Slashdot Log In
Music Industry Seeks Payola Inquiry
Posted by
michael
on Fri May 24, 2002 10:17 AM
from the spin-the-bottle dept.
from the spin-the-bottle dept.
An Anonymous Coward writes "The big media story of the day seems to be that the RIAA, artists, and others in the industry are complaining that there are monopolies (such as Clear Channel) forming in the radio broadcast industry. The group is stating that the practice of "independent promotion" is really a new form of payola and that it is hitting the artists' bottom line directly." Another submitter writes in with another story on the subject and the industry's Joint Statement on Current Issues in Radio.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You just can't win (Score:2)
Re:You just can't win (Score:2)
Internet-based radio stations are going to help, as will I think the DMX stuff out now. Now, fans, not lawyers, will get to decide completely what is the listening interest. Internet radio has gotten mixed results, and I was sad to see Fat Free Radio [fatfreeradio.net] disappear because what I listen to isn't often found on the airwaves.
I am Confused (Score:2)
Re:I am Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
What RIAA really opposes is MORE payola. Not payola in general.
Re:I am Confused (Score:2)
Good luck RIAA, we know your pain...
The
Re:I am Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
The more things change... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The more things change... (Score:2)
It's Not Corruption They're Worried About (Score:3, Interesting)
It's probably worth noting that the Music Industry slime-wads aren't actually worried about the corruption of the play lists that payola causes.
From the article [yahoo.com]:
Deregulation of the radio business and rampant practices that skirt 40-year-old anti-payola laws stifle competition, drive up music promotional costs and make it harder for new artists to gain attention, the artists and record labels said in a joint statement addressed to the federal regulators and Congress.
That's right, it's all about the mighty $.
Why buy into a game you already own?
Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention the 20+ minutes of ads (not including the DJ's yapping away) in every hour of music.
And from what I've heard, Clear Channel can be a rough company to work for. The corp HQ selects the playlists and the DJ doesn't get to choose very many songs to play, unless they're working after 9:30 or 10:00 pm (and who's listening then anyways?)
When I'm at work, I listen to Wolf FM [wolffm.com]. They've got some ads, but the ratio of music to ads is very high.
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:5, Interesting)
I lost my last shred of faith in commercial radio when the 80s stations showed up. I really like 80s music, and you would think that with an entire decade to choose from, I wouldn't hear "Come on Eileen" and "Too Shy" every single day! But I do.
Oh, they do give us the all-request lunch hour. As long as your request is on their "approved" list. I actually had a dj tell me that they couldn't play a tune (that he liked a lot and even had in the library) because New York wouldn't let them.
There is no local radio anymore.
Parent
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought about mentioning college radio, but didn't because it wasn't really related to my initial gripe. Since you bring it up, however...
With the exception of smaller schools whose transmitters are very low power or cable-broadcast only, even college radio has become increasingly programmed and wooed by major label interests. On the one hand, they aren't really beholden to anyone yet, so you do sometimes get unique and alternative music. More and more, though, I've found that most college radio is simply playing the stuff that's on its way to Clear Channel because the labels swoop in and throw a bunch of swag at the students who gleefully go along because they're now talking with the "big boys." The majors use College as a test bed for new albums. It's the minor leage of commercial radio.
I highly recommend the book "Confessions of a Record Producer" by the pseudonymous Moses Avalon. He outlines what really happens when you get signed. Here's a rough paraphrase from memory:
If you want proof of concept, go to your closest major university station (UCLA, NYU, UT, whatever) with your latest album and try to get it on the playlist. It won't happen except at schools that are too small for labels to bother with, or schools that have a fierce indepent streak in their culture (e.g. Berkeley).
Yes there are college stations that are still diverse. I think San Jose State is one of those (I never knew if I was going to hear thrash metal, techno, or yodeling), but they are getting fewer and farther between, and with the increasing economic pressure on Universities, look for additional "corporate sponsorship" to bleed over from the football program.
Parent
Re:Regular radio sucks anyways (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I was involved in college radio at exactly the right time when so-called "alternative" was making larger inroads into the mainstream market, but I recall that during my time as a college radio DJ, approximately 75% of what was on our non-discretionary playlist ended up on commercial radio about a year later.
CMJ's purpose in life is to break new music and new artists, so it's no surprise that they're listing artists on smaller labels. What I'd be much more interested in is a breakdown of who owns/runs those labels and who they worked for previously. There are several independent promotion companies made up of previous A&R reps who work solely on promoting to the college market, and many of these have majors as clients because of back-connections.
I agree that there's a lot of good music out there on college radio, especially during the cyclical pop-retreat (you know, the wave of bubblegum we get every 4-5 years after the industry has milked the latest fad (e.g. grunge)). That's when college radio has a chance to shine because they're not just playing it safe and they have the freedom to play things that centrally programmed stations are too conservative to play.
