Shocked, Shocked at Payola 369
"It costs a record company about $250,000 just to launch a single on rock radio today. That doesn't guarantee success; it just gives the single access to the airwaves. If the song catches on and eventually crosses over to the mainstream Top-40 format, indie costs balloon to more than $1 million per song." Salon.com has a pair of articles on payola today: one on
the widening scandal
and one specifically on
a curious Clear Channel case. For context, here's
our latest payola story,
or if you want the background on why the labels hate the promoters but can't shake the habit,
my writeup from a year ago.
(If you want some beach reading on this topic, go check out
"Hit Men.")
Come on and ride the Train (Score:2)
WOO WOOO
Re:Come on and ride the Train (Score:3, Insightful)
Beach? (Score:4, Funny)
Bah! (Score:2)
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
This is much like the relationship that TV networks have with local affiliates. The networks pay the affliates to broadcast their shows, even though its the network that creates and produces them.
One could make the argument that it should be the other way around, but I'm guessing that in the case of TV at least, the networks need the local affiliates more than the local affiliates need the networks (possibly because the networks don't own their own broadcast facilities?), so as a result, the payola flows in the unexpected direction.
Re:Bah! (Score:2, Informative)
Nope. They pay the composers through ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The artists and their record companies (RIAA, in other words) don't get anything for radio airplay (unless they also happen to be the composers, of course).
The controversy over the recent webcasting fees mainly lies in that the Copyright Office ruling requires that the webcasters pay BOTH the composers AND the artists, so the total fee is a lot more than for traditional radio. If you're the both the singer and the songwriter (or if you're a record company who's screwed the copyrights out of the singer/songwriter) you get paid twice. Sweet gig if you can get it.
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, the radio companies do pay for paying the music and the labels pay to get it played. The reason for this is that it is two different groups paying and being paid.
A long time ago the recording industry agreed to separate mechanical reproduction rights from performance rights. When a CD is made it is governed by the mechanical rights. A radio or Internet broadcast is a performance right. The labels take 100% of the mechanical rights and the composers get 100% of the performance rights. Doing the split this way means that the composers don't have to trust the labels to honestly report their sales.
That is why the recording industry does not want Internet radio, p2P or the rest, they don't own the rights. The real point of the Hollings bill (what is it called this week? DALEK?) is that once the vehicle is on its way an ammendment will be slipped in behind closed doors to steal the performance rights from the composers.
This situation is a bit like the situation in Israel, Shaorn would like peace but he cannot resist the temptation to appropriate the Palestinian's property for settlements. Then when the inevitable attrocity happens they go asking for sympathy. In the same way the RIAA is scared stiff of the threat of piracy but it just can't resist the temptation to loot, just as they could not resist the temptation to steal artist's recovered rights in the DMCA. But when Napster or Bearshare comes along the threat to private property is soooo desperate that immediate legislation is required to force all PCs to be tricked up with DRM within 24 hours.
Ultimately I think we will see radio displaced by Internet Radio and Satelite Radio. The cost advantages of addressing a larger market are devastating. The real problems are lack of the right standards for distribution and the lack of appropriate hardware. I don't want to tie up my PC with Internet radio, nor do I want to have to lug a PC with me just for radio. I want my Internet radio device to connect to my home network via WiFi and play any station I might want to listen to, or play from my (ripped) CD collection on the main server.
I'd do it for less. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'd do it for less. (Score:2)
The Music Business is Full of Lowlifes. (Score:3, Funny)
Guide TO Salon Clear Channel Stories (Score:4, Interesting)
Weird (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
actually the real reason is the record companies like the CONTROL they have over radio. sure, it costs them money to pay off clear channel, but the record companies really choose who gets played by paying the big bucks -- it's a high cost of entry and they are the only ones with the money. in turn, they strangle the artists by saying "do what we want or we won't have you played. sign our contracts or we won't have you played and you'll never become anything." since (at least before the recent LoC levy on internet broadcasts) the cost barrier to the internet broadcast was very very low, they were afraid of this.
the real reason the record companies wanted the prices higher was to regain the effectual control of the medium by raising the cost of entry to a price only they could afford. either that, or they wanted it so high, that no one could afford it.
i actually really believe that the record companies are getting ready to deliver their own internet broadcasts -- and this will be at no cost to them as they do not have to pay their own copyright fees.
-rp
Re:Weird (Score:2)
--in a car, on your way to work?
--at work, if you don't sit at a computer (or can't use headphones)?
--at home, if you have a dialup connection?
What's more, can you just "flip on" the internet, and with a twist of a dial, browse through a whole bunch of stations? Until technology gets better, radio is still the way to go.
Re:Weird (Score:2)
While you use the notion of control to further the concept of record companies selectively promoting artists, I'd like to propose a slightly different control -- control over which part of an artist's work gets shared.
In the realm of Internet copyright infringement, there's nothing to restrict the sharer from offering up an entire album. As connection speeds rise, harddrives get bigger, P2P technologies mature, and audio standards get more efficient, it's only going to get easier for people to get entire albums quickly and easily. Throw a CD burner into the mix, and you've severely undercut the desirability of the store-bought product.
But really, if it's all about the RIAA trying to restrict what acts get exposure then all someone has to do is create a service that provides free exposure for any material that the copyright holder has granted redistribution permission for. The RIAA can say "Don't share Metallica songs." The RIAA can't say "Don't share 'Erasmus Darwin Sings the Blues'."
The only tricky part is coming up with a technical solution that provides enough accountability in the case of someone attempting to use it illegally. By being able to explicitly defer accountability on to someone else (and not trying to play the accountability shell game that the P2P services tended to enjoy), I believe you could build a service that promoted new artists and one which wouldn't give the RIAA legitimate ground on which to complain.
Frustrating (Score:4, Interesting)
Webcasters (Score:4, Insightful)
Free exposure was there for them, but they shut it down!
