Slashdot Mirror
Major Broadcasters Hit With $12M Payola Fine
Gr8Apes writes with a just-breaking AP story reporting that the FCC is wrapping up a settlement in which four major broadcast companies would pay the government $12.5 million and provide 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime for independent record labels and local artists. The finish line is near after a 3-year investigation. An indie promoter is quoted: "It's absolutely the most historic agreement that the independent community has had with radio. Without a doubt, nothing else comes close."
... is how Clear Channel and the Big Five are going to neuter this so that they technically comply but don't mess up a good thing.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The fine was nothing, considering the scope of the industries involved. But the air-time for independent broadcasters should be a cool twist.
At the very least, it'll be fascinating to hear how the broadcasters will transition to the 'punishment' broadcasts...
"This is wacky bob and the fizz signing off - up next, it's a half-hour of something we don't want you to hear, and we don't get paid for. So, um, enjoy!"
Ryan Fenton
What about "music" nerds? How come it always has to be about "computer" nerds? Can't we be inclusive and support all the nerds of the world?
Large broadcast companies probably have paid a higher price in loss of listenership, as their tired, weary, and limited playlists have driven more and more people to alternatives such as iPods, MP3 players and satellite radio.
Sure, go ahead, fine them, order them to allocate time to new acts, that's a small loss they can see on their balance sheets in comparison to the difficult to calculate loss of listenership.
$12.5 million and provide 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime for independent record labels and local artists
A paltry $12.5? Isnt it great when a company gets fined less than it probably made by committing the offense. Its called a cost benefit analysis, basically if crime pays they commit the crime. 4,200 hours of independent/local music sounds good though. I wonder who gets to pick who gets the time.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Why aren't the Music Labels who are offering the payola being fined as well? If the police see a drug deal, both the buyer and the seller will be arrested. How is this any different?
Screw fining them. Revoke their broadcast licenses. The spectrum "belongs" to the public. They're granted exclusive use of little slices of the spectrum in exchange for playing by our rules (well, the FCC's rules, anyway). Break the rules, and your spectrum goes to somebody who will make better use of it.
You mean we may now actually have some musical variety on the airwaves?
I worked for a brief while in the music industry and can tell you that this won't mean a thing. The airtime that will be devoted to independent labels will get sucked up by independent imprints and offshoots that still very much bow to their corporate overlords. There are quite a few "independent" labels out there that are run by someone in the A&R department at a major label. Consider it their "hobby" record label. However, quite often they have agreements whereby the major label that the "independent label" owner works for has first rights to signing any bands that the "independent" label managed to dig up. Labels like this are just another cog in the machine, and I assure you this is where the majority of that airtime will be going...
This guy's the limit!
This is perhaps the most exciting news that I've heard in the past month, if not substantially longer, with regards to the media. It actually made me sit back and think "wow..." in near disbelief.
:)
Slashdot runs articles on the MPAA and RIAA all the time. I personally could not be happier that independent artists are going to get some mainstream airtime, and I hope it inspires a change in the way that people choose to consume content - perhaps learning the value in seeking out lesser known artists instead of spending their cash on whatever happens to be pushed through more commercialized channels.
One of the benefits of technology and the Internet is that they lessen the gap in quality of product (for lack of a better term) and exposure that can be achieved between enthusiasts and large well funded commercial entities. This is an excellent opportunity for the best of these artists to be recognized through alternate channels.
It is absolutely news for nerds. Best of luck to all those who benefit from the free airtime
Yes... 3 year investigation.
10 employees who get paid 100K each
is 3 million dollars over 3 years.
Plus air travel and other crap. Government spends a million just wiping its butt, thats just what happens with large entities that have no direct income for their actions.