And maybe you were fortunate enough to run one of the stations that for whatever reason didn't deal at all with the major reps when they came around throwing free cds, posters, and t-shirts around - good for you. But many college stations do, and the larger the transmitter, the more interested the majors are in renting some time on it. I'm not just pulling this out of my... er... hat - this is what I've learned from A&R reps at the majors and producers that I've worked with.
College radio has its place and its functions - one of its functions is test market for the majors.
Well, of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
CC: "These are not the bands you are looking for"
PUB: "These are not the bands I am looking for"
CC: "You will listen to our drivel and enjoy it"
PUB: "I will listen to your drivel and enjoy it"
Re:Well, of course... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
The good old days of radio pre-digital ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to work for an FM station, too -- KQ102 in Canton, Missouri -- and it was pretty interesting. It was from 1988-1989 -- and seemed to be the time right before "digital" took over everything FM.
Everything we played was on 45s -- vinyl -- and each 45 was rated according to its "tempo."
There were thousands of 45s at the station and about ten different tempo numbers. A #1 song was really, really fast -- and a number 10 was really, really slow.
Someone listened to all the music and -- based on the tempo -- placed them into the appropriate tempo bin.
Now, our mission was to look down at our playlist and play songs of varying tempo. We had markings like 1-5-8, or 2-6-10 to indicate the next three songs (fast, medium, slow) and breaks for each commercial or public service announcement.
The idea was that you were supposed to take a 45 from the front of the bin, play it, and then put it in the back of the bin. Of course, it didn't work like that, since our playlist was based on tempo and not song titles -- so all the shitty stuff was in the back of the bins never to be touched, and all the good stuff was in the front.
And we only had to hit our commercials plus or minus two minutes -- and give our top of the hour station announcements within 60 seconds plus or minus -- so we had a *lot* of leeway to play what we felt like, when we felt like it. It was fantastic, actually.
We broadcast out of a tiny white house that had been converted into a radio station. Transmitter in the living room, main booth in one bedroom, production studio in the other, and the sales office in the kitchen.
And we had a *huge* listener base. I used to do a lot of Friday and Saturday night shifts -- from 8pm to 2am -- and, man, I had groupies. I couldn't fucking believe it. People would hear your voice -- on account they'd be playing you at parties and in their car -- and they'd drop by in droves to see what you looked like. It was sick and bizarre, but it was loads of fun. We'd be sitting in the booth and staring out the window into the backyard and see all these people back there, waving and trying to get your attention.
It was really a bizarre thing but amazingly exciting. The fact that we were spinning 45s, playing more or less what we wanted (within reason) made for some amazing nights of music.
Sadly, KQ102 was put out of business by the rise of digital and the fact that they were one of the last stations in the area to still use vinyl. We actually had *turntables* -- as if we were a college radio station. It was a trip.
Great fun. Huge listener base. Gave away lots of prizes and cash.
But it was pretty much stomped out by corporate radio.
Parent
The Have-A-Lots Vs. The-Have-Even-Mores (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I supposed to lose sleep knowing that they've gotta pay their indies $10K/song/station to get an add because the stations are all owned by the same conglomerate when the record labels have joined into a conglomerate and engaged in price fixing?
I don't listen to radio (except for the independent, supersuave WFMU [wfmu.org]) and I can't wait until inevitability catches up with the RIAA.
Pot, kettle, black (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, boo hoo. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Like Movie Theaters? (Score:3, Interesting)
You'll only hear certain artists on stations that are owned by the company that promotes their label or tour.
It'll kinda be like movie theaters where certain movies are only carried by Regal, or General Cinema, etc.
Remind me why big media companies are a good thing again?
Something doesn't really make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The recording industry is complaining that the recording industry is paying to have certain songs played on the radio. They why don't they just stop paying?
Of course, all the labels will have to agree to do this, since if all but one stops, and this payola really works, that one label will have tons of airplay.
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Good question. For one thing, it looks an awful lot like collusion, which is illegal under U.S. anti-trust laws. For another thing, it's been tried before - about twenty years ago - when record labels actually banded together to put indie promoters out of business. It almost worked, too, but so many artists (whose careers depend on airplay and the sales the airplay generates) complained that the labels were forced to back off.
Parent
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:2)
Well, they've done fine one that point so far, so I really don't see how that could be a problem...