Satellite radio (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Satellite radio (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Satellite radio (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Satellite radio (Score:5, Informative)
The choice and diversity on XM is amazing, and in fact they have one channel "Unsigned" that is specifically for bands that aren't with major labels. All bands have to do is mail in a CD, and there's a good chance that if it doesn't suck, it'll get played. I listen to that channel all the time, and it's amazing the quality of the bands and music on there... I've ordered several CDs from bands websites based on things I've heard there. (as an aside, the channel is run by Pat Dinizio formerly of Smithereens fame)
I don't know about all of the channels, especially the ones that play more "Top 40" oriented music, and how they determine their playlists, but I do know that the choice is remarkable.
I agree that there is the potential down the road for these services, should they displace traditional radio, to have a duopoly (or monopoly should they merge or one die) and that could be very bad, but at this point I think Satellite Radio is the cure for payola, not another problem.
Re:Satellite radio (Score:2, Interesting)
If we all were satelite radio, wouldn't we do the same? Maybe not as most of us are geeks who care more about what is right and less about a big payday at the expense of others.
paraphrasing Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
And I like to add:
So let's start spreading the word, especially to the music artists we know. Maybe it will change something...
Oh yea, I forgot: I have no ideas on how much can a CD cost in the US. Here in Europe they cost like 20 euros each (which is more or less 20 dollars..). And please forgive me for my bad English, I hope you got the point and won't start bitching me around for spelling. Cheers.
Re:paraphrasing Richard Stallman... (Score:2)
How? Banner ads? Building their own site? How are people gonna know to go to the site? Internet advertising is WAY less effective than traditional. Where does that $15-1 go (besides label profits and recording/packaging costs)? Promotion. Sure, the artist gets $1 per CD, but when a lot of money is spent on radio airings, talk show appearances, signs in CD stores, magazinge articles, and commercials, he gets a LOT more of those $1s. Probably more than if he were to get $10 per CD, but do all the advertising himself. And if he's not a big star already, he better be damn good, and ready for some intense touring. Making it without a label backing you is damn near impossible, though it can be done (see Ani DiFranco).
We could develop a system that permits any user to donate a dollar to the author of the song, if the user wants.
Here's why the donation model sucks: people are lazy. It's a pain in the ass to fill out credit card information and stuff just to give someone a dollar over the web. And if you don't take credit cards, forget it. Paypal is even more of a pain, if you don't have any funds in your account. As it is, half the reason people buy CDs at all is because they happen to be out shopping and they wander by a CD store. Or they see a CD in the grocery checkout line. The donation stuff would work great if it could let people take a buck out of their pockets and magically send it to the author. But anything more complicated is going to have highly diminishing returns, expecially when you can get the stuff for free anyway, which is what Stallman is hinting at. I think Stallman's ideas might only work in his theoretical world, but hey, look at me I'm following his advice (see sig). No, it's not "The blind leading the blind," it's just that all this RIAA/Clear Channel/payola stuff is disgusting, and it helps to shut your eyes.
A Bad Thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you don't like the crap they're trying to sell, listen to a different station, go buy music you do like, whatever.
Re:A Bad Thing? (Score:3, Informative)
Payola distorts the system. It makes it harder for the public to hear what it wants to hear. Payola is also illegal; that's helps explain why people "jump to the conclusion" that it's a bad thing. Incentives for distribution of music (sales incentives, advertising deals with music stores, etc.) are not illegal, because music sales aren't regulated in the same way.
#include IANAL.h
Re:A Bad Thing? (Score:2)
The question is, what should be done about it. As has been argued previously the incentives to pay for product placement (or payolla) are large, and it is difficult to detect. These in combination indicate that a law against it would be a bad law, and be likely to be even more socially disruptive than the problem it attempts to fix (c.f., the drug laws and the "war against some drugs").
But what is the appropriat response? Allowing it to run untrammelled is undesireable. Making it illegal is undesireable. So the solution is probably a bit wierd. Perhaps something like a progressive tax on the number of copies of the same merchandise that you have on your shelves. So if you have 30 different records you pay a low percentage of the sale price on each of them and if you have 30 identical records you pay a higher percentage of the sale price. (Not a good suggestion, as it would require too much bookkeeping, but a guess at the *kind* of thing that might be a solution.)
Re:A Bad Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Quantity and quality aren't necessarily the same thing.
The music industry spends a lot of money finding (or making) what people want.
Actually, considering that more than 90% of major label releases lose money, and that the record industry as a whole has been on a downward sales slide for the last couple of years, a more accurate statement would be to say that the music industry spends a lot of money finding/making what people don't want.
Re:A Bad Thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Where do you find or hear about this music that you may like? Napster? another P2P with your bandwidth capped CM? another radio station in your area? Online in some crappy quality that you must pay every month to hear? How about some other method that is being sued or has been shut down recently.
Its not that easy. Clear Channel owns most major markets. In DC they control 90% of the market. They have a pop, rock, oldies, news, casual, and a jazz station. These stations do not compete with each other. The choices are very limited. I don't actually listen to the radio much but I did find WHFS [whfs.com] pretty decent but its hard to pick up in my area.
Statement from Senator Russ Feingold (Score:5, Insightful)
"Thank you Mr. President. I rise today to voice my concerns about the concentration of ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
...
In 1996, prior to the passage of the Telecommunications Act, there were 5133 owners of radio stations. Today, for the Contemporary Hit Radio/Top 40 Formats, four radio station groups - Chancellor, Clear Channel, Infinity, and Capstar - control access to 63 percent of the format's 41 million listeners nationwide.
...
Many of the same corporations that own multiple radio stations in a given market wield their power through their ownership of a number of businesses related to the music industry. For example, the Clear Channel Corporation owns over 1200 radio companies, more than 700,000 billboards, various promotion companies, and venues across the United States. Also, just three years ago, in 1999, Clear Channel bought SFX productions, the nation's largest promotion company.
...
