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'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.
jrjBlog
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.
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.
"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"
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.
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.
60 percent of the time, my comments are right everytime.
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.
Hmmm.
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?
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. :/
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
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.
...of my close friends if I name it "Metallica - One - By Geffen records.mp3"?
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.
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.
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:)
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).
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
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.
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??
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.
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...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Do artists have a viable choice?
Perhaps, see here for Robert Fripp's solution.
SteveM
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!
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.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
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.
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).
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.
> 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.
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!
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 ?