Re:Something doesn't really make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The music industry, for the most part, does not control the radio stations. Getting your song played is an endeavour in marketing, costing money like any other marketing device does. Did you think that new songs got played on the radio because people actually liked them? No, someone does some sort of market analysis and them determines which artists get that kind of exposure. The catch is that the music publishers, like any other business, does not like to pay for this. So they try to get new artists to sign contracts that pretty much makes it so that the burden of funding the marketing effort is the artist's cost of doing business. This is essentially what Courtney Love was complaining about in that big speech she did that knocked the industry. I find it ironic that she found their practices against anything she learned in high-school economics and at the same time downplayed the importanct of extended education by claiming all P2P had was "college boy" music. I believe had she gone to college, she probably wouldn't have been backed in a corner and forced to sign a record contract that had all this marketing expense tacked onto it. No one forces the artists to sign their contracts. However, as you hear about how some of the most popular bands lived before signing (shoplifting in order to eat, squatting in abandonded buildings, etc), you understand why they sign the first paper stuck in front of them. Have a college education or alternative career as backup, then you have more leverage to say no to certain items in the contract. It also depends on your selected manager, who has a lot of power to screw the artist too. I used to work in music studios, and some of the managers are ex-roadies. Most roadies are dumb as a box of rocks. (Like the time the Fleetwoood Mac roadie couldn't figure out why the circuit breaker kept popping when he plugged 2 refrigerators into an outlet.)
The whole payola thing got quashed, now they figured out a new way to get money to play music. They will figure out a new way to do it if their current way gets outlawed. The great thing about P2P is that you get to hear a lot of music that is not played on the radio. To tell the truth, I don't listen to the radio much anymore since I don't tend to like what they choose to play. If I had my choice, there would be a station that played Oakenfold, Sasha, Van Dyk, and all the other European artists that really know how to make music but have not gotten enough exposure in the US to make them mainstream. I guess this is what "college boy" music is....but I'll tell you, I'd rather listen to this than hear the "real music" that has Courtney Love droning and screaming into the microphone. (Who would have thought SHE would consider herself an audiophile?)
(If you like Courtney Love and you are insulted by this, sorry, but get over it.)
Parent
Boo Hoo for the RIAA (Score:2)
The answer is... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Pirate_Radio
RIAA should be investigated for legislative payola (Score:2)
As I've said before... (Score:2)
Slashdot Groupthink summary (Score:2)
MPAA has nothing to do with music, but they're still evil
Clear Channel sucks
Radio is awful, I listen to NPR, CDs and OpenBSD music cd's only
Clear Channel Station List (Score:4, Informative)
How hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
You really have to marvel at the arrogance of these people. They truly feel they can do whatever they want without consequence. Yeah I know, 50 years of history proves they have been able to so far, but even the dumbest dog will eventually attack it's master if it's beaten enough.
Hmm (Score:2)
Translation: Stop me before I payola again! (Score:2)
I mean, they're saying that only the payee and not the payer of payola is at fault. They are probably enviously eyeing Bill Gate's mansion, while theirs is only on the level of, say, Aaron Spelling.
So they'd like to cut their marketing costs (remember, this is why they say CDs cost so much and that they are a vital part of the process despite the fact that CD recording and distribution no longer requires the resources of a major corporation to undertake), and they'd like the Senator from Disney to do it for them.
Then later on they'll get bored and command him to mud-wrestle midgets for campaign contributions.
Dance, puppets! Dance!
I so don't care who wins this battle.
riaa cries... (Score:2)
Poor poor RIAA, now that there are radio corperations big enough to tell them to stuff it and dictate terms they go crying to the Govt yet again...
"Wahhh, he's bigger than me! make him smaller! because he wont let me tell him what to do anymore!!! Wahhhh!"
i hope clear channel get's fricking HUGE. and then slams the door on the RIAA's hands.
hey, clear channel... ever thing of signing artists yourselves? how about bypassing the record labels directly...
Geeze, What a lose-lose situation... (Score:2)
Oh yeah, they get extra points when they can use thier influence as a tool to condition the masses into cattle like passivity.
Which is funnier? (Score:4, Funny)
-or-
The president of Kazaa complaining that people are pirating their software by using programs like KazaaLite?
All I have to say is BWAHAHAWHAHWHAW!
so whats the problem with "pirating" (Score:2)
opening the door to XM radio? (Score:2)
I think it's easy to agree that a lot of the slashdot audience despises two things in current radio: limited playlists, tons of ads (well and yappy dj's too I guess). Both of these facts exist because the radio station has to maintain a certain level of income.
Does XM run ads? Do we know how they pick their playlists?
Seems to me a subscription based radio is the "next step". Pay a little to get less ads, get more music, get a better variety of music. I just figure paying a subscription will reduce the pressure to maximize profits just a tiny bit, leaving some wiggle room so the radio can actually be enjoyable to listen to.
Course the question is, does XM achieve this?
Anything they say... (Score:2)
If the RIAA lawyer are worth there money they would make a great case, again Clear Channel as well as against the RIAA. So lets see what they have to say
Was it just me (Score:2)
Who first read the headline as...
Music Industry Seeks Payola.
Z.
"Nothing new there" I thought.