Ticket prices have gone up by nearly 50 percentage points more than consumer prices since passage of the Telecommunications Act - and that doesn't even include the facility fees, parking charges, box office charges or food and beverage increases.
...
It isn't just about who's talented, and who deserves to be played. It's about a shakedown, and that's just unacceptable, Mr. President, for the industry, for the artist, and for all of us as who listen."
Travis
CARP compromise designed to stifle sm. 'net radio (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I couldn't get this story submitted (too much Microsoft crap to fight through, apparently), this seems like a good place to pass on the story: Cuban says Yahoo!'s RIAA deal was designed to stifle competition [kurthanson.com]
Mark Cuban:
As originally seen at: http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/2002/06.htm l#24-jun-2002 [dnalounge.com], although JWZ seems to have taken down that news post at the moment (?).
P.S. Does anyone else who lost moderator access on the Thread of Doom find that they can't get any stories submitted any more, or is it just me? I'm beginning to cultivate a healthy persecution complex :)
Re:CARP compromise designed to stifle sm. 'net rad (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole mess just reeks of Mafia boss tactics. You pay us a "protection" fee, and we'll make sure your bandwidth doesn't get cut off.
Oh, and for a good read on the whole "media control" thing, check out The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian. It was written in the 80s, but has been updated since to include new mediums of communication. Very interesting read.
--
Alan Freed was an honest man (Score:3, Funny)
There's a solution .... (Score:5, Interesting)
You could launch a record and get it played on the radio for cheaper but it won't be on Clear Channel. Clear Channel does all kinds of evil stuff besides that, like piping in remote DJs and making you think they are local.
This sort of battle was inevitable when the FCC lifted regulations on radio ownership.
The solution for you, the public might be to try to patronize stations that are not conglomerate owned.
I DO listen to one radio station that is both terrestrial and internet streaming: 97X out of Oxford Ohio [woxy.com]. Here's some of the NEW stuff I'm enjoying..
Elvis Costello
Hives
Cornershop
Idelwild
Girls Against Boys
The complete playlist is here [woxy.com]
Great music that is bucking the current cock-rock trend of Linkin Park, System of a Down, Korn, etc. being offered by local Washington DC suck ass radio in the form of WHFS and it's "Most Played" list [whfs.com]. (It's not Clear Channel, It's CBS, just as bad)
Then there's Radio Paradise [radioparadise.com].
Any
Just boycott Clear Channel. Turn it off.....
You needn't follow the flock is you refuse to be part of it.
Re:There's a solution .... (Score:2)
Re:There's a solution .... (Score:2)
They deserve it. (Score:2)
The entire major-label-commercial-radio biz is totally corrupt. You might as well make an effort to support independent bands, stations, and labels because there ain't no way this business is going to get cleaned up any time soon.
Re:They deserve it. (Score:2)
This is VERY true. Here in houston, damn near EVERY station is Clear Channel owned and operated. Just recently the old ones were bought out. The music quality and DJs have since REALLY sucked. I mean, I can flip to the alternative station, the rock station, and the top-40 Hits station and hear all the same songs, with only minor variances. It is just gross. I hated radio before Clear Channel, but now I wish for the ol' days when radio only sucked, not really sucked.
As for DJs, Clear Channel did not get along with the old ones and they have slowly been fazed out. Not really surprising since Clear Channel executives basically decide on the play loop anyhow. I don't even know what the point of having a DJ is for Clear Channel , except to look normal.
For the first time in my life, I am honestly getting serious about installing a CD player in my car. I just can't take hearing the "textbook" songs played over and over, very day....
The "art" of music has been completely replaced by the "money" in music. sad.
----------rhad
Number of stations (Score:2)
How many radio stations are there, total, in the US/World?
I have been unable to find the answer on the net, does anyone have a source?
Travis
Payola always reminds me... (Score:2)
As for real life payola, it has to be the main explanation why so much crappy music gets on the air.
Re:Payola always reminds me... (Score:2)
Also consider that the average city has about 12 or so frequencies of nothing and all of them are playing the same crap. That equals a lot of payola from record companies.
Any American city will have....
3-5 top 40 pop stations
2 country stations
1-2 R&B stations
1 "Alternative" station, usually called "X" something or other that is strictly commercial and not accociated with a college in any sort of way (Other than brand-alizing parties)
1 classic rock station
1 (50s & 60s) oldies station
a random collection of news, classical, religious, etc.stations.
;(
And ALL of them have the same playlist and are without any sort of local flavour. I bet you'd have a hard time finding a commercial DJ who is actually from the city he/she broadcasts to. And the play list is not generated in that city either. So much for local talent and character. Rock on, Generica.
Sorry for the rant, but I remember when radio didn't suck so bad.
Free Advice For Hilary and Cary... (Score:2)
Put those so called Indie promoters of of business, and let the market determine the hits, not the pay. Imagine, only good music gets played, (or stays on the charts), the public buys what they like, and your sales go back up.
Imagine, a business where the consumers actually gets to pick what they want to hear....can't be any worse than the 5% success rate you have now...and you can save millions on payola, and maybe even bribes...err campaign donations....
Yahoo, RIAA, CARP, and Very Bad Deals (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that the the Deal that Yahoo struck with the RIAA a while back [com.com] has an awful lot to do with the back room shennaniganns that were somewhat implicate in the CARP arrangement.
This deserves major news coverage of it's own.
Kurt Hanson of Save Internet Radio [saveinternetradio.org] has a letter that he received from Mark Cuban, former owner of audionet.com/broadcast.com/Yahoo! Broadcast on how the Yahoo!-RIAA deal was structured. Read the entire letter here. [kurthanson.com]
Bottom line:
- The voluntary royalty deal between Yahoo! and the RIAA that the Librarian of Congress announced as his template for the entire industry last week was a deal crafted by Yahoo! to shut out small webcasters and decrease competition.
