Major Broadcasters Hit With $12M Payola Fine 222
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."
12.5? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Just the broadcasters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Way too little (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who listens to this crap, anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Ever heard of that dial thing on your radio? You don't need the government to step in and change the programming, just put down the Slurpee for a second and change the station. It's really no wonder ClearChannel et al are taking over the entire market when people can't be bothered to vote with their dials. There are still lots of alternatives, find them while they still exist and support them!
Re:Very cool... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. These half-hour blocks will be aired somewhere between midnight and six a.m.
2. They won't say that this is something they're required to do. They'll crow about how cutting edge and forward thinking they are.
waah mommy (Score:2, Insightful)
That's "Commissioner" as in FCC Commissioner. So hey, maybe the feds are on the right track for once.
"independent" labels (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this "news for nerds"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Insightful)
Sunday morning around 2am-ish
Marketing for Lemmings (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"pay the governemnt"? (Score:1, Insightful)
What a charmingly naive view.
Re:Very cool... (Score:3, Insightful)
Each of the major broadcast networks will syndicate a single show of independent music through their syndication subsidiary (Clear Channel: Premiere Radio Networks, Cox: Cox Syndication, CBS: Westwood One) to each of their local affiliates.
Let's face it. Your standard big radio station formats (classic rock, Top 40, country) don't lend themselves to independent music. Some of the rock stations in big cities can focus a one or two hour show on the local music scene, but most large commercial stations aren't interested in promoting small independent acts from other markets, especially if the act doesn't tour and appear in that station's coverage area.
Re:Who listens to this crap, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this "news for nerds"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How is this "news for nerds"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
do existing local band programs count? (Score:4, Insightful)
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'
Re:Marketing for Lemmings (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the history of American railroads in the nineteenth century, it was similar. They controlled distribution of goods and in many cases could charge what they wanted. Farmers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers suffered, but had no alternative. At least till technological development changed things (trucks and highways). Then suppliers and consumers had a way of bypassing the rails, and did so. Eventually the rail companies adapted (mixed mode transport) and even prospered.
Like the railroads, the recording industry is trying to maintain control. And now the environment is changing. Unlike the rails, the recording industry appears to be unable to adapt and determined to shoot themselves in the foot
Re:What about Air America? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
12.5 is not enough (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all useless, though, since Broadcasters would admit to no wrongdoing. Let's have some punishment, people!
Re:do existing local band programs count? (Score:3, Insightful)
And it sells very well. Kids very easily accept corporations telling them what is cool, as long as the corporation says the right things and has the right imagery in their ads. Look at skate culture.. used to be a bunch of small companies in garages making boards, and small runs of shoes/t-shirts. Now, they are all "real companies" and Nike, of all people, are doing very well in the clothing market, targetting this demographic.
Not to say that indie music doesn't have an impact. But all sub cultures that achieve some critical mass are gobbled up by big business, chewed up, and turned into a soulless pile of marketing hype and manufactured images. As soon as it becomes profitable enough to be worth it, it's inevitable. And then you wait for the "next thing" to come along, and that gets gobbled up.. and so on, and so on.
I think your glasses are pretty rose colored if your think the corps have "failed" to subvert ANY counter culture that has achieved any sufficiently large number of adherants.
Corporate power must be recorded and challenged. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not trying to suggest this is new; during the run-up to the Iraq war the stenographers at the New York Times repeated government propaganda to far worse effect (Common Dreams [commondreams.org], PDF excerpt [democracynow.org]). I'm saying that we do ourselves a disservice by letting our contempt dull our shock because we need to point out when corporate leaders behave illegally and we need to tell the corporate reporters when punishment is minimized ($12M is referred to as a "large cash settlement" despite no single payout greater than $4M) and buried (the list of corporate settlements is buried in the piece).
What this really means... (Score:3, Insightful)
With podcasting and MP3's and so forth the only excuse you have for not finding independent music to listen to is your own laziness.
Re:How is this "news for nerds"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more so that OH NOES they had to pay a 12 million fine... Yeah, I'm sure clearchannel is crying all the way to the bank over that. 120m, they might notice. 1.2 billion would be an actual fine and a reminder to not fucking break the law.
But 12m? Oh well, I guess we'll just have to ask Sony to "advertise" their music a bit more next year.
Re:What I want to know (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously. If they can't charge for advertising, they have no incentive to search out "good" independents, and suddenly you have a de facto NPR clone playing something some toker deems Worthy. Hence they actually have an incentive to search out, or "allow", to avoid looking complicit, boring content to get on the air along with said disclaimer in hopes of getting it overturned.
Oh, your congressman wouldn't cave. I mean the other guy's.
Re:How is this "news for nerds"? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with like 99% of what you said about payola, that's an exaggeration. I spend a lot of time doing concert promotion and production, and even in a small market (mid-size college town), I have seen shows around 10k fill up without major difficulty. You're correct in that long-running bands have a large advantage, but you can sell a 10k show for plenty of artists.
Useless. (Score:3, Insightful)
12.5 mil is a sneeze to these guys. It will barely pay for the cost of the 3-year investigation. It's the FCC saying "Hey guys, we're done, but we don't want to admit we paid millions for this investigation. Can you pay for us?"
4200 hours of independent programming? Great. Cue 4200 different stations all owned by the same guys playing 1 hour of "independent" material gleaned from wholy-owned subsidiaries of the same companies that got busted, and that 1 hour will be from 2-3 AM on a Sunday.
The whole thing is a make-work project that won't change a damn thing. No fine that actually means something, no meaningful changes... nothing. But everyone can claim something special was done, nothing will change, and in 2 or 3 years the same thing will happen again.
This isn't even bread and circuses for the masses, this is crumbs. I don't call shenannigans, I call pathetic.
Why is Payola Illegal Anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.