Now, "Internet radio" is something else. They have to pay per play not only to the composers but to the record labels, and they pay handsomely. Of course, the artists still don't get anything but at least we're being protected from the horrors of radio over the Internet.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Let me get this straight. The recording companies are illegally paying off radio broadcast networks to get exposure for their music. At a time when the number of listeners to broadcast radio is in decline. At the same time, they're trying to kill off Internet radio, satellite radio, and trying to strong-arm their main on-line distributer - Apple. Oh, yeah - and don't forget lawsuits against their customers. Either the heads of marketing in the recording industry have large short positions in their own company, or else there's a serious need to start drug testing.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Some time ago, this was a valid remedy for substandard programming. The biggest reason being that FCC regulations prohibited an entity from owning more than one station in a market area. That has since changed. Now you have large broadcast conglomerates that own several stations in a market. Sure, they don't want to compete against themselves, so they typify each station with one of their "researched" genre formats (i.e. A.C./Top40, Country, Urban/Rap, Alternative, 70's/80's etc.).
Of course, each one of these formats are based upon listenership tuned in, on average, 20 minutes at a time. So what happens? They put a handful of "popular songs" into heavy rotation so that there's a good chance that it will play during some 20 minute window. And, of course if the research works in one market, then why not apply it to all of the conglomerate's markets. The result, any particular format is pretty much homogeneous across their span of coverage. Stations begin to lack individuality (outside of their personalities and callsign sweeper).
So what about the independents? Well, if they grow enough listenership in a market, they become ripe for a buyout by "big radio". One would think that new independent stations would come in to replace them, but you need to remember that "licenseable" spectrum is finite. At some point, there are no free channels left to assign, and this has already been the case for a long time in larger markets.
This is perhaps the most exciting news that I've heard in the past month
This is perhaps yet another example of the old boss being the same as the new boss.
So, we have media cartels that through payola, DMCA, and copyright do whatever they want, and now the government comes in and says. "We've been nice to you, now you have to pay some extra protection so something bad does not happen to you".
The media cartels are still there. Payola just got temporarily more expensive. DMCA is still here, and nothing is different.
I would much prefer if there was an actual free market. The entertainment business has gotten absolutely horrible, where entertainment is the lowest priority, and legislation and money is the priority today.
I remember when bands could fill up football stadiums in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. Today, its tough to sell out a 10,000 to 20,000 venue, and when that happens, its an older band playing their greatest hits from a decade or more ago.
All of this crap has stifled creativity. I don't think creativity is down in the human gene pool, I think the ability for creativity to come out is practically illegal.
Don't get too high on the hype. If the people I know are any indicator there are two types of music listeners, and one is about 10x more popular than the other:
Leaving generalities behind, I honestly think that people will not necessarily change what they like simply because a popular radio station has to play some alternative music. In fact, I think you'll find that people actually do prefer Britney Spears squealing out a couple of crappy songs to anything alternative in some cases. The truth is that for far too many people, music isn't music for music's sake. It's a means to a goal, it's an end in some form. They have a stake in it other than the enjoyment of it itself.
Every now and then you'll get a band like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin that can innovate and still remain popular, however, it's not usually the case. In most cases the public gets exactly what it craves: bland repeat crap from the same five artists because they can't wrap their brains around anything new or different. At least this public, this generation. Maybe I'm just too cynical and the people I hang around are dullards that don't appreciate different music. But it sure seems like that's the majority of people from my angle.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
I'm sure that the media conglomerates will also just use existing local band shows to satisfy some of the hours required by the settlement....
However,
Our local san Francisco CC station KITS (Live105) has one of those shows, but actually they are already a better station than most ('fighting for alternative rock' is their current slogan)
I think the SF Bay Area has more musical diversity than most places....
besides KITS we have KFOG (eclectic) and the college stations (the mighty KFJC, KSJS, KSCU and KSZU) and our weird, fringe broadcasters (KKUP, KALX, KPFA, KPFB).
indie rock, just as it's 80s predecessors college rock and punk in the 70s and underground music in the 60's has had a large impact on music in the past few years and as usual, the mainstream outlets have tried and will continue to fail to subvert and commoditize it because these movements thrive (esp like punk) by going against the mainstream. Kids will never (I hope) accept corporations telling them what is cool (except maybe apple).