- The villian in this story is not Yahoo! (They were simply being savvy businesspeople!) The villian is the CARP process by which this anti-broadcaster, anti-small-webcaster deal became the template for the industry
- As Mark Cuban says, they didn't want percent-of-revenue pricing art Broadcast.com Why? Because "it meant every "Tom , Dick, and Harry" webcaster could come in and undercut our pricing because we had revenue and they didn't".
End Result? We probably need to start screaming at Congress again.Missing Link for Online Tonight (Score:3, Informative)
Lesson Learned (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a while back the tech industry learned the lesson that "push" technlogy was only viable to a certain extent. People didn't mind getting headlines refreshed on their desktops or reminded of "buddies" logging on to IM systems, but they got annoyed pretty quick if they felt like something was getting rammed down their throats and they were getting raped monetarily.
The exact same lesson is getting played out on a much slower time scale in the music and film distribution business.
The payola problem simply highlights the inefficiencies built into the current distribution system. The weight of it creaks and the smell of it reeks.
What are the Odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I feel I should have a go at putting some numbers that I was once quoted out there for /.teers to shoot down. Here goes.
The music industry in the US releases about 30,000 albums every year in total. That's about 600 a week. You can verify this figure plenty of ways - including looking on the web [riaa.com]. Now here's where the figures start to be pulled out of someone's arse. It's been said to me by people who should know that some number way smaller than 10% of these releases actually make money. This is the missing information that people like Courtney leave out of their diatribes against those bloodsuckers in "the industry".
So when records go off like a bomb, and record companies sit there raking in the profits, don't forget that these profits go to pay for the other 90% of albums that didn't make any cash.
The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway. Their annual reports [sony.co.jp] are online, so you can check this stuff too.
Basically, I'm just a bit bored with hearing the same old charges raised and accepted without any support
So on to payola. Again, this is essentially a storm in a teacup, with lots of missing information that never seems to get presented. For example, payola is the same story as in the supermarket game.
Did you know that supermarkets make more money from placing the product on their shelves [consumerreports.org] than they do from taking it off their shelves (ie selling it to you and me)? Standard stuff. So it is with payola. The radios make more money playing the music than squeezing in the ads. That's how they can afford to play that "nonstop hour of music" or whatever at lunchtime!
Of course record companies, or anyone, need to pay to get their products placed! I don't know why anyone thinks it is any different! The radios are businesses, and they can play what they like, so they play what is in their shareholders interests to play.
Flame away, but I don't understand the shocked gasps that always follows this kind of "revelation", just like I don't understand how people get away with painting the record companies as ravening beasts, when a simple look at the balance sheet tells you they are out there makin' deals just like every other business since the dawn of time. If they were super-profitable, don't you think everyone would be doing it?
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:2)
So (as with the Coming to America case) let's be very very careful about defining what "makes money" and what doesn't.
sph
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:4, Funny)
OK, I looked. Where was the $1B line item for "piracy losses"? I know it has to be there, because they keep telling us that they're losing billions to piracy!
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:2)
The record companies ARE super profitable. The reason everyone isn't doing it is highlighted in the article: payola. It requires a certain, large, amount of capital to get in.
But the more important thing is where you mention that ~5% of the records go to support the other 95%. Well, remember that the record companies claim that ~90% of the cost of a CD is promotion. But if only 5% of the records are successful, it means that the promotion isn't working. It is $13 or so out of every CD that is just going into churn.
If you eliminate this 70% of the cost of a CD, it is possible that music sales will decrease. But will they decrease enough to offset the increased profitability of each disc? I don't think so. Again, if promotions were so good, why doesn't it work more than 5% of the time?
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the only CDs they promote are the 10% that make millions.
Think about it, when you walk into a record store, what do you see? No adds for SignedGarageBand#42, but posters everywhere for PopDiva#99's latest release. Well, what about payola and radio? PopDiva#99 again. Concerts? PopDiva#99. What exactly does all this money supposedly spent promoting SGB#42 pay for? CD cover art? Catalogue entries? Music videos?
Someone care to explain this to me? It looks like they're doing exactly what everyone accuses them of - dictating what we listen to.
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:2)
If cds didn't make money, these large corporations wouldn't be in the business, and they wouldn't be buying other record lables.
Radio stations, on the other hand, have a government granted monopoly on a range of frequencies. Clear Channel wants it both ways, they want no government regulation on what they play, but the want tough government regulation on anyone trying to set up a pirate radio station. They want privilages without any responsibilities.
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:3, Insightful)
You defeat your own point here. Anyone can set up a radio station to play niche music, and they do.
Maybe you live in Nowhere Montana, and the airwaves are relatively un-occupied there.
However, in major markets, like Chicago, the airwaves are packed. The only way you're going to run a radio station is to buy out an existing one. I somehow doubt that companies like ClearChannel are selling.
The existing frequency allocations do represent a government-mandated monopoly (of sorts), and thus the companies that use them are (or should be) subject to regulation.
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:2)
You said a lot of interesting things; the point that payola is common is something that should be more widely understood. What I'm having trouble with is that that seems to make specious the claim that record companies are losing money to broadcast radio stations that also stream online. That is, if the logic behind payola is: record company pays radio station to promote album; album sells gazillion copies due to airplay; both radio station and record company profit; then under what logic does it make sense for record companies to go after streaming stations who are already getting paid to promote a CD? Online streaming, at least for big network stations, should mean more exposure for less cost -- but only if payola is accepted as standard practice.
Note that this logic could even apply to indie or online-only broadcasters, who presumably aren't part of the payola stream; if the point of payola is exposure to markets, and record companies subsidize the low-sellers with the gigantic sellers, what's the problem with wider exposure that they didn't have to pay for?
