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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
Not more than you need, just more than you want
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
...of my close friends if I name it "Metallica - One - By Geffen records.mp3"?
I do - to the tune of indie stations put forth by the local university, as well as the classic rock stations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jrjBlog
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.
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.
Best Windows Freeware
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.
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.
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.
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
Breakfast served all day!
And you'll make amazing music no one will ever hear.
A distributor isnt' about recording, it's about promoting and "distibuting".
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
If you don't want to tour, and you don't want to promote your own band, you pay very dearly to have someone else do it, because it's a major gamble. I listen to local groups and smaller labels because they believe in their own craft enough to produce good work _and_ promote it.
You don't deserve anything because you're in a band, even if your sound is earth-shatteringly brilliant. Work for it or stop playing gigs. Pretty damn simple.