progressed to that point?

OPEC?

[tepples]

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.

Radio can't play indepandants anymore

[mabhatter654]

Radio won't touch independants anymore.

First of all, independants don't pay them to play songs!
Second, the RIAA has made the legal requirements on stations so onereous that they ORDER DJs not to play "unauthorized" music...because the lawyers can't prove it's cleared by the RIAA and they would still have to pay royalties on it! but to who? get it?
Third, most radio stations are corperate owned nowdays...they play a strict playlist scientifically developed by corperate marketing to be properly balanced with political correctness, teen angst, and homogeny. DJs playing their own mix would make the company look bad!

New? They were doing it in '98.

[raindog2]

Only then it was Limp Bizkit. And it's not like the story got buried... here's a CNN article from 1998 referencing the practice:

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.