-schussat
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that's using the record company's financial figures to say they didn't make cash. I tend to disagree with both the RIAA & the MPAA's financial figures. For a start, they're cooked, with things which aren't truely expenses booked against them. This is in order to keep royalties down. Even if you eliminate this, with the long copyright length, and the relativily low cost of keeping their catalogs active, both record & motion picture industries have huge back catalogs. Even if a record or a movie doesn't make a profit in the 6 weeks after it's issued, it will make one eventually. You watch a movie played at 4 am on a crapy all night channel, and it makes a little more money. A big way that this happens is through bundling. If you want to buy "Spiderman" to show on TV, then you must buy 4 flops too. Record companies do it through sales of their catalogs.
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:2)
You use Sony as an example. They are not just a music company. They sell electronics, movies too. Their annual report states that Sony had the largest consolidated sales ever. Sony music in 2002 earned operating income of $152 million on 4.8 billion in sales.
Sony's music business segment increased by a total of 5% in 2002(page 12 - not bad for a lousy economic year).
In the case of Sony, their music business is not in bad shape at all. Don't forget the book value of their music catalog too.
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are receiving payola then they are playing only advertising on their station -- some commercials are extended, stealth commercials to boost CD sales, but advertising nonetheless. That is clearly not in the public interest. There is not enough radio spectrum to go around, and pure-advertisement stations should be culled.
There's nothing wrong with demanding that government-supported companies take into account the public good. However, when they are publically traded (and thus required to satisfy the shareholders demand for profit), the only way to get such companies to act in the public good is through coercion (regulation).
Re:What are the Odds? (Score:2)
As mentioned elsewhere, the reason that radio is different is that it's ambient (even if you don't ever actively listen to the radio you'll hear things that are on it), it's a locked monopoly (there are only so many frequencies), and it consumes a public good (those frequencies). You can open your own store to sell your records, but you can't start your own radio station.
why fsck indie and online radio? C o n t r o l ! ! (Score:2)
I think their biggest problem, is that they would like to control the entire industry from production to sales. Payola means they cede some of that control to the radio stations.
If they were really against payola, and appreciated that airplay is good, they would not be trying to shaft internet radio stations with ridiculous per song charges.
1. They know that they are unlikely to be able to dictate to Joe Indie what to play on his station, unless they are charging him silly money for the privilege of promoting their songs, and can use these exhorbitant fees as a bargaining tool.
2. With CC, they are finally faced with a bully as big as they are, who can tell them to pay up if they want their song played, or shut up and fsck off.
If the music was good, the whole issue would be moot. At the end of the day, its all about who controls what the public hear and subsequently buy (hard to buy something you haven't heard)
When they lose this control, they lose their ability to extort terms from musicians. In the past, Radio Dons (mafia style) would have been able to make or break a musician. Now Clear_C has that power.
If you are a musician, who do you sign your soul away to huh??
Conversation between two label execs (Score:5, Insightful)
exec #2: Not me! Sure miss the old days when a smaller amount of our billions bought way more influence.
exec #1: This whole consolidated radio network thing stinks. I wish we could just get rid of radio.
exec #2: But we NEED radio to keep distributing free music so people will want to buy CDs!
exec #1: I know. I just can't get around that. If only there were some other avenue for distributing our music freely so that people could listen to it and decide they want to buy it.
[silence]
exec #2: Well, the good news is that we've managed to successfully shut down Napster and some of its ilk. At least we'll have more money from those sales we would have lost to make the payola!
exec #1: Maybe we could sue Clear Channel, or lobby congress for a new law that would favor us! You're brilliant, #2!
Reminds me of a They Might Be Giants song... (Score:4, Insightful)
I could never sleep my way to the top
'Cause my alarm clock always wakes me right up
And since my options had been whittled away
I struck a bargain with my radio DJ
I said I'd like this song to be number one
He said "I'd really really like to help you my son"
And then I knew that I would have him to thank
Because he asked me how much I had in the bank
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
He said the record wouldn't have to be hot
And no one ever seemed to care if it's not
It would depend on something else that I've got
And that the other ones who'd given it a shot
Had seen a modest sum grow geometrically
And then they had forgiven themselves
Because the net reward had justified
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives*
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
Well, I told you about the world (its address)
I wonder when they're gonna clean up the mess
You know the rabid child is still tuning in
Chess piece face's patience must be wearing thin
Because they haven't played this song on the air
Not that anyone but me even cared
And the Disk Jockey has moved out of town
The district courthouse says he's nowhere to be found
He said to think long term investment and
That all the others had forgiven themselves
He said the net reward would justify
The colossal mess they'd made of their lives
Hey Mr. DJ, I thought you said we had a deal
I thought you said, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your record"
And I thought you said we had a deal
Re:Reminds me of a They Might Be Giants song... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe we could take over the system... (Score:2)
If we got organized and all chipped in the cash, maybe we could PAY the radio stations to stop broadcasting certain crap.
Maybe we could, say, limit classic rock stations to only playing Zeppelin 12 times a day, or possibly even rid the universe of Britney Spears "music" -- then she'd have to be more honest with us and actually launch her porn career.
We could set up a voting system and a paypal account, and utilize micropayments and public opinion to pay the stations not to play this crap.
It could work, I tell you....
you know.. (Score:2)
yeah, I know I don't have to read it, but I thing that
I just don't want
Now the shoe is on the other foot! (Score:2)
Before they may have been able to let internet radio provide them with free promotion of a single or even pay them a small tithe to ensure their song got played. Yet instead they attack their last hope against the radio stations and antagonize them. So now even if they stopped trying to push the fees, I doubt any of these stations would be willing to help them out anymore.
The RIAA, by effectively removing themselves from the competition on internet radio, ensure now that non RIAA artists will only be played on the internet now. See my sig for a really cool station which plays only non RIAA music. They are gladly thumbing their noses at the RIAA and the labels they are working with are more than happy to allow them to play for free because they know it promotes their CD sales without them having to go through the RIAA or Clear Channel. That is the future of music. The RIAA dug their own hole here and then made it so deep they can't hope to climb back out of it. I hope they have fun rotting in it.
Here in lies the problem (Score:2)
Clear Channel programmers deny they would ever tamper with what goes out over the airwaves in order to make a buck.