Salon summaries on Payola (Score:4, Informative)
Man, that reminds me -- I really ought to subscribe to Salon [salon.com] :-/.
PS Since ClearChannel has a large stake in XM Radio [xmradio.com], I completely expect XM Radio to support payola >:-[. But, does anyone know if SiriusRadio [siriusradio.com] also support payola? I'm thinking of subscribing, but I wouldn't want to do so if they're corrupt as well.
Another distribution channel (Score:4, Funny)
Clear Channel's motto is "How many ways has Clear Channel reached you today". And you thought Microsoft was obnoxious. Their corporate creed is "We believe the ultimate measure of our success is to provide a superior value to our stockholders.".
Clear Channel even owns Rush Limbaugh. [clearchannel.com] He was a big help in getting Congress to remove all limitations on one company owning all the radio stations.
RIAA true motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the story here is that Clear Channel is also in the "Concert Promotion" business. I put the term in quotes because it's more like legalized racketeering. Their standard procedure, regardless of what specific business they're working in, is to make as much for them regardless of the damage it does to their customers, business partners, and the public. Their theory is, what's good for us is good for us, fuck all others. (I can already see the knee-jerk "the market will decide" Rush Limbaugh clones racing for the reply button about how this is a good thing...Read-on first, please.)
So CC will do things like leverage all their businesses... So, if you want to play a concert at the desirable venues (ie. Not a shitty dive bar) in XXX City, you'll have to have a "music promotion" contract with WXYZ to get your tunes played, a concert prmotion contract with CC Entertainment which also includes a budget for ads on WXYZ, agree to do these other CC shows in other cities, AND do it all for what CC is offering.
In other words, CC is victimizing the RIAA membership the same way the RIAA members victimize their customers. (Ie. Accept our lowball offer to do a conecert, or get no airplay the month you play at a competing venue vs. Pay $19 for a CD we paid $2 to create.)
What we're getting ready for is a battle royale of influence and political contributions, as the two big behemoths who both think they own Congress and have a constitutional right to their obsolete business models go toe to toe, trying to see who can spend the most to get their way.
If I didn't know that this battle will only result in the consumer being screwed even further, I'd say get some popcorn and enjoy the show. As it is, I'd say go pirate some music on Kazaa and start your own pirate radio station.
Or just jam CC properties, if you don't feel like you'd make a good air personality... Tuning your 50 watt transmitter to +-
This is Good News (Score:4, Insightful)
It is possible to dislike the RIAA and love this at the same time. It's like a machiavellian wet dream. Couldn't have achieved better if we'd planned it.
Something that's just occurred to me (Score:4, Insightful)
How many US citizens does the RIAA represent? No, I don't mean how many artist or backroom techies or even corporate weasels in suits, because it's not actually representing them. The RIAA (rather the labels that comprise it) are businesses. As such, they represent their owners, not their employees, and not third parties relying on them to market their talents or products. Answering only to shareholders is a fiduciary duty for a publically traded company. If happy employees are the key to financial success, great, but if sacking 95% of them becomes a smarter move, they'll do that without batting an eye. The RIAA represents only the shareholders (or private owners) of the companies that comprise it.
So, does anyone actually know how many US citizens are shareholders in the music businesses that comprise the RIAA? Do these US citizens know? Do they know or care that their ownership legitimizes RIAA demands on Capital Hill?
I ask this because I keep hearing about how much money the RIAA represents, and there seems to be some sort of connection between this and the political influence that they have. Now, in a democracy, this can't be true, because then your vote would count more depending on your income, right? And that's not how a democracy works, is it?
So, let's hear it. Does anyone know how many US citizens the RIAA actually represents (that's US shareholders, not employees)? I'd really like to hear someone in government asking this, because it might (not likely, but perhaps) make Jane Investor start asking exactly where her financial representatives have been gambli^H^H^H^H^H^H investing her money on the stock market, and who she's legitimizing with her investment.
pot to kettle, "You are black" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RIAA cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:RIAA cares? (Score:2)
this type of a system takes the control of creating superstars out of the hands of the RIAA - hell, if some company/band/whatever has enough money to go bribe ClearChannel into plaing non-riaa members...
Only way for musicians to make money (Score:2)
Re:to all those bands bitching about your bottom l (Score:2)
That's naive, and you're extrapolating a couple of exceptions to the rule (i.e. Phish) into the general case. In any little town, you'll find half a dozen really good bands that may be better than what you hear on the radio, and there are fifty thousand such towns. But it is really, really hard to turn that into a full-time living. You play some bars for a pittance, you sell a couple of CDs per show, and that's hardly enough money to buy equipment, go on tour, and record your next album. It isn't just a matter of being good. It's a matter of getting some backing and marketing help so you can get a wider audience. I know that's not how it works in your idealistic world, but that's how things work in this world.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Informative)