Just because an indie label has a distribution deal with someone like sony/BMG doesn't mean that they are no longer indie...it works the same way in the indie film world.
-I'm just sayin'
Besides, these companies do not have an inherent right to broadcast at all. You, as an American, own the airwaves, NOT the broadcasters; they are using a public resource for private gain, and part of that deal is that they owe something to the public. Asking them to kindly not lie out of their teeth in order to enrich a few people's pockets doesn't seem like much to ask, eh?
Finally, I don't think you, as an American citizen, *need* to accept anything! As a citizen, aren't you theoretically part of the body politic...? Are you not, in theory at least, participating in your country's sovereignty, in fact the ultimate basis for that sovereignty? Are you really happy to surrender that sovereignty to entrenched business interests? If so, what's the point of Democracy at all? Government for the people, by the people, and all that jazz?
There you go. My opinion: if radio stations were allowed to accept money for non-advertising plays of songs, only people who could pay would ever be broadcast, which is an abuse of a government granted monopoly.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
I too believe that the majority of people don't care about their music. The reason "oldies" stations work? Most people appear to get "stuck" in their listening habits somewhere between 16 and 25, and then only listen to their "comfort music". Rarely are new tracks, much less actual new types of acts, added to their repertoire.
It's why there's so much trash on the radio now (besides payola, etc). The marketers have figured out that spoon feeding the same tripe to the young immature and uncritical listening audience allows them to churn "new" artists as needed maximizing their profits.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Perhaps I'm simply ignorant or naive, but I fail to see why anyone has a problem with modern-day payola. A lot has changed since the early payola scandals of the 50s, and pay-for-play deals between radio stations and the music industry aren't what they used to be.
Back in the days when DJs controlled which songs played on the radio, and when radio itself was seen as a public service, it made a perverse kind of sense for record labels to ply DJs with drugs, booze, women and money in an attempt get certain songs played on the radio. More airplay equates to increased record sales for the labels, making pay-for-play payola a powerful and lucrative lure for both record companies and DJs. As long as radio is perceived as a public service, payola in any form ends up looking like a bribe, and a 'dirty' bribe at that.
Today though, a lot has changed in the radio industry. Tapes, CDs, iPods, satelite radio and, most importantly, the Internet have made the old public service arguement moot. In addition, DJs don't call the shots anymore at most radio stations, making modern payola much 'cleaner' than it once was. Nowadays, record labels don't need to offer the full battery of sinful inducements to get their songs played; cash is probably sufficent for most execs. And, when you think about it, why shouldn't it be? Pay-for-play payola is really nothing more than simple advertising, and what's wrong with that?
If you take the sordid elements out of payola, does it really make any difference if it's Record Label X paying for three minutes of airtime to play their song, vs. Joe's Hardware store hawking hammers with their three minutes? By definition, advertising is paying for th promotion of a product or service. If Record Label X pays thousands of dollars to buy a 30-second spot suggesting you buy a particular album, how is this different from the same record label paying money to simply play a song? Where does the public lose in this scenario? Who supposedly gets hurt? Keep in mind that the independant record label issue is a red herring. Small, independant labels suffer most when payola schemes are secret and hidden, as they are today. If payola is above-board and open, if we treat it like advertising, independant labels get the same opportunities to buy airtime as the major labels now have. Keeping payola underground just raises the bar to market entry as it forces smaller labels into playing the game the way the major labels play it, ensuring that only the big boys with large wads of cash have the means to strike secret deals to have their songs played on-air. Five decades ago, payola scandals hurt both radio stations and the record industry, largely due to the public's perception that payola cheated the public service aspect of radio. Today, it's our out-dated perception of radio as a public service that causes the most harm.
Payola has always been a problem for commercial radio, and today's settlement isn't suddenly going to change the economic conditions that create the payola problem in the first place. As long as airplay increases music sales, we'll always have payola. And, contrary to TFA, a $12 million settlement isn't going to do a single thing to improve the playlists of large commercial radio stations.