That strikes me as odd. I always thought the purpose of setting up play lists was to provide a mix of music the audience would like so you could make a buck.
But aparently, play lists don't mean much in the grand scheme of things, when you have a near monopoly in a market that does'nt easily allow new entrys.
With all the whining about "de-regulated radio"... (Score:2, Insightful)
Setting up a local FM radio station has been cheaper for the last 15 years than most internet-based radio today. I broadcasted pirate FM radio in junior high-school using a rig that cost me less than $100.
Why can four companies control 60% of the radio market? Because the FCC has established extremely high barriers to entry. So new radio stations require investments of millions of dollars. Withour regulation on ownership, but with high barriers to entry, oligopoly is inevitable. It's microeconomics 102.
'Net radio and sat radio are good paths out, but we could also see significant improvements in radio diversity by simply allowing localized homesteading of frequencies without "broadcast purchase" policies taken by the FCC now.
Imagine an open-ended cooperative of home-based rebroadcast stations on an FM frequency that relayed an internet radio station. Imagine being able to tune your home broadcast station to a 'net radio source for 20 hours a day, then come home and do your own show.
Before people start screaming for "trust-busting" of Clear Channel, how about screaming for deregulation of frequency allocation? I'd love to see how long the payola scheme would last in a world of nerds with $100 FM broadcast stations doing a relay of Radio Free Slashdot.
Great Points But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Radio? What the heck is Radio. . ? (Score:2)
That annoying sound-maker box which, (on all the stations where this might be an issue), spews the following percentages:
35% Irritating as hell advertising.
25% Irritating as hell DJ chatter and monster truck promotions.
10% Music, (if you're lucky).
30% Over-produced, dumb-ass noise, (best suited for attention-deficit hampster people who are permanently wrapped up in an artificial state of love-related angst.)
--And nearly all of which is mind-programming nonsense anyway, designed to fill people with misery-inducing behavior patterns. And these days it's so obvious. "Hit me baby, one more time." --I mean, for crying out loud!
With a very few exceptions, most stations which run on the commercial system are pretty crumby. Those stations which don't suck are run by sensible people who don't play the payola game. Canada's CBC Radio 1 kicks major ass, has NO advertising, and won't melt your brain. Actual, "I laughed, I cried, I was informed and entertained," content. Try it, and you'll realize just how fried your brain was on that other shit.
People don't realize McDonnald's food and the rest of the consumer crap they inhale is actually of extremely poor quality until they treat themselves to something good for a few weeks. --The other day, out of a desperation for fluids, I drank some Coke for the first time in over two years and was dumbfounded by just how awful it tasted. And I'm not just saying that; The stuff actually left a powerful petro-chemical after-taste in my mouth for half an hour. I couldn't believe that I used to consider the stuff a treat when I was younger. Honestly; have the changed the formula, or something?
-Fantastic Lad
The future of Clear Channel (Score:2)
How The Game Is Played (Score:2)
Yes, the RIAA screws the hell out of broadcasters but, in turn, as the article points out, the broadcasters, via the indies, are screwing the hell, and then some, out of the RIAA members. The end result is that you pay x to be allowed to play a song and get y (where y is vastly greater than x) to get it heard.
So, if the net broadcasters had known how the game was played, the answer would be to sign up with indies and get paid handsomely for doing it.
What about all the independant music? The net broadcasters want to play their own stuff, not corporate playlist crud? That's cool. The independant labels are complaining they can't get airtime. So, easy answer, both sides get out of the incestuous mess... The independants tell the RIAA where to stick their "representation" and release their music under a license that allows it to be played for free by the independant stations.
Yeah, the music industry is a mess. Yes, everyone's getting screwed and, you know what, they're screwing other people back again to recoup those costs. The only apparent reason the net broadcasters and the independant labels is because they're playing the existing game badly and not making up their own ones.
While it is messy, that's how the game is played. You either play the game, make up your own one with others who'd like to play it your new way, or go out of business. It's a shame that the net broadcasters have chosen to go out of business rather than invent their own game and tell the RIAA where to stick it.
You know, a guy called Linus didn't like the monopoly in another field. Fortunately, he tried to change it, rather than [just] bitch.
Webcasters pay, radio stations get paid (Score:2)
Oh. And after working to shut down webcasters, NOW the RIAA is bitching about having to pay radio stations to get their songs out because it's the only medium?
Cry me a fucking river.
Yea.. (Score:2)
We have a corporation similar to Clearchannel up here in Canada. The CHUM group pretty much controls pop culture here. Picture ClearChannel owning MTV.
S
Why FM radio sucks so much (Score:5, Insightful)
With radio stations having to pay an increasingly large fee for each song on the playlist, it's no wonder that they play a much smaller selection of songs than they used to (say, back in the 80s).
Clear Channel claims (paraphrasing) "We're just playing what people want to hear". However, there are several really interesting side-results of these shrinking playlists.
First, we have to lay down some facts. The first is that fewer people are listening to the radio, period. The second is that for those who do listen to the radio, they are listening for shorter and shorter periods.
Now let's assume you're a casual radio listener as most people are. What kinds of songs are you going to request most? Probably the ones you've been hearing recently that you like. No diversity in songplay equals everybody requesting the same thing, and everybody requesting the same thing means radio stations play the same crap over and over again (which is fine by them, since they don't have to pay out extra cash for more songs on their playlist). In a sense, it's cyclic: people request what they know, and stations play what they request.
From one perspective, Clear Channel is correct when they say they are playing what people want to hear. But that's taking a small picture view, because when taken in a larger context the statistics really are supporting the fact that people don't want to hear the radio at all! Ask any radio listener what the biggest problem with radio today and he'll tell you lack of variety. Thus, the sucking. And the more sucking there is, the fewer people will listen.
Here's another interesting thing that I haven't seen discussed: How this affects CD sales. Let's consider 2 scenarios. In scenario A, the radio station is playing 60 tunes in regular rotation and a few classics, and replace songs in rotation at the rate of 10 per week. In scenario B, the radio station is playing 30 tunes in regular rotation, plus a few classics and replace songs in the rotation at the rate of 2 per week. Which station is going to generate more CD sales?
Let's assume (for the sake of simplicity) that each station has exactly 1000 listeners. Each listener has a 1/10 chance of liking a song enough to buy a CD. Each listener is also going to listen for 120 songs in week 1, and 120 songs in week 2.
The people listening to station B hear each song 4 times during each week. They are exposed to 32 songs (30 from week 1, plus the extra 2 rotated in during week 2), and buy an average of 3.2 CDs due to this. 3.2 * 1000 = 3200 CDs sold.
The people listening to station A hear each song twice during each week. They are exposed to 70 songs, and buy an average of 7 CDs due to this. 7 * 1000 = 7000 CDs sold.
This, of course, is a very simplified case, as it doesn't take into account disposable income, but neither does it take into account song burnout (when you like a song but are so sick of it you never want to hear it again), but I think it makes it's point. Oh, and in case you didn't get it, radio stations today are like station B.
As a result the music labels complain that people aren't buying music and point their fingers at Napster, I don't buy it as the sole reason. I point my finger at station B and say "people are listening to the radio less than ever and being exposed to less music than ever. What did you expect!?"
Re:The music industry is one giant mess. (Score:4, Insightful)
So I would expect this to continue until someone with political clout (e.g. Clear Channel) is hurt; at that point there there will be a big brawl in Congress but again the individual consumer will not be at the negotiating table.
sPh
Re:The music industry is one giant mess. (Score:2, Insightful)
"So I would expect this to continue until someone with political clout (e.g. Clear Channel) is hurt; at that point there there will be a big brawl in Congress but again the individual consumer will not be at the negotiating table."
Ah yes, welcome to the New America. Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, and For the Corporations. And absolutely no one looking out for us mere "subjects."
That low-level whirring sound you hear from Massachusetts to Georgia is the sound of our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.
Re:The music industry is one giant mess. (Score:2)
Re:The music industry is one giant mess. (Score:5, Insightful)
When has the music industry not been one giant mess? Wasn't there a payola scandal in radio in the mid-50s or ealy 60s?
I'm dating myself but when I was a kid you could go into record store (yes vinyl records) and right up front see the rack of the Top 40 "45s". Even 10-year-olds could figure out that the ratings weren't exactly based on what other people thought of the songs. For instance how did a song get into the Top 40 to start with? The Top 40 rack was the only source of 45s in the store and the LP containing the songs on the 45 didn't usually make the racks until well after the "hit single" was in heavy rotation on the local radio station. So who was "voting for" or buying the 45s to get them into the Top 40 in the first place? Nobody heard the songs until the 45s appeared in the rack.
Periodically obvious poop made it into the Top 40 temporarily. Nobody and I really mean nobody listened to about a quarter of the 45s in the Top 40.
I've heard that the music industry is totally 0wned by the mob but I'm not too sure about this. If mob-0wnership is the case the situation just won't change.
Re:The music industry is one giant mess. (Score:2)
I am not sure whether singles would really work in north America, since a) there currently isn't much of a culture built around them and b) they are half the price of an album.
Does anyone else know how the singles charts are caclulated in other places in the world?
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
Your cell-phone companies have been paying through the nose to get the frequency licenses to provide next-generation services, while the radio stations have huge chunks of bandwidth that they seem to have been granted lifetime free licenses for. The justification for this used to be that they 'provide a public service'....payola is not a public service.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Also, 10 years is a LONG time to be guaranteed a nice revenue stream, and the fact that they can renew it (and it doens't go up for auction or they have to compete to keep it) means that it IS, pretty much, a free lifetime license.
Broadcast television frequencies, for example, are worth BILLIONS. But the FCC just sort of gave them away to the networks a long time ago. It's just not right that consumers now have to squeeze their various new electronic devices into just a narrow spectrum.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the airwaves are publically owned and therefore the usage of them needs to be regulated. The spectrum is limited, and the FCC is granting a natural monopoly of sorts to each broadcaster in each region on a specific frequency. As competition is inherently limited, and the airwaves are in the end owned by the people, the FCC damn well better be regulating the market.
Would you want every commercial radio station gathering together and agreeing only to play paid advertisements and no music? Well, they can't do that under law (broadcast TV and radio have max times for advertising breaks... although this is often circumvented with a "You're watching XXX... which will be back shortly" message, that's besides the point) and that's a good thing. Payola should be limited in a similar fashion because I shouldn't be forced to listen to music that a record company wants me to listen to on *my* airwaves.
As for enforcing payola laws, do so only if you do it unilaterally. We don't need to make a 21st century Alan Freed.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you want every commercial radio station gathering together and agreeing only to play paid advertisements and no music?
Think about what an absurd statement that is. The whole point of advertising is for people to listen. You seem to think they if they could, they would be able to sell all 24 hours of radio time to advertisers. How much do you think they would sell if nobody listened?
Payola should be limited in a similar fashion because I shouldn't be forced to listen to music that a record company wants me to listen to on *my* airwaves.
But you're not "forced" to listen to anything. Maybe I just don't have the correct "entitlement" attitude, but I just don't care what is put on "my" airwaves. If there is something worth listening to, I listen. If there isn't, I don't and do something else.
If people would just stop bitching and turn off the radio when you don't like the music, then all this will stop.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
I don't think they would if they could. But if they could, they would certainly put more advertising on than they do now- they push the advertising envelope already and most everyone puts up with it- and considering it is difficult to measure how many people are listening, they would continue to sell advertising even if they halved the ratio of content to advertising today.
Maybe I just don't have the correct "entitlement" attitude, but I just don't care what is put on "my" airwaves.
Some of us do. As an amateur part-time radio DX'er, the content of the spectrum matters much to me. If they're going to crowd the bandwith close to home, it better be with something that at least some people enjoy- otherwise they should get off the spectrum and let us attempt to tune in something that is interesting. The spectrum is limited and publically regulated. It should be used in the way that's most beneficial to everyone, not benefical to the few's pocketbook.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Your erroneous assumption is that its more profitable for the company to cater to the majority of consumers rather than a small percentage. WRONG! (Ask any marketer - the crowd you wish to please is usually quite small out of the potential customers
Considering that the air waves are public, and that we like the _concept_ of radio (the technology), but not whats being played on it, I absolutely support getting the government to break the control these large entities have in catering to a small percentage of the population that makes their little cartel economically profitable.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Considering what I have heard on any recent time I've listened to the radio:
And this would be different how?
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
A payola-free system is inherently unstable, it relies on the record companies to simply never offer payola to a radio station. A payola-free system is better for the whole music industry. So why don't we have this better payola-free system?
The incentive is huge to be the first to start offering payola to radio stations in a payola-free system.
That is where legislation might not be a bad thing, it can stabilize a payola-free system by creating strong disincentives to offering payola.
An alternative however might be for labels to forbid stations from playing their music if the station accepts payola... but that takes guts. Still, the labels are not as powerless as the article indicates.
(I don't think the above is a troll, I don't know why it got modded down)
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
> No one is "owed" access to my ears.
Calling Mr.Stupid. Of course nobody is 'owed' access to your ears. But guess what? You won't stop using them. They are there. And sometimes, you pay money to someone for what they put in there.
All that is well and good, but its not much of a free market unless I have a moderately fair opporunity to get near your ears. As it stands, large companies are bribing other large companies to make sure that when your ears are being "accessed" (you dont have to make the concious effort to open them up - they tend to work 24/7, while you're at work, in the store, etc, etc) by pre-selected goods.
This is the opposite of a free market. The way you talk, nothing on this planet is unfair, because clearly "the market" (or "God", as some people like to think of it as) would fix it if it were. What a broken and apathetic way of looking at things.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
You're basically arguing that we should be content to give up radio and listen to something else because of the actions of a few companies and the inaction of the government. Hell no. I love radio for the sake of radio- it's a beautiful hobby from the electronics, physics, and practical standpoints. We have total control over what we listen to, but we don't have full control over what we listen to on the radio- and radio is like air.
Analogy: Radio is oxygen. A company is taking all the oxygen out of the atmosphere. You're telling us to go find our own oxygen, because the government shouldn't be regulating commerce. I don't think so.
Re:Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
"A market is free until you hold a gun to a consumers head."
If I had infinate time, infinate capability to travel, to read, to research, etc, I might (*maybe*) start to agree. As it stands, "buyer beware" is fair to a point, but at some point we consumers have to start thinking about ourselves as that - consumers! Many of us go to work and dream up ways of fooling or influcing ourselves (or consumers like us) into acting this way or that (otherwise we wouldn't have a marketing dept, no?)
Clarification (Score:2)
Internet broadcasters are going to get screwed I'm sure (and I'm one of them so I'm, to say the least, a bit pissed). But record labels can do their own promotion on the Internet if they'd just let go of the past and embrace the new ways of doing business.
Allow me to illustrate... (Score:2)
I, as a record label set up a webcasting site. I broadcast a number of channels depending on the variety of music I wish to promite. All of the channels would exclusively feature artists on my label, thus costing me zero to broadcast in royalties.
There would certainly be a cost to set up and maintain this service, but if you distribute that cost over the cost of promoting all of those artists, it does provide a substantial cost savings. Perhaps not quite zero but substantially cheaper than the fees that clear channel is wanting.
The problem, of course, for the labels is that this approach is untested and thus risky. The record labels abhore risk.
Re:The Problem With Clear Channel (Score:2, Interesting)
Sadly one of my favorites is no Longer. www.monkeyradio.org, played all sorts of trip hop, acid jazz type stuff that I took to like flys on shit. Monkeyradio.org had to shut down becuase of the IRAA, he's asking for help to send a list of cd's you have purchased because of monkeyradio.org, to help prove that it helps the industry. So if you are a listner help out! I personaly use a stream ripper to get a lot of the songs I like, and I have purchased over $200 worth of music becuase of monkeyradio.org.
I'm now listing to bassdrive (its linked off of shoutcast under electronic D&B).
My point? I'll will never go back to radio. I hate radio. It seriously sickens me. So I encourage you to break through!
Re:Why are record comapnies so clueless? (Score:2)
Just remember, all of the bleating and whining the **AA's do about piracy isn't really about piracy. It's about control. It's about controlling the methods of production by making computers and machines that can record things illegal. It's about control of the distribution by making only approved content downloadable. It's about control by having a "DRM OS" in every computer so that only "approved" programs can run. It's about getting rid of independents who create things without tithing the appropriate **AA.
Don't be so sure that the "juggernaut of p2p" will defeat them. If you want to help, then stop buying anything from any of these content companies. Don't steal this stuff either. Just stop buying it. Listen to the radio or watch TV, but don't let them get your money. And always change the station when commercials come on.
Re:This is funny (Score:2)
If it helps the RIAA, then it's a Good Thing(tm).
This lesson brought to you by the number e.
Re:this is cracked.... (Score:2)
Re:this is cracked.... (Score:2)
Plus, it seemed like they actually cared about the commercials they played, in that there were no loud ones, or ones with some guy screaming at the top of his lungs to sell you a car.
Of course the best part was they played mostly the rock that college people listened to (which i was when i was living in rochester).
Re:Genuine question... (Score:3)
Q: What is Indie Music?
A: Any band or a style of music that is either not yet signed to a major music company or if they are signed to a small independent label.
Re:Legalize Payola (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, doing so would allow consumers to make independent judgements on what they like, and why certain songs are being played. So I guess we can't have that!
sPh